It is well known that a person’s socioeconomic status is closely linked to their capacity and inclination to commit acts of violence. However, it would be incorrect to say that this link is direct and that every person is equally susceptible to the negative influence of the environment, even in the case of youth, who are generally considered highly suggestible. As we know, the absence of a sense of repulsion and internal resistance to causing harm to others, which stops a healthy person from committing violent attacks, stems from a mental disorder consisting of a dysfunction in the violence inhibition mechanism. And the findings of some studies indicate to us that this may mediate the link between socioeconomic status and violence.
To begin with, let us recall that psychopathic traits can serve as a fairly good indicator of this dysfunction, primarily those related to interpersonal and affective (emotional) psychopathy. Psychopathic traits are also linked to violent crime, and especially to intentional and targeted acts of violence. In this dysfunction, not only the environment but also genetic factors play an important role. Research has already shown that the MAO-A gene mediates the influence of childhood abuse on violent crime. Whether under good or abusive treatment, carriers of the high-activity variant of the gene did not become more violent; however, carriers of the low-activity variant were 4 times more prone to brutal violence in the latter case. Similarly, the HTR1B gene mediates the link between abuse and psychopathic traits. Both genes are directly linked to the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism.
An equally important result is demonstrated by a study of different variants of the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4, encoding the 5-HTT protein) in young people with different socioeconomic statuses, determined based on the income and professional status of their parents. As was discovered, homozygosity for the long allele of this gene in the case of low socioeconomic status significantly increased the risk of the development of narcissistic traits and traits of callousness-unemotionality compared to average statistical indicators. These very traits are components of psychopathy that demonstrate a dysfunction of the violence inhibition mechanism. Naturally, the higher a person’s socioeconomic status, the lower the indicators for these traits were. However, an increased risk of their occurrence was in any case not observed in carriers of the short allele of the gene; their indicators did not differ significantly from the average statistics regardless of socioeconomic status.
Once again, we see that certain variants of genes related to the functioning of the violence inhibition mechanism are capable of either making a person resistant to environmental influence or creating a risk that this influence may reduce their resistance to causing harm to others. Violence is not simply the result of socioeconomic status or abuse. Although these factors create a risk of violence, this is far from always the case, as the roots of such pathological behavior lie in human neurophysiology and genetics. And this suggests to us the necessity of creating therapeutic solutions to the problem of violence.
