Pedophilia: Innate or Learned?

Educational level: this is a tertiary (university) resource.

Subject classification: this is a psychology resource.

Completion status: this resource has reached a high level of completion.

Type classification: this is an essay resource.

Pedophilia is, as defined by notable Canadian sexologist and forensic psychologist Micheal C. Seto in his 2009 review of pedophilia, the "persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children [children generally younger than 13]". ICD-11 (the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases) requires, in order for a pedophilia diagnosis to be made, that the individual has consistent sexual thoughts, urges, and illusions of pre-pubertal children & to have either acted on these urges or be clearly distraught by these feelings. The diagnosee cannot be a child (pre-pubertal) and extreme caution is urged when assessing an adolescene for this disorder. Pedophilia is problematic, dangerous, and is a contributing factor behind many sexual crimes committed against children.

To assess the reason behind the development of pedophilia, it is essential to first cover the nature vs. nurture debate in criminology. The nature vs. nurture debate concerns which origin is more likely to be the source and cause of criminal behavior as one reaches an age where they can be held responsible for their behavior. The "nature" aspect puts fault on one's genetic predispositions, or the chance of developing certain traits due to one's genes. On the other hand, the "nurture" aspect is concerned with one's upbringing and environmental living conditions. Throughout history, several theories have been posed on whether nature or nurture play a bigger role in one's development into embracing a criminal lifestyle. In this review, two theories will be analyzed and applied regarding pedophilia.

Cesare Lombroso's atavistic theory is not widely accepted today, but laid important foundations for the development of criminology as a whole.

The first theory is atavism, as applied to the field of criminology, by 1800s Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso. Cesare Lombroso proposed that a criminal can be identified by physical features that are a result of an evolutive degression. Criminals possess physical features, or atavistic anomalies, that are abnormal and distinct from normal human beings, with these atavistic anomalies closely resembling a "savage" or a "primitive man". According to Lombroso, these traits could be darker skin, a bulky jaw, sharper teeth, ears akin to a monkey, and an insensitivity to pain. One could derive these traits via either "indirect heredity", where the criminal's lineage were afflicted by monstrous illnesses (such as mental illnesses) and these traits were passed down to the criminal, or "direct heredity", where these criminal traits were given to the criminal directly from their parents. Despite Lombroso's atavist theory being rejected on the grounds of having been inspired by racist underpinnings & and maintaining little to no scientific backing, Lombroso laid out an important road to studying the criminals themselves rather than just the crime.

On the other hand, the social learning theory states that people are not inherently criminals, but exhibit criminal-like behavior due to their upbringing or environment. Individuals witness criminal behavior and perceive the reward higher than the consequences. Notable psychologists, such as Albert Bandura, advocated for this theory. An example of this theory being demonstrated is like a son who watches his father abuse his mother and goes on to model his father's behavior when dealing with his significant other and his children. The social learning theory expanded upon the "tremendous complexity of human responsiveness" by adding an additional element to the learning process: learning via rewards and consequences. The social learning theory is more accepted compared to the atavist theory by Lombroso.

The nature vs. nurture debate in criminology has been a heated topic in the world of psychology & criminology for centuries. Another popular take on the debate, as propagated by geneticists, is that neither origin is solely responsible for criminal behavior, and that criminal behavior is a combination of both nature and nurture done in a very "complex and not yet fully understood [way]", which leads to offensive and law-breaking behavior. Some scientists, surprisingly enough, believe that the debate is "unhelpful" and "outdated", yet the debate ravages on. Certain researchers hesitate to take a stance, fearing that leaning to one-side over the other may leave the door open to biased narrators who may use the debate to spread false agendas. For example, if someone were to believe that nature is responsible for crime vs. nurture, this could lead to a resurgence in racist propaganda disguised as "scientific discourse". Alternatively, placing an emphasis on nurture could close the door for improvement for those riddled in poverty and other environmental disadvantages. As detailed, there is significant controversy regarding which side of the nature vs. nurture debate is correct, but what is the scientific consensus concerning nature vs. nurture for pedophilia? Which side is more responsible for the disorder at hand and what are some measures that can be taken depending on whether nature or nurture is the culprit?

Could this be a viable method of assessing pedophilia?

A 2009 study done on the etiology of pedophilia by researcher Juan Antonio Becerra García of the International University of La Rioja found several "structural deteriorations" within brain regions that were essential to sexual development, including a smaller right amygdala (less control over ability to inhibit certain behaviors), a significant decline of gray matter in the hypothalamus (which leads to a score of neurological issues, including memory loss and other cognitive impairments), and a decline in the activity of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (which leads to poor executive functioning). Another review of the disorder published in 2015 affirmed that other studies conducted on pedophiles found similar findings, including a reduction of inhibition and executive functioning. However, García concluded that there really wasn't a "determinant explanation" for one to become a pedophile. García suggested that the brain abnormalities were brought about during neurodevelopment through "adverse events” but emphasizes that these cognitive shifts in the brain do not render an individual free from such horrific sexual crimes, if one were to act on such impulses.

Another study published in 2018, completed by Dr. Kelly M Babchishin and a team of researchers in Sweden, also mentioned that previous studies have found that pedophiles generally have a lower cognitive ability than non-pedophilic offenders and physical abnormalities that relate to neurological deficiences. However, Dr. Babchishin's study of 655 Swedish men convicted of child sex crimes yielded inconclusive and inconsisent results in pinpointing any "risk markers" for pedophilia, stating that there was no "clear evidence for the specificity of early risk markers for pedophilia".

It seems that although there are certain patterns of neurological deficiencies in pedophilies, there isn't a specific "trait" or "gene" that propels an individual to have a sexual attraction to prepubescent kids. From the research covered so far, there does not seem to be sufficient evidence to allocate a definite cause for the disorder. Although poor executive functioning is evident, this does not automatically cause a person to have sexual desires for prepubescent children. In fact, using this as evidence that pedophilia is nature would be a casual fallacy. On the other hand, there is no evidence to support that pedophilic attractions are solely brought on by one's environment either. There is a common myth that pedophiles are largely spawned from sexual abuse, but this belief cannot be scientifically substantiated. Australian criminologist Richard Kelly affirms that a sizeable number of pedophiles "were abused themselves as children" but refuses to support the notion that pedophilia is brought on by past sexual abuses because it is "very difficult" to provide sufficient backing for such claims (https://doi.org/10.52922/ti258908). As it stands from reviewing the literature, pedophilia seems to be more of a mix between nature and nurture. Neurological deficiencies seem to manifest into pedophilia through a singular or multiple harmful events. It is clear that more research should be done in this field.

See also

• Pedophilia
• Child sexual abuse
• Age disparity in sexual relationships