Psychopathy is a neuropsychiatric disorder characterized by the absence of emotional responses, lack of empathy, and poor behavior control, resulting in antisocial behavior and participation in criminal acts. Researchers suggest that psychopathy follows a pathway involving genetic influences, precipitating deleterious effects on the neural and structural networks of the brain. Those with psychopathic behavior are poor at participating in adaptive behaviors that conflict with other primary motivations. While structural differences are identified using forensic imaging like MRIs (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), the diagnosis of psychopathy takes a more complicated route. Attempts to better understand this condition have led to the refinement of assessments for measuring risk-taking behaviors. These assessments are based on self-report instruments that assess sensation-seeking and risk-taking behaviors, impulsivity, and deficits in behavioral constraint. Methods like clinical interviews and structured assessments are also used to assess various personality traits and behaviors associated with psychopathy. 

Abnormalities in brain function and structure have major consequences in both neural processing and behavior, therefore affecting one's ability to thrive in a social environment. Despite diagnosing individuals, treating this condition brings attention to multiple limitations and challenges. Factors such as genetic and environmental components and the willingness of the individual to undergo treatment or potential solutions need to be taken into account when treating these disorders. Regardless of the research performed and developments achieved, certain limitations prevent scientists from putting these actions into effect. Aspects of the nervous system, its neural network, and gene-environment interplay can describe the science of psychopathology.

Understanding the biological aspects of human social behavior involves analyzing the neural correlations of psychopathy, a neuropsychiatric disorder. Evidence suggests that structural and neural alterations may be present in individuals with criminal psychopathy [1].

Structural alterations involve differences in brain anatomy, connectivity, and variations in the size and activity of specific brain regions. Studies have found, for example, that individuals with psychopathy have reduced gray matter volume in areas such as the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and hippocampus, which are involved in decision-making, emotion regulation, memory processing, and storage, respectively [1]. 

Neural alterations involve differences in the activity and connectivity of specific neural circuits, such as information processing in the gray matter, variations in the levels of neurotransmitters, and hormones that modulate brain function. Studies have found that individuals with psychopathy may have reduced activity in regions involved in empathy, moral reasoning, and social cognition, such as the anterior cingulate cortex, located toward the middle of the frontal lobe, and the temporal pole, located towards the front of the temporal lobe [1]. 

One such study used forensic imaging to examine fMRIs of nineteen convicted violent male offenders with high psychopathic traits and nineteen other age and sex-matched control subjects. During the scan, each individual viewed a video consisting of 137 movie clips, containing a large variability of social and emotional content [1]. The resulting fMRI scans revealed that psychopathic offenders experienced an increased activation in the orbitofrontal cortex and the anterior and middle cingulate cortices while watching the content. These regions are involved with the creation of obsessive thoughts when they remain activated beyond a certain threshold [2]. In addition to fMRIs, another scan called voxel-based morphometry (VBM) was conducted to identify and compare gray matter density (GMD) between the psychopathic offenders and control subjects [1]. Gray matter consists of the cell bodies of neurons, that send information to be transmitted through white matter. White matter is found in deeper brain tissue and contains nerve fibers, or axons, that are extensions of neurons. GMD was significantly low in the frontal and temporal regions in psychopaths compared with controls [1] [3]. Information processing in the gray matter is crucial for neural functions to be conducted efficiently. Decreased GMD results in a lack of information production, which affects the later transmission of neural signals. This can lead to impaired cognitive and emotional functioning [4].

Researchers hypothesized that the gray matter loss resulted in a breakdown of the frontotemporal network [3]. The low GMD is in close association with the abnormal activity observed in the frontal regions of the brain of a subject with psychopathic traits. This is a crucial component in the pathogenesis of psychopathy.

In addition to structural alterations, neural alterations include differences in levels of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine, which can affect mood, motivation, and impulsivity. These molecules act as the body’s chemical messengers, transmitting signals among neurons, or from neurons to muscles. An imbalanced ratio of dopamine metabolites to serotonin metabolites indicates irregularities in the control of their activity [5] [6]. This indicated impaired regulation of dopamine activity by serotonin, resulting in the promotion of impulsive and aggressive behavior. Serotonin deficiency is a genetically linked neurochemical trait marker of impulsive aggression, and increased dopaminergic activity seems to be a result of this deficiency [7] [8]. Due to serotonin interaction with testosterone, a sex hormone, causing its levels to increase, the probability of violent aggression is also high [8]. High testosterone levels are also responsible for dopamine-seeking, impulsive behaviors, and violent aggression [8].

While current evidence suggests that irregularity in neurotransmitter functions is involved in psychopathy, further research should explore this topic and what else it could insinuate.

Although the exact genetic mechanisms that contribute to psychopathy are still being studied, researchers have identified several genes that may be involved. These genes are involved in brain development and the nervous system. Studies have shown that identical twins are more likely to both have psychopathy than fraternal twins, hence suggesting a genetic component to psychopathy [9]. 

The basic concept behind the structure of twin studies is the difference in allele proportions, or which alleles each individual carries, shared between monozygotic (MZ), or identical, and dizygotic (DZ), or fraternal twins. MZ twins share 100% of their additive genetic effects, meaning they share 100% of their genes, while DZ twins share only around 50% of their genes. These proportions are used to analyze genetic and environmental contributions to the phenotypes observed during participant interviews. To examine the etiological connections, both individual and shared, phenotypes are divided into environmental and genetic components, making it possible to estimate the proportion of phenotypic variance among psychopathic traits caused by genetic, shared, or non-shared environmental effects [9]. According to research to determine the etiological structure of psychopathic traits, twin correlations in the three factors were consistent with additive genetic effects [9]. Additive genetic factors include shared environmental factors and non-shared environmental factors. Shared environmental factors refer to non-genetic influences correlated with the similarities among twins while non-shared environmental factors refer to experiences correlated with differences among twins [10]. However, the magnitude of the differences varies across the studies in twins [10]. Gender studies have also been conducted to determine structural and neural alterations in the brains of subjects with psychopathic behavior [11]. While some showed women having greater average levels of the impulsive-antisocial factor and more external psychopathic traits than men, other research has shown the opposite trend [11]. Experts suggest that women who are highly antisocial exhibit a greater magnitude of psychopathic features. Alternatively, environmental factors have a greater impact on women than men, hence potentially playing a greater role in female psychopathy [12]. This phenomenon suggests that although twin studies provide valuable insights into the genetic basis of psychopathology, it is important to note that genetics is not the only factor contributing to the development of these psychopathic traits and disorders. Environmental factors, such as stress, trauma, and social support, also play a crucial role.

So far, limited research has been conducted regarding the genetic and environmental bases of psychopathic traits. However, many researchers have attempted to uncover the true nature of these influences. One such study included 1189 5-year-old boys and girls whose personality traits were assessed by a teacher-report measure of their personality traits using the Child Problematic Traits Inventory (CPTI) [9]. Assessors were asked to rate students based on typical behavior rather than momentary behavior. For the CPTI to be accurate, the subject’s everyday behavior must be taken into account instead of momentary changes, as those will be temporary. CPTI has a response format ranging from one, not applicable, to four, very applicable. In addition to the rating system, CPTI also follows a three-factor structure. The grandiose-deceitful factor score includes items like lying often and a sense of self-superiority. Second, the callous-unemotional factor, which includes items relating to not sharing joy or sorrow, and finally, the impulse-need for stimulation factor, including items like impatience, and enjoying change and things that happen often [9]. 

In addition to twin methodology, researchers suggest that psychopathic traits in early childhood are a consequence of negative environmental factors as well as genetic vulnerabilities [13] [14] [15]. Univariate statistical results in the study in five-year-olds showed that the three factors had a moderate correlation of about 54% to 74% and that these correlations were mainly due to genetic and shared environmental factors [9]. The experiment also showed that the indicated traits of each factor were more prevalent among boys than girls, however, no difference in magnitude in genetic or environmental factors was found. These findings are actually in contrast to those of another experiment, where sex differences were found in which the heritability of interpersonal psychopathic factors was greater among boys and the heritability of impulsive-antisocial behavior was at a higher magnitude among girls [16]. This is most likely due to the difference in the model of univariate analysis used to interpret genetic variance. While one involved testing three independent variables with multiple factors that affect each variable, the study explained above used another model with constrained genetic and environmental components to be equal in boys and girls [13] [16]. The constrained model provides greater reliability as it focuses on the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and psychopathy [13]. Research suggests that those with secondary psychopathy, and high levels of negative affect, are those who have experienced childhood abuse [14]. This indicates that specific biological, social, and environmental situations lead to the expression of psychopathic personalities at different magnitudes among both boys and girls. 

While studies that correlate genes with behavior can be useful for identifying possible genetic candidates that could contribute to psychopathy, they have a variety of limitations. Studying genetic and environmental influences on behaviors is limited to analyzing behavior-based phenotypes instead of addressing the cause, in-depth, of the psychopathic factors mentioned. Since most psychopathic tests often involve incarcerated subjects, they cannot be used among twins. Hence, researchers have been using a self-report domain that shows potential as an index of psychopathy which is addressed in the tests used during other circumstances. 

Researchers are hopeful that by understanding the genetic basis of psychopathy, they will be able to develop new treatments to effectively intervene with the negative consequences of this condition.

Psychopathic personality appears to be a prominent dispositional factor of aggression and behavior, something that one does not have control over [17] [18]. While there is no cure, various treatments have been explored to manage its symptoms and reduce the risk of violence and criminal behavior. 

One of the most common treatments for psychopathy is psychotherapy, particularly cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). CBT aims to replace unhealthy or self-gratifying thoughts with those that are less harmful, allowing people to take control of their thought processes and their minds [19]. CBT does not deal with the past but aims to find solutions for current problems and help people be capable of dealing with distressing thoughts and behavioral patterns. CBT utilizes relaxation exercises, stress and pain relief methods, and problem-solving strategies, depending on the severity of the situation [19]. 

Little research has been done to address the possibility of treating and curing psychopathic offenders. The majority of research has been conducted on violent psychopathic individuals involved in the judicial system. Scientists examined a population of violent offenders in the Aggressive Behavior Control treatment program, investigating the effects of social learning principles and CBT [18] [20]. This intervention aimed to reduce violent behaviors by breaking behavioral patterns related to aggression and increasing social skills. To measure changes or progression throughout treatment, the Violence Risk Scale (VRS) was used [18]. The VRS is a test based on dynamic variables that are interpreted to measure the risk of recidivism, the act of repeating an undesirable behavior after experiencing the negative consequences [21]. When discussing VRS, dynamic variables include target characteristics such as violence and aggression. The measured dynamic variables linked to violence are crucially measured during treatments, like in CBT. In addition to behavioral characteristics, VRS evaluates treatment readiness and changes to maintain the rigor of forensic assessments and evaluations. Lower VRS scores indicate a greater probability of treatment success and a decreased probability of violent recidivism [21]. Findings indicated that exhibition of violence and psychopathy had decreased significantly or dissipated after treatment [18]. 

Due to the scarcity of research on treatments for psychopathic individuals, the studies mentioned here paint a vague picture. An optimistic interpretation may be that intense intervention can reduce the risk of violence for people with these disorders. One advancement that researchers can take is addressing the limitations of research conducted on psychopathic individuals, including the different characteristics that comprise an individual, their agreeability to the treatment, and replication of current research. It is important to note that psychopathy is a complex condition that can be difficult to treat because not all individuals with psychopathic traits respond to therapy or other interventions. Additionally, some individuals with psychopathy may not be willing or able to engage in treatment, limiting the effectiveness of any interventions that are attempted.

To analyze connections between the nervous system, its neural network, and gene-environment interplay, scientists approach psychopathology from multiple aspects, including neural, structural, diagnostic, genetic, environmental, and many more. While multiple aspects are being analyzed, psychopathy is a complex and multifaceted disorder influenced by a range of factors. While genetics, environment, and brain structure all play a role in the development of psychopathy, the specific combination of these factors can vary widely between individuals. Understanding these underlying factors can help develop effective treatment approaches and interventions for individuals with psychopathy. The future of psychopathy is difficult to predict, as this field is constantly evolving and new research topics are constantly emerging. Continued research and advances in diagnosis and treatment are likely to lead to improved outcomes and a better understanding of this complex disorder.


  1. Nummenmaa, L., Lukkarinen, L., Sun, L., Putkinen, V., Seppälä, K., Karjalainen, T., Karlsson, H. K., Hudson, M., Venetjoki, N., Salomaa, M., Rautio, P., Hirvonen, J., Lauerma, H., & Tiihonen, J. (2021). Brain Basis of Psychopathy in Criminal Offenders and General Population. Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)31(9), 4104–4114.
  2. Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature reviews. Neuroscience3(3), 201–215.
  3. Müller, J. L., Gänssbauer, S., Sommer, M., Döhnel, K., Weber, T., Schmidt-Wilcke, T., & Hajak, G. (2008). Gray matter changes in right superior temporal gyrus in criminal psychopaths. Evidence from voxel-based morphometry. Psychiatry research163(3), 213–222. 
  4. Mercadante, A. A., & Tadi, P. (2023). Neuroanatomy, Gray Matter. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.
  5. Glenn, A. L., & Raine, A. (2008). The neurobiology of psychopathy. The Psychiatric clinics of North America31(3), 463–vii.
  6. Soderstrom, H., Blennow, K., Manhem, A., & Forsman, A. (2001). CSF studies in violent offenders. I. 5-HIAA as a negative and HVA as a positive predictor of psychopathy. Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)108(7), 869–878.
  7. Harrison, A. A., Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (1997). Central 5-HT depletion enhances impulsive responding without affecting the accuracy of attentional performance: interactions with dopaminergic mechanisms. Psychopharmacology133(4), 329–342.
  8. Seo, D., Patrick, C. J., & Kennealy, P. J. (2008). Role of Serotonin and Dopamine System Interactions in the Neurobiology of Impulsive Aggression and its Comorbidity with other Clinical Disorders. Aggression and violent behavior13(5), 383–395. 
  9. Tuvblad, C., Fanti, K. A., Andershed, H., Colins, O. F., & Larsson, H. (2017). Psychopathic personality traits in 5 year old twins: the importance of genetic and shared environmental influences. European child & adolescent psychiatry26(4), 469–479.
  10. Neale; Cardon, M. C., Lon R. (1992). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Google Books. 
  11. Hicks, B. M., Carlson, M. D., Blonigen, D. M., Patrick, C. J., Iacono, W. G., & Mgue, M. (2012). Psychopathic personality traits and environmental contexts: Differential correlates, gender differences, and genetic mediation. Personality disorders3(3), 209–227.
  12. McClellan, D. S., Farabee, D., & Crouch, B. M. (1997). Early victimization, drug use, and criminality. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(4), 455–476. 
  13. Colins, O. F., Andershed, H., Frogner, L., Lopez-Romero, L., Veen, V., & Andershed, A. K. (2014). A New Measure to Assess Psychopathic Personality in Children: The Child Problematic Traits Inventory. Journal of psychopathology and behavioral assessment36(1), 4–21. 
  14. Kimonis, E. R., Frick, P. J., Cauffman, E., Goldweber, A., & Skeem, J. (2012). Primary and secondary variants of juvenile psychopathy differ in emotional processing. Development and psychopathology24(3), 1091–1103. 
  15. Skeem, J. L., & Cauffman, E. (2003). Views of the downward extension: comparing the Youth Version of the Psychopathy Checklist with the Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory. Behavioral sciences & the law21(6), 737–770.
  16. Blonigen, D. M., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., Patrick, C. J., & Iacono, W. G. (2005). Psychopathic personality traits: heritability and genetic overlap with internalizing and externalizing psychopathology. Psychological medicine35(5), 637–648. 
  17. Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2008). Psychopathic traits in a large community sample: links to violence, alcohol use, and intelligence. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology76(5), 893–899.
  18. Reidy, D. E., Kearns, M. C., & DeGue, S. (2013). Reducing psychopathic violence: A review of the treatment literature. Aggression and violent behavior18(5), 527–538. 
  19. Kaczkurkin, A. N., & Foa, E. B. (2015). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders: an update on the empirical evidence. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience17(3), 337–346.
  20. Lewis, K., Olver, M. E., & Wong, S. C. (2013). The Violence Risk Scale: predictive validity and linking changes in risk with violent recidivism in a sample of high-risk offenders with psychopathic traits. Assessment20(2), 150–164.
  21. Dolan, M., Fullam, R., Logan, C., & Davies, G. (2008). The Violence Risk Scale Second Edition (VRS-2) as a predictor of institutional violence in a British forensic inpatient sample. Psychiatry research158(1), 55–65.