Psychological Profiles Of A Serial Killer And A Mass Murderer

The Serial Killer

The concept of ‘serial killer’ brings immediately to the most recent crime news, best sellers or television series, but the phenomenon has actually always been a criminological constant despite only recently the serial murder has been recognised and defined as we know it nowadays. In 1986, the first classification of multiple murders divided into different types, victims and styles was published, with the help of Douglar, Ressler, Burgess and Hartman.

Many authors tried to resume the characteristics of such crime in the last years, and between them it is important to quote the definitions given by Egger and Steven.

Based on their theory, the distinctive features of crimes committed by serial killers are; a poor or total absent relation between the victim and the author of the crime in the period before the criminal event, the absence of an apparent motive, the impossibility to utilise the classic criminological typologies to explain the crime, the frequent presence of sexual elements being involved, and finally the presence of common features between past victims and the future ones.

According to Levin and Fox, a person whose personality is often referred to as a “psychopath” commits this kind of crime. A psychopath is a person who lacks the sense of remorse, that is totally rational and that feeds their urge to dominate and to torture. The theories did not stop there; in fact Douglas believed that the serial murder is a wilful event, deeply connected to the fantasies of the aggressor and that is meticulously planned, and that the cooling off period of the killer is extremely variable.

Regarding the details of which actions make a serial murder, the discipline agrees on the definition of what a serial killing is, given by the last definition utilised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation: a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone. It is exactly in the “separate events” that lays the most important trait that distinguishes the serial killer. The pause between the crimes is defined “cooling period” which represents the emotional drop after the commitment of a crime. Since a crime is usually intended, arranged and involves fantasies of the killer, it automatically brings an emotional boost in their mind. After the crime is committed, these emotions then dissipate. After time they start to appear again, paving the way to the new planning of a killing. Such period can last days, weeks, months or even years, and it is the trait that distinguishes a serial killer from other kinds of killers, since it is the cause of the repetitiveness of the serial factor.

After having seen which factors determine a serial killing and the importance of the cooling off period, it is then mandatory to analyse the different kinds of serial killers: Holmes and DeBurger have drew up a typology of serial killers based on the motivations: the visionary killer; (one that suffers from a break with reality and sees visions or hears voices from mystical beings like demons, angels, the devil, or God telling it to kill certain people); the mission killer (one that is compelled to murder in order to get rid of a certain group of people that they have judged to be unworthy or undesirable); the lust killer (one where the focal point of murder is sex, even after the victim has been killed. This type of murderer often conducts acts such as cannibalism, necrophilia, and dismemberment); the thrill killer (one that takes pleasure and excitement from killing, which often involves extended acts of torture, and once the victim is dead, it loses interest) – both latter types are classified as hedonistic killers. Finally; the power and control killer (one that enjoys to have control over the victims. Their motive is the thirst for power and dominance over other persons).

Fox and Hevin on another note have distinguished other five types of killers, always based on their motivation: the power killer sadistically tortures and kills to satisfy their need for control and dominance; the revenge killer slays women who remind him of his mother who mistreated him as a child; the loyalty killer is part of a team of killers who kill as a ritual to prove their commitment to one another; the profit killer poisons husbands to death in order to collect their wealth; the terror killer is profoundly paranoid and plants bombs to warn the world of coming doom.

Although as we have seen there are many different kinds of serial killers, whichever subdivision or theory they fit into, they all share the urge to kill which manifests again later on after a cooling off period. Which brings one to think; what contributes to how a personality of a serial killer develops? Are there events that result in such a conclusion, or is it an innate factor of a person?

Eric W. Hickey has developed the so called “trauma-control model” in which he hypothesizes that a person might experience one or more destabilizing events during their formative years that are later suppressed on an unconscious level. Such events can be the loss of a parent, a difficult and unstable home life, sexual abuse, violence, physical punishment and the like. Through an inner process, they split the subject personality to then surface again later in time.

Stephen T. Holmes, Richard Tewksbury and Ronald Michael Holmes aimed to specify even further this developmental process with what they have defined as “fractured identity syndrome”. Following Hickey’s idea that a traumatic event during the youth years can cause an irrecoverable fissure in the subject’s personality, they speculated that eventual following incidents would compromise that fissure by making it explode to then fracture their personality.

The Mass Murderer

On another note, the other subject of investigation is the figure of the mass murderer.

A mass murder is the “act of murdering a certain number of people simultaneously or in a short period of time in a close geographic proximity.” This kind of phenomenon is one of the less analysed in the criminological field due first of all due to its infrequence, secondly because of its low social alarm, and lastly, because mass murderers are subjects usually affected by serious mental problems which is often treated under a psychiatric concern rather than a criminological one. The Federal Bureau of Investigation defines mass murder as “murdering four or more people during an event with no cooling-off period, and it typically occurs in a single location.”

Even if such kinds of criminals have received relatively little scholarly interest, the doctrine has still developed important notes. For example, Park Elliot Dietz has proposed three different kinds of mass murderers: the family annihilator (the head of a family who kills its members due to jealousy, revenge or loyalty); the pseudocommando (one that takes their action out on society in order to draw attention to themselves or, in their head, to teach society a lesson); and the set-and-run killer (one who bombs buildings or vehicles, sets fires, or tampers with food or products, escaping before the murder actually takes place).

Later on, Stephen T. Holmes and Ronald Michael Holmes have added one more classification, which is of the “disgruntled employee” – a person who takes revenge on his former workplace out of a perceived injustice towards them, while Jack Levin and Eric Madfis added the classification of the “school shooter”.

Other important contributions they gave to the doctrine are the subdivision of the mass murderers and the development of their personalities. Levin and Madfis hypothesized a five stage model for the personality development using the model of the school shooter as a starting point:

At the beginning, the subject experiences long-term negative experiences in places like home, school, work, or neighbourhood which occur in the early period of the subjects life or during their adolescence. This phase is named “chronic strain” and it leads the subject to be unable to form bonds with their family and society, as well as behave in unconventional standards, also known as “uncontrolled strain”. Their desire to commit a murderous act takes place during the “acute strain” phase, which is caused by a particular event that triggers such desire. After this point the subject starts to plan the action for what would become a mass murder.

This developmental process is named “cumulative strain”, which emphasizes the build up of each stage to then reach the criminal act. It is important to note in this case, the absence of the cooling off period and the absence of the manifestation of the urge to kill again.

Psychological differences between the serial killer and the mass murderer

The previous paragraphs have shown what the differences between a mass murder and a serial killing. It has also explored what drives the criminals to commit such actions, and the various subdivisions that the doctrine has given to these groups.

It is now important to analyse these two categories more in depth, under a psychological and psychoanalytical point of view. In order to properly understand their differences, mass murderers are generally discontented people, who have reduced social skills. Usually, the motives of mass murderers are less apparent than those of serial killers. 96.5% of mass murderers are male, and most of them are not clinically listed as psychotic. Rather than being a psychopath, like most serial killers, mass murderers tend to be paranoid individuals with important behavioural and/or social disorders. Mass murderers also display psychopathic tendencies, such as being uncompassionate and manipulative. However, most mass murderers are social loners who triggered by some specific event.

As abovementioned, when it comes to serial killers, there are more studies from which to draw comparisons. For years, psychologists have attempted to answer questions such as; where does the drive to kill originate and why is the urge to kill more powerful in some individuals than in others? Countless questions require answers in order to have a complete understanding of the psychology of serial killers, but unfortunately no concrete ones have been found yet and the research is still on going.

Still, many studies have indicated that due to their psychopathic nature, serial killers do not have sympathy for their victims, their immediate families, or the general population. Instead, they train themselves to imitate ordinary human conduct by observing other individuals. They practice a controlling act that is aimed at luring people into a trap before they strike. Serial killers have been described as actors with a natural desire to impress in some way.

A majority of subjects have been found to experience a troubled childhood ranging from broken or abusive families, with little or no parental care and no positive social relations with the family members. This unstable background makes them develop anomalous ideas of what is normal for a person. For instance, sexually abusing other persons or exhibiting excessive violence, and in repeating the behaviours they underwent and lived through. They become more and more violent, eventually reaching the level of multiple murders. Other experiences such as neglect and abuse at childhood have been found to influence serial killers. This troubled upbringing prevents these subjects from developing a set of normal behaviours that judge how they should react in specific situations, and how they should socialize with others.

As mentioned earlier on serial killers differ in modes of killing but still display similarities in some aspects. These include; a lack of remorse or regret, being impetuous, the desire to have control or exercise their authority, are in search of attention, and display conduct that is predatory in nature. Basically, the characteristics of a psychopath, described as a person who shows a personality disorder characterized by aggression, violence, antisocial behaviour, and shows no remorse or kindness. A psychopath is able to commit violent acts with coolness, while displaying rationality and leading a completely normal life.

The concept of psychosis has also been used to explain serial killers. Described as the loss of contact with reality, psychosis is characterized by hallucinations, delusions, and irrationality. Even though widely disregarded, the concept of psychosis can be used to explain the behaviour of some serial killers.

Although the similitudes between the two groups are many, this essay wants to point out the few differences: the psychological base for serial killer are the flashbacks related to an untreated psychological trauma, the repressed self or a sexual desire that returns every time the subject faces a situation that reminds them of the initial trauma. On the other hand, the psychological base for a mass murderer is pathological interpersonal fear, which hampers the subject’s ability to enter into human relationships and show their true self. This results in pathological envy and despair, which ultimately leads to revenge-suicide after the commitment of the crime (many are the cases of the father of a family who commits suicide after killing the members of his family, or let himself being caught or killed by the police).

Therefore, in a sense, both mass murderers and serial murderers experience different qualities of posttraumatic stress disorder, one through abuse, and the other through neglect. Because of these differences, mass murderers belong to the over-controlled repressor group, which falls into “Cluster C” of Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders V (DSM-V), and the serial killer belongs to the psychopath group, which falls into “Cluster B” of the DSM-V. Cluster C shows fearful and anxious traits, including avoidant, dependent, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders, while Cluster B shows highly dramatic, narcissistic, and antisocial tendencies.

In summary, what distinguishes a serial killer from a mass murderer is if their initial childhood conditioning was abusive or neglectful, as this establishes the subject’s psychological foundation. While physical abuse leads to aggression, psychological attacks, and criticism, (which then leads to low self-esteem), neglect leads to severe cognitive, social withdrawal, and the internalization of problems. Therefore, the initial childhood environment of a serial killer involves physical and or sexual abuse, or other similarly powerful incidents. This creates a psychological trait in a subject that is fundamentally aggressive to others. Untreated physical trauma compels the subject to let out their frustrations and stress every time they experience a flashback. On the other hand, the initial childhood environments of the other subject are taken in consideration, as the mass murderers environment also involves neglect or psychological attacks and abuse. This creates a psychological character that is fundamentally negative, depressive, and prone to internalization.

Because of the different childhood backgrounds, serial killers and mass murderers develop decisively divergent characteristics. Serial killers feel (sometimes) sadistic sensations from killing, while mass murderers kill for revenge, rather than pleasure. That is, the driving force of a serial murderer is pleasure by destroying others, while that of a mass murderer is a romanticised revenge through death. Serial killers and mass murderers are on two opposite ends of the same spectrum of untreated post-traumatic stress disorder, which lead them to deal the stress they cannot process in two different manners.

Gender differences between Serial Killer and Mass Murderer: Is it possible to explain why men commit more crimes than women?

Through the essay it has been shown what serial killers and mass murders are, who are the subjects that commit them, and what are the psychological events that might have brought them to commit such actions. Even though the essay has shown that these factors are not objective, due to the particularity and singularity of each subject taken in consideration, there is still one single, mathematical factor, that cannot be disputed: the gender difference in these kinds of criminals.

It is not a mystery that when it comes to such criminals, the overwhelming majority of them are men: according to Evolutionary behavioural sciences, male serial killers are six times more likely than women serial killers to kill a person they do not know. The 65.4% of men pursue their victims while only the 3.6% of women did it.

There are many theories that tried to explain the reason why men commit a higher number of these crimes. Since the average age of these criminals are between 27 and the 50, a range where a man has usually achieved his work goals in a highly industrialized country, it is believed that if someone falls out of this statistic, then the social claim of a non-losing role (which is increasingly heavy in such highly consumerist societies where competition and personal fulfillment are considered fundamental elements of the person) would cause a constant frustration to subjects already frail mind.

It is also believed that what society forces a man to believe about himself, for example stronger than women, then in a mass killing setting, they would be more likely to overpower any challenger and less likely to be stymied.

Or also that it could be a question of testosterone since it was wrongly believed that it leads to aggression, or even more, the cause is also believed to be derived from videogames.

Still, the more loaded theory is that the reason why men commit mass murders more often than women is that they’re trying to regain power after an episode or pattern of losing dominance over their lives. To assert their masculine identity, these men resort to violence and aggression. This theory is strongly believed because it addresses some of the characteristics that are often observed in mass murderers. Many feel that they have been personally humiliated by the people around them and see others to blame for their failures. It does not necessarily mean that women are to blame; simply that they have suffered degradations and disappointments that have led them to try to reaffirm a strong, masculine identity.