The Overarching Influences on Who People Become

Violence in adolescents– it is not an uncommon presence in today’s media. At such young ages, children are developing aggressive tendencies, and acting on them, despite potential consequences. The behaviors presented in these adolescents have, in past research, been attributed to two potential causes: their home environment, or a hereditary aggressive trait that has been passed down genetically; nature versus nurture, so to speak. However, there is also a third, less referenced cause of aggression in youth: their peers. Together, these three things cause aggression in youth, and in turn, violent behaviors. 

Can parents inadvertently shape who their children become, without trying? Can the people that they are shape the people that their children are? Short answer– yes: humans can take on aggressive traits from their parents. In Human Aggression Across the Lifespan: Genetic Propensities and Environmental Moderators, the concept is explored. While it is challenging to measure, researchers have conducted twin and adoption experiments to explore how behaviors are learned versus innate. In such studies, the researchers would study both identical and fraternal sets of twins that had been circumstantially separated at birth for varying reasons. Thus far, “Twin and adoption studies agree with the experimental literature on aggression, which shows that a large effect of environmental factors is evident, particularly of the nonshared variety. Yet, there is also plenty of evidence, based on a variety of definitions of aggressive behavior from children to adults, for genetic propensity toward aggression.” The existence of aggression in a parent can cause aggression to fester in their progeny.

A child’s earliest experiences, their first teachers, and the people responsible for setting a positive example for them are, in the traditional family set up, their parents. A child’s earliest likes and dislikes, the media they are exposed to, and the way that they are spoken to cause them to develop certain traits. Consider cursing– a child is not born knowing a single word; every word comes from their parents. If they grow up surrounded by parents that swear like sailors, the child will pick up the same language, not knowing that it is bad. If a child is only ever shown violent television and music with aggressive lyrics, they will grow up believing that those behaviors, actions, and ideas are normal. The same is true in contrast: only exposing a child to media that encourages friendship and positivity will cause them to believe that to be normal. In turn, a household that promotes violence will inevitably cause any children in the home to believe that those ideas are conducive to normalcy. 

For example, in November of 2021, infamous school shooter, Ethan Crumbley, shot up Oxford High School– he was only seventeen years old. In a Case Study of his shooting published by the Journal of Education, Health, and Social Sciences, the research revealed that Crumbley had a tragic home life, which caused his perception of what is and is not ethically correct to be severely warped. In a Case Study of his shooting published by the Journal of Education, Health, and Social Sciences, the research revealed that Crumbley had a tragic home life, which had likely shaped his personality. In Crumbley’s family, gun violence was not taught to be a dangerous concept, with Crumbley’s parents even going so far as purchasing a gun for him to have, “referring to it as Ethan’s ‘new Christmas present’.” The environment people are surrounded by shapes their moral views, and their concept of right and wrong: if Ethan Crumbley had not been exposed to a positive perspective of gun violence in his household, his views would have never been shaped to believe it was positive.

During a person’s youth, they spend approximately eight hours a day at school, five days a week; for forty hours a week, children are primarily surrounded by people within their exact age range. During this guaranteed time spent with individuals that share a key defining trait, a child can easily be influenced to adopt similar hobbies and interests as the people they are around. The forced proximity, more often than not, causes similarities to develop between individuals. 

As these similarities begin to develop, key aspects of an adolescent’s personality begin to form. During their teen years, the phrase “rebellious phase” is not unheard of. Many teenagers enter an era in which they are motivated solely on fitting in with their social groups. In an instance in which an individual’s social group is not of proper mind, they will have an impact on the morals and views that they develop. For example, consider a school shooter. Though often classified as “loners” by news outlets and classmates,  it is not uncommon for a school shooter to have a social peer group, of which they share similar interests. Often, these interests include violence and aggressive behaviors. In an actual school shooting scenario, the shooter may develop ideas that their actions are okay, or even warranted, with encouragement from their peer group. 

In School shootings: A Review of the Characteristics and the Psychopathology of the Perpetrators, the typical school shooter is assessed, alongside the common factors of a school shooting, and the signs that were missed. “Shooters were considered outcasts and “weird” but not all of them were ‘loners’. Their peer groups shared analogous interests in violence, making even harder the ‘reality check’ on behalf of the perpetrator.” The peers of the afflicted individual have caused their morals to be completely skewed– when morals have been so compromised by an individual’s peers, it is nearly impossible to change them, or shed light on the reality of the situation. This behavior is not innate, but instead learned by the individual, developed over a period of time and an intentional relationship.

Aggression, and in turn, violent behaviors, are caused by genetics, home environment, and social exposure: this is undeniable. One cause alone is not enough to rewire someone’s psyche. The three causes work in tandem to influence an individual’s thoughts, morals, and behaviors as they develop in their early years of life. Consider this: in the events following a tragic event, such as a school shooting, society is quick to jump to review the backstory of the perpetrator. There are the typical questions that arise: “Were they ‘loners’?”, “What were their home lives like?”, “What kind of people did they surround themselves with?”. Within these questions, society is automatically attributing the crimes of the individual to their environment and surroundings, rather than themselves. Unintentionally, society acknowledges the impact of others on an individual’s development; when an individual commits a crime, their social integration is immediately called into question, and the general consensus is always the same: they were not properly socialized, and if they were, they would have never committed their crime. 

The psychosocial behaviors presented by adolescents are largely influenced by their surrounding environments; including, but not limited to, their peers. During their adolescent years, children and teenagers will spend most of their time with people within their age group; the people they surround themselves with play a major role in shaping who they will become as they grow up. The views they develop, their hobbies, and their future goals can all be impacted by the people around them. For example, by surrounding themselves with athletes who are focused on clean eating and maintaining a healthy body, they will likely adopt the same practices. The same is expected in contrast; if they surround themselves with smokers and peers who enjoy violence and rebellion, they will begin to enjoy the same things. Therefore, there is no positive nor negative connotation for the impact of influence from peers; it is simply a consequence of being social. However, there is also a noticeable impact when there is a lack of socialization within an individual. To best understand the differences, it is important to first understand what qualifies as being “properly socialized.” It is, in most cases, on a perception basis. People simply always being surrounded by others does not equate to them being properly socialized. Rather, a “properly socialized individual” is comfortable around other people, believes that they have friends, and understands and acts in line with what is socially “normal”. In contrast, those who are not “properly socialized” are those that are recognized as social outcasts: they are unable to relate with their peers, they do not have any friends, and do not behave in a socially “normal” way, leading to them often being ostracized by their peers.

In November of 2021, Ethan Crumbley of Oxford High School in Oxford, Michigan, released gunfire on his peers and educators, killing four people. In the research that came to light in the midst of his trial, his background and home life were, naturally, immediately investigated. In a Case Study of his shooting published by the Journal of Education, Health, and Social Sciences, the research revealed that Crumbley had a tragic home life, which had likely shaped his personality. In the weeks immediately preceding the shooting, “Ethan’s best friend moved away and his family dog died, which caused him to become depressed.”

It is no mere coincidence that the simultaneous occurrence of these events had no impact on Ethan’s decision and actions. He lost his closest friend, which lessened his social interactions, and led to depression. This factor, coupled with his rough home life, influenced his mood, feelings, and, inevitably, actions. Moreover, in Crumbley’s family, gun violence was not taught to be a dangerous concept, with Crumbley’s parents purchasing a gun for him to have, “referring to it as Ethan’s ‘new Christmas present’.” He was shown from an early age that guns, and in turn, violence, was not a bad thing. He lacked the moral guidance from his guardians to help form that concept of morality at an early age. 

Typically, socialization with their peers will also impact how teens grow up– but inadequate socialization can cause mental disturbances on their psyches. In losing his best friend, Crumbley had lost his primary social outlet. Though he had already shown signs of mental instability and potential violence, those actions were only acted on following the loss of his peer. Without an outlet to communicate with, it can be hard to differentiate what is socially acceptable. While this is no excuse for the heinous crimes committed, it is a necessary viewpoint when diving into the backgrounds of criminals in cases like these.

While an example has been presented regarding an antisocial shooter, this is not true of every individual who commits such crime. In fact, it is not uncommon for a school shooter to have a social peer group, of which they share similar interests. Does this qualify as being ‘properly socialized’, a phrase with no concrete definition or mode of measurement? The short answer is no. A properly socialized individual would not unleash gunfire in a school. However, with encouragement from their peer group, they may develop ideas that their actions are okay, or even warranted. In School shootings: A Review of the Characteristics and the Psychopathology of the Perpetrators, the typical school shooter is assessed, alongside the common factors of a school shooting, and the signs that were missed. “Shooters were considered outcasts and “weird” but not all of them were ‘loners’. Their peer groups shared analogous interests in violence, making even harder the ‘reality check’ on behalf of the perpetrator.” When an individual is in a social group that shares their views, they develop a warped sense of right and wrong.

Social groups can have both positive and negative effects on the way an individual’s perception of morals develops, and a key example is the analogous interests in violence. If everyone surrounding an individual is telling them something is okay, why are they going to question it? It is far easier to see something is wrong from outside of the house, than it is from inside of it. If people surround themselves with people who enjoy nature and volunteering, they will likely begin to develop the same interests. The same is true if people surround themselves with drug users: they will begin to take after those they surround themselves with. Humans are naturally programmed to want to fit in, and, if surrounded by people with certain ideals, they will, more often than not, adopt them as well. 

It is a challenge to identify what qualifies as being ‘properly socialized.’ People solely ‘fitting in’ with their chosen group is not enough, nor is simply having a group. In order to qualify as being ‘properly socialized’, they must have a grasp on the concept of social awareness, and, as a general note, understand the general principles of right from wrong. The amount of peer relationships is not, necessarily, the largest factor, but their ability to properly interact with others can be an indicator of social health. The way people have grown up and the people they surround themselves with play major roles in determining what kind of person they will become. 

Childhood and early adolescence are the most formative periods of our lives– and they are responsible for forming the people that we become. They primarily boil down to two things: the people that raise us, the people we choose to surround ourselves with. Our parents form our earliest beliefs, and as we enter adolescence, our peers will shape who we grow up to be. School shooters, for example, often have their surroundings questioned in the aftermath of their crimes. Their family lives and the people they were surrounded by are called into question, and results often indicate that their surroundings contributed in at least one way. However, the argument is made that regardless of how they grew up has no impact, and they were always going to turn out the way that they did. In contrast, the suggestion is made that mental illnesses are the root, not their surroundings.  

In research conducted by the Lee Salk Center, they indicate that there are three main types of school shooters: traumatized, psychotic, and psychopathic. Out of the three categories, only one of them indicated any impact from their surrounding environment; traumatized. The other two are based solely on the shooters themselves, and the psychological abnormalities that they presented. For example, the psychotic shooters “exhibited symptoms of either schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disorder, including paranoid delusions, delusions of grandeur, and auditory hallucinations,” and the psychopathic shooters “demonstrated narcissism, a lack of empathy, a lack of conscience, and sadistic behavior.” In the literature presented by the Lee Salk Center, the research identified only three out of the ten shooters that were studied as having come from troubled home environments; the majority were either psychotic or psychopathic. Therefore, based on this research, home life has little impact on how an individual is shaped.  

While there is substance to the provided categories, I believe they fail to consider social inadequacy and loneliness as factors for school shooters to act on violent crimes. Two out of the three categories revolve around neurodivergence, and the idea that their mental illnesses caused them to act out. The idea that the majority of school shooters were dealing with mental illnesses is not outlandish to consider; most mentally stable individuals would not commit such a heinous crime against their peers. However, most mentally ill people do not commit school shootings, either; but the ones that do, often lacked friends and peers, and felt lonely. 

For example, of the ten school shooters that were observed for the study, one of them was seventeen year old Dylan Klebold. Of the three categories, he was identified as being psychotic, and having exhibited odd behaviors. In published pages of Klebold’s personal journal from prior to his shooting, “He wrote about his social difficulties: ‘nobody accepting me even though I want to be accepted, me doing badly and being intimidated in any and all sports, me looking weird and acting shy—BIG problem’.” The research presented does not indicate potential loneliness or lack of social integration to be a cause for the school shooting, but rather, himself. Despite him clearly displaying signs of lacking traditional socialization, and yearning for acceptance from his peers, his mental illness is cited as the primary reason for his actions. 

In contrast, in a Case Study of Ethan Crumbley’s shooting published by the Journal of Education, Health, and Social Sciences, the primary factors that caused him to commit his shooting are his home life and socialization. The research revealed that Crumbley had a tragic home life, which had likely shaped his personality. In the weeks immediately preceding the shooting, “Ethan’s best friend moved away and his family dog died, which caused him to become depressed.” It is no mere coincidence that the simultaneous occurrence of these events had no impact on Ethan’s decision and actions. He lost his closest friend, which lessened his social interactions, and led to depression. This factor, coupled with his rough home life, influenced his mood, feelings, and, inevitably, actions. Typically, people’s socialization with their peers will also impact how they grow up– but inadequate socialization can cause mental disturbances on a person’s psyche. In losing his best friend, Crumbley had lost his primary social outlet. Though he had already shown signs of mental instability and potential violence, those actions were only acted on following the loss of his peer. Evidently, his loneliness was the catalyst for his violent actions. 

It is unreasonable to make a one to one comparison of school shooters, as no two people are exactly alike, and will have their own unique reasons for committing the crimes that they did. However, it is also unreasonable to cite mental illnesses as the major reason. There is an abundant social ostracization that follows mental illnesses and neurodivergence. Michael Cerneal, for example, “was socially awkward and struggled to find a peer group. He engaged in odd behavior, perhaps in an effort to be funny or to impress his peers, or perhaps because of an early onset of schizophrenia.” The odd behaviors he exhibited are potentially attributed to his schizophrenia, and are also a reason that he struggled to find a peer group. As teenagers, we often, even intentionally, exclude people that do not fit with the preconceived idea of normal. Neurodivergent teens will often have a harder time finding a social group, because of judgment from teenage peers. As a result, they are lonelier than their neurotypical counterparts. 

References

Langman, Peter. “Rampage School Shooters: A Typology.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 14, no. 1, Elsevier BV, Dec. 2008, pp. 79–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2008.10.003. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

Leng, Muyun, and Huan Song. “Contributors to Antisocial Behavior in Adolescence from the Perspective of Developmental Psychology: A Case Study on a School Mass Shooting.” Journal of Education Humanities and Social Sciences, vol. 9, Mar. 2023, pp. 158–65, https://doi.org/10.54097/ehss.v9i.6442. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.

“(PDF) School Shootings: A Review of the Characteristics and the Psychopathology of the Perpetrators.” ResearchGate, www.researchgate.net/publication/322226358_School_shootings_A_Review_of_the_Characteristics_and_the_Psychopathology_of_the_Perpetrators.

Tuvblad, Catherine, and Laura A. Baker. “Human Aggression across the Lifespan.” Advances in Genetics, Elsevier BV, Jan. 2011, pp. 171–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-380858-5.00007-1. Accessed 2 Dec. 2024.