 |
| Ted Bundy in court, 1979. Photograph: Ken Hawkins/Alamy Stock Photo |
The theory that suppressing the prevalent desire for dominance in men, particularly those with low impulse control, is a primary driver of dangerous behaviors emphasizes a critical link between biology, psychology, and societal constraints. This article argues that most men experience internal urges to reassert control when their dominant instincts are blocked, with those lacking self-regulation being especially prone to harmful actions. By integrating psychological and sociological research, along with case studies, we explore why dominance is a common male trait, how its suppression fuels destructive outcomes, and why addressing root causes is more effective than corrective interventions.
Dominance as a Prevalent Male Trait
Dominance, encompassing assertiveness, competitiveness, and status-seeking, is more prevalent in men than women due to biological and social influences. Research by Archer & Coyne (2013) shows men exhibit higher levels of direct aggression and power-seeking behaviors, often tied to testosterone’s role in brain development and behavior (Booth & Osgood, 1993). Meta-analyses confirm men are more likely to pursue dominance directly, while women favor relational strategies (Archer, 2004). Evolutionary psychology attributes this to ancestral pressures around resource control and mating competition, positioning dominance as a common, though not universal, male trait.
Personality assessments, such as the Dominance subscale of the Personality Research Form, indicate men score higher on average than women (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Studies suggest most men experience dominance-oriented thoughts, especially when status is challenged (Willer et al., 2013). Men with low impulse control—stemming from deficits in prefrontal cortex function or serotonin regulation—are less equipped to manage these urges, heightening the risk of harmful behaviors when dominance is suppressed.
Effects of Suppressing Dominance
Suppression of dominance through laws, cultural norms, or household rules creates significant tension in men predisposed to dominance. The frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939) posits that blocking goal-directed behavior, such as dominance, leads to hostility, particularly in those with poor self-regulation. Fodor et al. (2006) found that men with high dominance motivation exhibit stronger emotional reactions when power is challenged, suggesting suppression amplifies frustration.
The theory holds that most men experience these dominance-oriented thoughts, but those with low impulse control are more likely to act on them. The masculine overcompensation thesis (Willer et al., 2013) demonstrates that men often feel internal pressure to reassert dominance when faced with threats to masculinity, such as social or personal constraints. Data from the CDC (2020) on intimate partner violence shows men are more likely to perpetrate abuse in contexts of perceived loss of authority, with those lacking self-control being particularly vulnerable.
Dangerous Behaviors and the Thought-Action Divide
The theory links suppressed dominance to extreme outcomes like serial killing and broader harmful behaviors. Serial killers, over 90% male (Aamodt, 2016), often exhibit psychopathy and control-seeking tendencies, but the theory’s broader claim—that suppressed dominance drives various destructive acts—finds strong support. Vescio & Schermerhorn (2023) found that masculinity threats can trigger anger and positive attitudes toward sexual violence in men with poor emotional regulation. Similarly, gang violence and workplace aggression often involve men asserting dominance in high-stress environments.
While most men may think about reasserting dominance when blocked, self-regulation, social norms, or consequences often prevent action (Willer et al., 2013). Men with low impulse control, however, are at higher risk of translating these thoughts into harmful behaviors, such as physical abuse or coercive control, due to their limited ability to redirect dominance constructively.
Case Studies: Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, and the Amazon Review Killer
To illustrate the theory, we examine three serial killers whose behaviors reflect suppressed dominance and low impulse control, with suppression playing a significant role in their motivations.
Jeffrey Dahmer
Jeffrey Dahmer, the Milwaukee Cannibal, murdered 17 young men and boys between 1978 and 1991, engaging in necrophilia and cannibalism. His childhood, marked by isolation, parental conflict, and a fascination with dead animals, suggests early suppression of control, as his unstable home environment limited his agency. Dahmer’s desire to “own” victims, including attempts to create “mindless sex slaves,” reflects a need to reassert dominance in extreme ways. His use of neutralizations to downplay his actions indicates a struggle to reconcile his urges with societal norms, supporting the theory that suppressed dominance, coupled with low impulse control, drove his crimes.
Ted Bundy
Ted Bundy, active in the 1970s, confessed to 30 murders, targeting young women with specific traits possibly linked to a romantic rejection. Raised in a deceptive family environment—believing his mother was his sister and his violent grandfather was his father—Bundy faced early suppression of personal control, fostering psychopathic tendencies. His charming facade masked a need to dominate through rape and murder, reflecting a reaction to perceived loss of power. His escapes from custody and continued killing highlight low impulse control, aligning with the theory that suppressed dominance was a key driver of his violent behavior.
The Amazon Review Killer (Todd Kohlhepp)
Todd Kohlhepp, the Amazon Review Killer, murdered seven people in South Carolina between 2003 and 2016. Despite outward success as a real estate agent, his turbulent childhood, marked by divorce and early criminal behavior, suggests suppressed agency and control. Kohlhepp’s methodical control over victims—luring them with false job offers and restraining them—reflects a need to assert dominance. His chilling Amazon reviews, praising tools used in his crimes, indicate a lack of remorse and a focus on control, supporting the theory that suppressed dominance, combined with low impulse control, fueled his actions.
Critiques and Nuances
The theory risks overgeneralizing by assuming most men are driven by dominance, though research supports its prevalence in men compared to women (Archer, 2004). Individual and cultural variations exist, with egalitarian societies reducing overt dominance compared to patriarchal ones (Hofstede, 2001). While frustration-aggression models support the theory’s behavioral impacts, no studies directly tie suppressed dominance to serial killing, though the case studies suggest it as a significant factor (Dollard et al., 1939). The focus on men may overlook women’s dominance behaviors, often expressed differently, such as through relational aggression.
Environmental factors like poverty, trauma, and substance abuse, often cited as primary drivers, can be reframed as forms of suppression. Poverty restricts agency, limiting men’s ability to achieve desired goals, effectively suppressing dominance. Trauma often stems from helplessness or lack of control, reinforcing the theory’s premise. Substance abuse may serve as an escape from perceived powerlessness, further tying it to suppressed dominance. In the case studies, suppressed dominance appears as a more central factor than psychopathy alone, as Dahmer’s need to “own,” Bundy’s targeted killings, and Kohlhepp’s controlled murders reflect efforts to reclaim power.
Implications and Future Directions
While interventions like cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) have reduced aggression by improving emotional regulation (Novaco, 2011), forcing behavioral change may address symptoms rather than root causes. Behaviors often stem from past interactions and thoughts, suggesting prevention—creating environments that allow healthy expressions of dominance, like leadership or sports—is more effective than corrective measures like CBT, which may act as a temporary fix for deeper issues akin to excessive “water pressure” in a flawed system. Social structures that provide constructive outlets for dominance could reduce the need for harmful expressions.
Future research should test the thought-action divide through longitudinal studies, tracking men with varying impulse control under social constraints. Experimental designs exploring masculinity threats could measure cognitive and behavioral responses. Cross-cultural studies could clarify how norms shape dominance and its suppression, refining the theory’s scope.
Conclusion
The theory that suppressing dominance in men with low impulse control is a primary driver of dangerous behaviors is strongly supported, given the prevalence of dominance-oriented thoughts in men. Most men may feel these urges, but those with weaker self-regulation, as seen in cases like Dahmer, Bundy, and Kohlhepp, are more likely to act harmfully. Environmental factors like poverty, trauma, and substance abuse are significant but often reflect suppressed dominance—poverty limits agency, trauma stems from helplessness, and substance abuse serves as an escape from powerlessness. By prioritizing prevention through healthy outlets for dominance and addressing self-regulation early, society can mitigate harmful outcomes while respecting individual and cultural differences.
References
Aamodt, M. G. (2016). Serial Killer Statistics. Radford University.Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8(4), 291–322.
Archer, J., & Coyne, S. M. (2013). A comprehensive review of the evolutionary psychology of aggression. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(1), 1–12.
Booth, A., & Osgood, D. W. (1993). The influence of testosterone on deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship. Criminology, 31(1), 93–117.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Intimate Partner Violence: Fact Sheet. CDC.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowitum: 4 | Average: 4.4
Fodor, E. M., Wick, D. P., & Hartsen, K. M. (2006). The power motive and affective response to assertiveness. Journal of Research in Personality, 40Virtudes: 4 | Average: 4.4
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
Novaco, R. W. (2011). Anger regulation. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 325–346). Guilford Press.
Vescio, T. K., & Schermerhorn, N. E. (2023). Masculinity threats sequentially arouse public discomfort, anger, and positive attitudes toward sexual violence. Psychology of Men & Masculinities.