Summary Violence and the Brain
(Lectures)
Course description:
What makes teenage gang members act out aggressively against others? What drives
people to murder others? Is it nurture, or nature that ultimately determines such violent
behaviours?
This course will explore the complex neurobiology of violence, and take a whirlwind tour of
the multifaceted factors and mechanisms that underlie interpersonal violence. We will
discuss the role of the brain one second before a violent act is committed, and how this is
shaped by neurobiological mechanisms that were formed in the preceding months and
years. We will take a developmental perspective, focusing on the developing brain, early
experiences, and the importance of the social context in determining the ways in which we
act violently, or respond to violence. We will take an interdisciplinary perspective including
Developmental Science, Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience to discuss the
mechanisms that shape violent interpersonal behaviours, including different types of violent
behaviours against others. In doing so, we will detail how and why such behaviours are
influenced by our neurobiology (i.e., the brain, hormones, genes), and how they are shaped
by the social environment. We will also learn about the role of affiliation, empathy, and
altruism in shaping interpersonal violence. We will discuss the latest scientific perspectives
on the neurobiology of violence, and how one can examine the etiology and effects of
interpersonal violence.
Course objectives:
On successful completion of this course, students will be able to:
Understand and identify the social and neurobiological mechanisms that drive violence and
antisociality.
Understand and identify the main theoretical perspectives of how violent and antisocial
experiences affect the developing brain and social functioning.
Identify key social and/or developmental influences that make young people vulnerable to act
violently/antisocially towards others.
Apply contemporary theoretical frameworks on the neurobiology of interpersonal violence.
1
,Week 1: Introduction to violence and the brain
Lecture 1 – 07/11/2025:
2
, Abnormal behaviour:
Dominant debate we have in our society: nature vs. nurture
A dominant debate that concerns the origins of dangerous or violent behaviour. Are dangerous people
born (biological) or made (by surroundings)? Or is there a third option, maybe a combination?
Born dangerous:
o Biological gradients (e.g. genetics, neurobiology) are so dominant that an individual
may develop severe antisocial behaviour regardless of environment.
o Risk is embedded in the gene set and neurodevelopment.
Made dangerous:
o Behaviour is primarily shaped by upbringing, trauma, social context, and learning.
Combination:
o Behaviour emerges from a dynamic interaction between biology and environment.
o Currently the most accepted scientific position.
Key takeaway: Violent and antisocial behaviour is multifactorial, not monocausal.
The issue of normality: Central questions
What counts as normal or typical behaviour?
When does behaviour become abnormal or antisocial?
Who decides this (science, society, law)?
Normality is not absolute, but context-dependent.
Criteria for labelling behaviour as normal or abnormal:
Different frameworks are used to distinguish normal from abnormal behaviour:
Age-related criteria:
o The brain continues to develop until approximately age 25.
o Especially the frontal lobes, responsible for:
Planning
Behavioral regulation
Impulse control
Moral reasoning
o Behaviour must always be interpreted in light of neurodevelopment.
Cultural / social / ethical context:
o Norms differ across:
Cultures
Societies
Legal systems
o Behaviour considered abnormal in one country may be normal in another.
o Laws strongly influence what is labelled “deviant.”
Medical model:
o Behaviour is assessed via symptom clusters.
o Leads to diagnostic categories:
Healthy vs. unhealthy
Normal vs. abnormal
o Strongly dichotomous approach.
Statistical model:
o Behaviour is measured objectively.
o Normality = what is statistically most common.
o Less biased, but not necessarily morally or clinically meaningful.
3
, Important note: Age is embedded in all models (medical, cultural, statistical). Developmental stage
always matters.
Moving beyond dichotomies: labels such as:
Normal vs. abnormal
Typical vs. atypical
Good vs. bad
are simplifications.
Key conceptual shift: Human behaviour should be understood dimensionally and spectrally, rather
than categorically.
Are these behaviours normal or abnormal? Looking at 3 cases.
Only males (95% of individuals are male and only 5% females in this youth facility)
Crimes include:
o Serial rape, Murder with weapons, Assault, Armed robbery
These youths:
o Do not respond well to punishment
o Are not afraid of police or detention
These cases appear abnormal but require deep clinical and contextual analysis.
Case 1: Micheal (17)
Behaviour:
1. Frequently cuts off tail of family cat
2. Proud of his serial amputations: he said, I did it really nice, clinically, almost surgically.
3. Interested in cat’s reaction to amputations
4. Described behaviour as: “I was experimenting.”
Would you say this is normal/abnormal behaviour? Is this typical curiousness by a 17-year-old?
This behaviour indicates:
Severely reduced empathy
Willingness to inflict pain on a bonded living being
Empathy normally functions as a strong inhibitor of aggression.
At 17: Cognitive capacity to understand harm should be present.
Expert assessment:
Forensic psychologists were less alarmed by the act itself
Primary concern: absence of empathy
Key point: The abnormality lies not only in the act, but in the emotional and moral processing behind it.
Case 2: Joost (15)
Behaviour:
1. Pushed a toddler into swimming pool
2. Watched toddler drown
4
(Lectures)
Course description:
What makes teenage gang members act out aggressively against others? What drives
people to murder others? Is it nurture, or nature that ultimately determines such violent
behaviours?
This course will explore the complex neurobiology of violence, and take a whirlwind tour of
the multifaceted factors and mechanisms that underlie interpersonal violence. We will
discuss the role of the brain one second before a violent act is committed, and how this is
shaped by neurobiological mechanisms that were formed in the preceding months and
years. We will take a developmental perspective, focusing on the developing brain, early
experiences, and the importance of the social context in determining the ways in which we
act violently, or respond to violence. We will take an interdisciplinary perspective including
Developmental Science, Psychology, Psychiatry, and Neuroscience to discuss the
mechanisms that shape violent interpersonal behaviours, including different types of violent
behaviours against others. In doing so, we will detail how and why such behaviours are
influenced by our neurobiology (i.e., the brain, hormones, genes), and how they are shaped
by the social environment. We will also learn about the role of affiliation, empathy, and
altruism in shaping interpersonal violence. We will discuss the latest scientific perspectives
on the neurobiology of violence, and how one can examine the etiology and effects of
interpersonal violence.
Course objectives:
On successful completion of this course, students will be able to:
Understand and identify the social and neurobiological mechanisms that drive violence and
antisociality.
Understand and identify the main theoretical perspectives of how violent and antisocial
experiences affect the developing brain and social functioning.
Identify key social and/or developmental influences that make young people vulnerable to act
violently/antisocially towards others.
Apply contemporary theoretical frameworks on the neurobiology of interpersonal violence.
1
,Week 1: Introduction to violence and the brain
Lecture 1 – 07/11/2025:
2
, Abnormal behaviour:
Dominant debate we have in our society: nature vs. nurture
A dominant debate that concerns the origins of dangerous or violent behaviour. Are dangerous people
born (biological) or made (by surroundings)? Or is there a third option, maybe a combination?
Born dangerous:
o Biological gradients (e.g. genetics, neurobiology) are so dominant that an individual
may develop severe antisocial behaviour regardless of environment.
o Risk is embedded in the gene set and neurodevelopment.
Made dangerous:
o Behaviour is primarily shaped by upbringing, trauma, social context, and learning.
Combination:
o Behaviour emerges from a dynamic interaction between biology and environment.
o Currently the most accepted scientific position.
Key takeaway: Violent and antisocial behaviour is multifactorial, not monocausal.
The issue of normality: Central questions
What counts as normal or typical behaviour?
When does behaviour become abnormal or antisocial?
Who decides this (science, society, law)?
Normality is not absolute, but context-dependent.
Criteria for labelling behaviour as normal or abnormal:
Different frameworks are used to distinguish normal from abnormal behaviour:
Age-related criteria:
o The brain continues to develop until approximately age 25.
o Especially the frontal lobes, responsible for:
Planning
Behavioral regulation
Impulse control
Moral reasoning
o Behaviour must always be interpreted in light of neurodevelopment.
Cultural / social / ethical context:
o Norms differ across:
Cultures
Societies
Legal systems
o Behaviour considered abnormal in one country may be normal in another.
o Laws strongly influence what is labelled “deviant.”
Medical model:
o Behaviour is assessed via symptom clusters.
o Leads to diagnostic categories:
Healthy vs. unhealthy
Normal vs. abnormal
o Strongly dichotomous approach.
Statistical model:
o Behaviour is measured objectively.
o Normality = what is statistically most common.
o Less biased, but not necessarily morally or clinically meaningful.
3
, Important note: Age is embedded in all models (medical, cultural, statistical). Developmental stage
always matters.
Moving beyond dichotomies: labels such as:
Normal vs. abnormal
Typical vs. atypical
Good vs. bad
are simplifications.
Key conceptual shift: Human behaviour should be understood dimensionally and spectrally, rather
than categorically.
Are these behaviours normal or abnormal? Looking at 3 cases.
Only males (95% of individuals are male and only 5% females in this youth facility)
Crimes include:
o Serial rape, Murder with weapons, Assault, Armed robbery
These youths:
o Do not respond well to punishment
o Are not afraid of police or detention
These cases appear abnormal but require deep clinical and contextual analysis.
Case 1: Micheal (17)
Behaviour:
1. Frequently cuts off tail of family cat
2. Proud of his serial amputations: he said, I did it really nice, clinically, almost surgically.
3. Interested in cat’s reaction to amputations
4. Described behaviour as: “I was experimenting.”
Would you say this is normal/abnormal behaviour? Is this typical curiousness by a 17-year-old?
This behaviour indicates:
Severely reduced empathy
Willingness to inflict pain on a bonded living being
Empathy normally functions as a strong inhibitor of aggression.
At 17: Cognitive capacity to understand harm should be present.
Expert assessment:
Forensic psychologists were less alarmed by the act itself
Primary concern: absence of empathy
Key point: The abnormality lies not only in the act, but in the emotional and moral processing behind it.
Case 2: Joost (15)
Behaviour:
1. Pushed a toddler into swimming pool
2. Watched toddler drown
4
