Teachers Aren’t Therapists: But We Can Still See the Signs

As a classroom teacher, I’ve supported many students in developing their socioemotional skills alongside academic growth. While some competencies followed predictable patterns across grade level ranges, individual differences were common—some students advanced more quickly in areas such as goal-setting, self-efficacy/reflection, and interpersonal skills. I found these kinds of competencies were often aligned with their disposition, a part of their personality, for higher conscientiousness, average openness, or lower neuroticism.

Nevertheless, it became part of my responsibility to teach academic content while also recognizing and supporting the development of these social-emotional needs.

Looking back, however, I can recall a select few students who stood out as cases where I felt their behaviors were beyond my capacity to help them. Unfortunately, with little training in this area during my initial years of teaching, I was not always working with more than an intuitive sense of socioemotional competency. For these select few, my efforts would face a unique kind of resistance, a lack and seeming unwillingness to understand certain ideas about how their actions are making other people feel—an awareness I had assumed inherently developed in all humans at varying rates from which other competencies organically developed. Over the years, though, these select few have allowed me to consider that they may not necessarily be "missing" that awareness but, rather, were developmentally predispositioned and environmentally conditioned to have the minimum amount of it.

Today, looking back, it comes down to one question:

"Were these students just struggling with social-emotional skills, or was I dealing with something deeper?"

It’s a critical distinction and is one that affects how we respond, who we involve, and what supports we offer. In this article, I’ll unpack the difference between a lack in socioemotional competencies (deficits) and the development of sociopathy, and why it matters in schools.

"Is this student just struggling with social-emotional skills, or are we dealing with something deeper?"

Common SEL Challenges:

Most classroom teachers regularly encounter students developing core social-emotional learning (SEL) competencies like recognizing and managing emotions, showing empathy, making responsible decisions, building relationships, and handling interpersonal conflict. These are foundational skills embedded in many schoolwide behavior expectations—and yet, how they show up in each student varies dramatically.

Some students are naturally self-reflective and empathetic. Others need reminders to pause before acting, or support naming their emotions. Some rely on humor to connect, while others withdraw under stress. And still others challenge authority but respond well to consistent relationships.

In other words, even typical socioemotional development isn’t necessarily "linear". It’s shaped by individual temperament, background, developmental readiness, and personality. As teachers, we get to know many of our students as we learn to read their emotional language, adapt our supports, and hold space for slow progress. The rewards, of course, are well worth the hard work.

And then, occasionally, we encounter behaviors that don’t follow this developmental arc—patterns that don’t improve with time, reflection, or support. That’s when the question becomes: Is this still social-emotional learning... or is it something deeper?

When it's just an SEL deficit

Students who struggle with impulse control, blurt out in class, or say hurtful things and then melt into a mix of sadness and anger (aka regret) after realizing what they've done, these students are showing signs of development in socioemotional competencies. A significant part of "school" has always been the social aspect of making social mistakes and learning coping mechanisms for dealing with those mistakes in effective and meaningful ways.

Students with SEL deficits often:

• Misread social cues or tone

• Overreact emotionally to small conflicts

• Struggle with empathy but want to do better

• Feel overwhelmed, embarrassed, or frustrated by their behavior (or others)

And these kinds of observable developmental competencies often align with their cognitive and psychosocial stages of development, and growth can often be assumed to take place over months, or years, so many teachers do their best to take individual incidents as "just part of growing up" rather than a significant sign of anything deeper than that.

Over the last decade or so, school and teachers have become more educated on specific sociomotional competencies. We are more aware of how knowledge and skills related to intra- and interpersonal development can be taught, practiced, and strengthened over time through programs, modeling, counseling, and restorative practices (Elias et al., 1997; Jones et al., 2013).

Sociopathy: When it's more than just "part of growing up"

Children naturally experiment with dishonesty, social testing, and avoidance of accountability as part of their developmental journey. Lying to avoid consequences, manipulating caregivers to gain favor, or withdrawing from responsibility are behaviors that, in moderation, help children explore moral boundaries and understand social expectations.

However, when these behaviors become persistent, patterned, and devoid of remorse or empathy, they may reflect more than just a delay in areas of socioemotional development. In some cases, they align with traits of sociopathy—formally associated with Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD)—where the root of the behavior lies in deeper neurological and behavioral dysfunction.

Studies have shown that sociopathic tendencies often stem from both environmental adversity and neurobiological abnormalities. For example, individuals with ASPD commonly show deficits in brain structures such as the amygdala and prefrontal cortex—regions crucial for moral reasoning, impulse control, and emotional regulation (Yang & Raine, 2009; Blair, 2013). These deficits result in a diminished emotional response to the distress of others, reduced capacity for guilt, and impaired decision-making regarding right and wrong.

The Biology of Emotional Response

The human brain is remarkably plastic—its structure and function can be shaped by experience, environment, and intentional practice. For instance, research has shown that targeted behavioral interventions such as mindfulness and meditation can reduce the volume of an overreactive amygdala, leading to decreased reactivity to stress and improved emotional regulation (Gotink et al., 2018). However, this same region’s structure can also be inherently small and has been linked to increased aggression and psychopathic traits. Pardini et al. (2014) found that young men with smaller amygdalae were more likely to demonstrate lifelong patterns of aggression and reduced empathy, suggesting that early neurological differences can strongly influence social-emotional development.

Similarly, functional MRI studies demonstrate that individuals with elevated antisocial traits often show abnormal asymmetries in brain activity—particularly in the amygdala and thalamus—when processing emotional stimuli, suggesting a blunted response to emotional or moral cues (Raine et al., 1997; Glenn et al., 2009).

Even more telling is how children and adolescents with callous-unemotional traits—considered early markers of psychopathy—display a unique profile. These youth often recognize social rules and emotional expectations but do not emotionally resonate with them. Their behaviors may be deliberate and strategic rather than impulsive, with little internal discomfort about causing harm (Frick & Viding, 2009).

These findings are not meant to pathologize all misbehavior but rather to help educators and school psychologists differentiate between skill gaps and traits that may indicate the need for more specialized support. Understanding the neurological and developmental mechanisms behind sociopathic traits underscores the importance of long-term observation, cross-disciplinary collaboration, and an informed approach to intervention.

A Note on Psychopathy: How It Differs from Sociopathy

Though often used interchangeably, psychopathy and sociopathy represent distinct behavioral patterns with important implications for schools. Both conditions show neurological involvement, particularly in areas linked to empathy and moral reasoning (Blair, 2007; Yang & Raine, 2009).

However, psychopathy tends to be more biologically rooted, emerge earlier in development, and is marked by emotional coldness, shallow affect, and calculated manipulation. Full-blown psychopathy is rare in children, but similar indications such as callous-unemotional traits may indicate risk for more persistent and severe antisocial behavior (Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2014).

Sociopathy often reflects a stronger interaction with environmental factors, such as trauma, neglect, or inconsistent caregiving, resulting in maladaptive development of emotional regulation and interpersonal awareness. This can often involve impulsivity, emotional volatility, and a disregard for others that develops over time. While both profiles present serious concerns, sociopathic behaviors are generally more responsive to structured accountability, adult guidance, and relationship-based intervention.

For an interesting exploration of neurological and behavioral distinctions in human development, consider reading The Psychopath Inside by neuroscientist James H. Fallon.

Remember: educators do not diagnose; they communicate pattern and response over time.

---

About Empathy: Critical Distinctions Are Not Always Clear

Empathy is the ability to understand, feel, and respond to the emotions of others. It involves both recognizing what someone else is experiencing emotionally and being able to emotionally connect or resonate with that experience.

The challenge with empathy is that, while it is not infinite, it is rechargeable and its capacity is expandable with intentional training and support.

Empathy is often divided into three main components:

1. Cognitive Empathy – Understanding another person’s thoughts, perspective, or mental state (e.g., “I can see why they feel that way”). This is often confused with sympathy.

2. Emotional (Affective) Empathy – Actually feeling what another person feels (e.g., feeling sadness when someone else is grieving).

3. Compassionate (Empathic Concern) – The motivation to act or help in response to another's distress (e.g., offering comfort or assistance).

Empathy differs from sympathy, which is feeling for someone rather than with them. While sympathy maintains emotional distance, empathy involves emotional attunement and connection, which makes it essential for building relationships, resolving conflict, and supporting social awareness and developing interpersonal skills.

When is Empathy Simply Underdeveloped?

Educators may struggle to distinguish between the emotional immaturity caused by SEL deficits and a genuine lack of empathy rooted in sociopathy.

Research indicates that empathy emerges early in life and is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors (Findlay et al., 2006). Children with SEL deficits may struggle with recognizing and expressing empathy but often show improvement with appropriate support. For instance, Findlay et al. (2006) show that children higher in empathy are more socially sensitive than their less-empathic peers.

Trait	Sociopathy	SEL Deficiency
Empathy	Lacks genuin emotional empathy	Struggles with recognizing/expressing empathy
Motivation to Change	Minimal, may fake compliance	Generally eager to improve
Awareness of Harm	Aware but indifferent	Often unaware until it’s pointed out
Response to Support	Resistant, may manipulate adults	Receptive to adult guidance and coaching

The key challenge isn’t just identifying behavior, but understanding what’s behind it—and that’s where the distinction can get blurry.

Students with SEL deficits often misread social cues, overreact emotionally, or say the wrong thing without intending harm. With support, they typically begin to show signs of regret, emotional awareness, and prosocial growth (Elias et al., 1997; Jones, Bouffard, & Weissbourd, 2013).

In contrast, some students may imitate emotional responses without internal change. Research on callous-unemotional (CU) traits, a recognized specifier in the DSM-5 for conduct disorder, shows that these students may lack remorse, empathy, and emotional depth altogether (Frick, Ray, Thornton, & Kahn, 2014). These traits are thought to have both biological and environmental components and are often stable over time, especially when paired with manipulative behavior and superficial charm (Viding & McCrory, 2012).

Educators may feel (understandably) unqualified to determine whether a student’s concern is real or rehearsed—especially when behaviors fall in a grey area. That’s why no single incident should guide our judgment. Instead, we focus on consistent observation across settings, peer and staff collaboration, and professional curiosity—not clinical diagnosis. As Zahn-Waxler and colleagues (1992) emphasize, even very young children can express early signs of empathy, and this development is sensitive to adult response and environment.

Download this PDF for scenario examples and ideas for intervention:

Reflection Guide SEL vs Sociopathy.pdf

Download PDF • 4.05MB

Distinguishing between underdeveloped empathy and deeper emotional detachment helps schools align their responses including coaching and modeling for skill gaps and more coordinated communication with families when patterns suggest something beyond SEL.

Ultimately, educators are encouraged to withhold judgment, watch for behavioral patterns, and respond based on developmental need rather than assumptions—because what looks like defiance might still be an opportunity for growth. How we interpret behavior will often determine how we respond to it:

• If we punish a student with SEL deficits, we miss a teachable moment.

• If we trust a student with sociopathic tendencies to self-correct, we may unintentionally enable manipulation or harm.

---

Final Thought: Finding Balance with Home-School Connections

In schools, compassion and clarity must walk hand in hand. A student struggling to connect emotionally due to underdeveloped social-emotional skills deserves patience, modeling, and opportunities to grow through collaborative support systems. But when a student consistently harms, manipulates, or shows no genuine concern for others, educators must respond with clear boundaries, consistent structures, and (when necessary) collaboration with school or district psychologists.

Still, schools cannot and should not carry this responsibility alone.

When families and schools work together—sharing what they notice, reinforcing strategies across environments, and engaging in honest, nonjudgmental dialogue—students are far more likely to develop the empathy, insight, and accountability they need. And when those partnerships are grounded in shared expectations, clear communication, and a commitment to growth over blame, even difficult behaviors can be addressed with both rigor and humanity.

The goal isn’t for educators to become diagnosticians, nor do we want parents or teachers to feel blamed. The goal is for every adult in a child’s life to stay observant, stay collaborative, and stay committed to helping each student become more capable of connecting with others and managing their impact on their community of peers.

Because when we respond not with a clinical lens, but with clear expectations, coordinated support, and school–home alignment, we give every student the best opportunity to grow—while protecting the well-being of the classroom and the community around them.

Greg Mullen

May 11, 2025

General Consult

Book Now

References

Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.07.003

Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R., Schwab-Stone, M. E., & Shriver, T. P. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators. ASCD.

Findlay, L. C., Girardi, A., & Coplan, R. J. (2006). Links between empathy, social behavior, and social understanding in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.009

Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033076

Frick, P. J., & Viding, E. (2009). Antisocial behavior from a developmental psychopathology perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 21(4), 1111–1131. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990071

Glenn, A. L., Raine, A., & Schug, R. A. (2009). The neural correlates of moral decision-making in psychopathy. Molecular Psychiatry, 14(1), 5–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2008.104

Gotink, R. A., Vernooij, M. W., Ikram, M. A., Niessen, W. J., Krestin, G. P., Hofman, A., Tiemeier, H., & Hunink, M. G. M. (2018). Meditation and yoga practice are associated with smaller right amygdala volume: The Rotterdam study. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 12(6), 1631–1639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-018-9826-z

Jones, S. M., Bouffard, S. M., & Weissbourd, R. (2013). Educators’ social and emotional skills vital to learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(8), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171309400815

Pardini, D. A., Raine, A., Erickson, K., & Loeber, R. (2014). Lower amygdala volume in men is associated with childhood aggression, early psychopathic traits, and future violence. Biological Psychiatry, 75(1), 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.04.003

Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & LaCasse, L. (1997). Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography. Biological Psychiatry, 42(6), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00362-9

Viding, E., & McCrory, E. J. (2012). Why should we care about measuring callous–unemotional traits in children? The British Journal of Psychiatry, 200(3), 177–178. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.099770

Yang, Y., & Raine, A. (2009). Prefrontal structural and functional brain imaging findings in antisocial, violent, and psychopathic individuals: A meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 174(2), 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pscychresns.2009.06.003

Zahn-Waxler, C., Radke-Yarrow, M., Wagner, E., & Chapman, M. (1992). Development of concern for others. Developmental Psychology, 28(1), 126–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.126