PERSONALITY AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: RECONSIDERING THE INDIVIDUAL. A dissertation submitted to the

Transcription

1 PERSONALITY AND CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: RECONSIDERING THE INDIVIDUAL A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the Division of Criminal Justice of the College of Education 2001 by Shelley Johnson Listwan B.S., Wright State University, 1995 M.S., University of Cincinnati, 1996 Committee Chair: Patricia Van Voorhis 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS.1 TABLE OF TABLES...4 TABLE OF FIGURES. 6 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... 7 METHOD....9 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW. 11 FINDING VALUE IN INDIVIDUAL THEORIES Definition of an Elusive Concept Psychological Foundations of Personality Personality Trait Measurement A Paradigm Crisis State versus Trait Summary THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL CONTEXT OF THE CURRENT STUDY Grounds for Excluding the Individual PERSONALITY AND CRIME The EPQ and Crime The MPQ and Crime Summary DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY AND PERSONALITY Self Control Theory Lifecourse Theory Developmental Theory Summary PERSONALITY AND CORRECTIONS Effective Classification Psychological Classification Systems Summary AN INTEGRATION OF PERSONALITY TYPES Relationship Between Types CONCLUSIONS CHAPTER 3: METHOD METHOD.61 Design Sample

3 MEASUREMENT OF RESEARCH VARIABLES Independent Variables Dependent Variables DATA ANALYSIS Model #1: Personality and Any New Arrest Model #2: Personality and Frequency of Arrest Model #3: Personality and the Seriousness of the Offense CHAPTER 4: RESULTS RESULTS Multivariate Analysis of Arrest: Model Multivariate Analysis of Multiple Arrests: Model Multivariate Analysis of Offense Type: Model CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS. 109 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Limitations SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BROADER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS REFERENCES.128 APPENDIX A..140 APPENDIX B 146 APPENDIX C..155 APPENDIX D 162 APPENDIX E 168 APPENDIX F 171 3

4 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1. Summary of key personality constructs for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. 26 Table 2. Summary of key personality constructs for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire...32 Table 3. Summary of key predictors of criminal behavior Table 4. Summary of Interpersonal maturity levels Table 5. Summary of key personality constructs for the Jesness Inventory.. 52 Table 6. Summary of key personality constructs for the collapsed Jesness Inventory types Table 7. Relationship between EPQ, MPQ and Jesness I-level, personality, and collapsed types Table 8. Percentage and frequency distribution of participants social demographic characteristics..64 Table 9. Percentage and frequency distribution of participants prior and current offense record Table 10. Percentage and frequency distribution of participants I-level and personality types Table 11. Percentage and frequency distribution of participants Salient Factor Scores. 74 Table 12. Percentage and frequency distribution of participants recidivism rates Table 13. Distribution by Year of Parolees at Risk (Model 1) Table 14. Distribution by Year of Parolees at Risk (Model 3: Drug Offenses)..86 Table 15. Distribution by Year of Parolees at Risk (Model 3: Property Offenses) 87 Table 16. Distribution by Year of Parolees at Risk (Model 3: Violent Offenses)...88 Table 17. Model 1 Logistic Regression: Probability of Rearrest by Personality & Control Variables

5 Table 18. Model 2 Logistic Regression: Probability of Multiple Rearrest by Personality & Control Variables Table 19. Model 3 Logistic Regression: Probability of Rearrest for a Drug Offense by Personality & Control Variables Table 20. Model 3 Logistic Regression: Probability of Rearrest for a Drug Offense by Personality & Control Variables..103 Table 21. Model 3 Logistic Regression: Probability of Rearrest by Personality & Control Variables predicting Property Offenses Table 22. Model 3 Logistic Regression: Probability of Rearrest by Personality & Control Variables predicting Violent Offenses 108 5

6 TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1. Rearrest rates by personality type...88 Figure 2. Rearrest rates by personality type: Low risk...91 Figure 3. Rearrest rates by personality type: High risk Figure 4. Personality predicting multiple rearrest.. 94 Figure 5. Rearrest rate by personality type: Drug offenses Figure 6. Rearrest rate by I-level type: Drug offenses. 100 Figure 7. Rearrest rate by personality type: Property offenses Figure 8. Rearrest rate by personality type: Violent offenses

7 CHAPTER 1 Introduction Understanding why crime occurs requires an appreciation for the complexity of human behavior. Behavior is not determined by one factor, but rather influenced by a host of interrelated factors (Bandura, Reese, & Adams, 1982). For example, an individual s reaction to losing his or her job may vary according to factors such as age, coping skills, personality, future job opportunities, level of social support, or financial status. Thus, both individual and structural level factors are essential to explaining current behavior and to predicting future behavior. Related to this, the field of criminology has intended to be interdisciplinary in nature and should logically support the inclusion of literature from other disciplines. One such discipline that is particularly relevant is psychology. However, some scholars assert that criminologists often fail to consider psychological variables in their research (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Andrews & Wormith, 1988). One glaring omission in this regard is criminology s refusal to acknowledge wellestablished findings showing a relationship between personality and crime (Andrews and Wormith, 1989). Until the recent inclusion of personality as a key factor in social learning (Andrews and Bonta, 1998) and several life course paradigms (see Caspi, Moffitt, Silva, Stouthamer-Loeber, Kreuger, & Schmutte, 1994) interest in personality and crime was primarily confined to corrections. Most notably during the 1960s and 1970s, Quay and Parsons (1972), Edwin Megargee (1983; 1984), Marguerite Warren 7

8 (1966) and Carl Jesness (1964) created a number of psychological typologies designed to differentiate offenders for correctional treatment purposes. A number of studies find the personality types identified by those typologies to be relevant to offender behavior (Van Voorhis, 1994; Heide, 1982; and Jesness, 1988). More recently, correctional scholars (see Andrews & Bonta, 1998) identify personality as a responsivity consideration, which recognizes that individual characteristics may influence the success of correctional programming. Notwithstanding the important findings from the classification research, few studies have used classification models as measures of personality, developmental, or behavioral contributors to models of crime causation (Van Voorhis, 1994, p. 8). This is unfortunate because a number of the types identified by the correctional typologies will be shown to mirror those scales utilized by criminologists such as Eysenck (1996) and Caspi et al. (1994). Drawing from several paradigms, the present study explores the relationship between one correctional typology, the Jesness Inventory, and long-term recidivism. In doing so, the correctional paradigm is moved into the broader field of criminology to assess its utility to explain, not simply correctional adjustment, but criminal behavior. Moreover, a relationship between types identified by the Jesness Inventory and recidivism supports its use as a measure of the constructs paralleled by the abovementioned criminologists. As outlined in the lifecourse and developmental research, the study will also explore whether certain personality types are related to persistent criminal behavior. Finally, this study utilizes long term recidivism data to explore the full extent or 8

9 potential of the Jesness Inventory in predicting criminal behavior. It is theorized that if the personality subtypes defined by the Jesness Inventory are useful in predicting recidivism, the research will imply that personality should be added to existing risk assessment models to increase their predictive power. As a result, the current research will address both applied and theoretical issues. To date, no one has taken these two areas of research and bridged the gap to develop a better understanding of criminal behavior and to improve predictions of its likelihood. Method The current study extends a previous classification study conducted at a federal penitentiary and prison camp in Terre Haute, Indiana between 1986 and The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded study 1, conducted by Patricia Van Voorhis, accumulated extensive intake data on federal prison inmates. The original sample includes 179 federal penitentiary inmates and 190 prison camp inmates. This intake cohort is one of very few samples to contain personality-based classification measures of adult male offenders. The research approach for the proposed study builds from the design of the initial classification study. Given the sample is of federal inmates, recidivism data includes nationwide arrest statistics by individuals. These data were collected via the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database by a pretrial services center in a midwestern county. The following dependent measures will be constructed: (a) time at risk to first offense, (b) time at risk to each offense (for those arrested multiple times), and (c) nature or seriousness of the offense. Preparing the data in this manner will facilitate a recidivism analysis that accounts 9

10 for time to first offense, the frequency and rate of offending, and the nature of the offense. The data will afford the opportunity to employ bivariate and multivariate analyses. Event history will be used to study the probability of arrest. By using this technique, the study will distinguish whether those who fail (i.e., incur an arrest) differ by personality type while controlling for time at risk. In conclusion, using the Jesness Inventory and other data from this sample of federal inmates, the proposed study endeavors to document the relationship between personality and criminal behavior. If personality types set forth by the Jesness Inventory are useful in predicting recidivism, they may also be useful in theory development, risk assessment technology, and understanding the adult male offender. The following research questions will be addressed: (1) Are certain personality subtypes related to criminal recidivism? And if so, which ones? (2) Do certain personality subtypes predict persistence? And if so, which ones? (3) Can personality subtypes be used to predict the nature of the offense? (4) Will the relationships found in the empirical literature on personality and crime also be found in the current study limited to federal inmates? (5) Can the Jesness Inventory be used to predict criminal behavior over time? (6) Should personality be added to existing risk assessment models to further increase the predictive power of more traditional predictors of recidivism (i.e. age, prior record, and substance abuse)? 1 Grant Number 85-IJ-CX

11 CHAPTER 2 Literature Review This chapter reviews the theoretical groundwork and empirical findings regarding personality and crime. A substantial amount of research is examined to discern the following: (a) how the construct of personality has developed over time in the field of psychology, (b) why psychology was neglected in criminology theory, discourse, and research, (c) what conclusions cab be drawn from the current crime and personality literature, (d) how personality fits into current theories such as self control, lifecourse, and developmental criminology, (e) how personality is used in correctional typologies to differentiate offenders for treatment, and (f) whether personality can be used to predict future criminal behavior. Finding Value in Individual Theories Definition of an Elusive Concept Gestalt psychologists maintain that in order to understand the whole, you must take into consideration the sum of its parts. To understand individual behavior, a number of factors such as personality must be considered. Personality researchers are concerned with providing an account of how individuals differ from one another in their behavior (Derlega, Winstead, & Jones, 1989). The study of personality focuses on the stable and enduring characteristics influence emotion, motivation, and behavior. That is not to say that all behavior is stable and not subject to external influences, rather that human behavior can change over time and that an individual s behavior is often influenced by situational factors. But it is still possible to speak of a set of personality characteristics 11

12 that organize behavior (Derlega, et al, 1989, p. 4). Those sets of characteristics, then, could also be used to explain criminal behavior. Defining exactly what personality is, however, remains somewhat problematic. Some psychologists theorize that individual definitions are a reflection of the researcher s bias rather than a true reflection of the construct (Allport, 1937; Hall & Lindzey, 1957 Murray, 1938; Eysenck, 1983). In fact, in the 1930s and 1940s, a time in which the study of personality was gaining prominence, one author recorded over 50 definitions of the construct (Allport, 1937). However, for the purpose of this study, personality will be defined as follows: the dynamic organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his (or her) unique adjustments to his (her) environments (Allport, 1937, p.48). Personality is seen as evolving and dynamic, determining actions; as every person is unique but also shares similar characteristics (Allport, 1937). Psychological Foundations of Personality It is important to mention that although the early research on personality was not concerned with criminal behavior, per se, its focus on explaining general behavior remains applicable. A brief review of the historical development of the construct and the varied ways in which it is measured are essential to defending its place in criminological discourse. Personality research originated in the 1930s with the work of Gordon Allport and Henry Murray (Pervin, 1990). Although the study of personality developed throughout the decade, Gordon Allport s 1939 work, Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, lent clear definition to this emerging field. Allport criticized psychologists for 12

13 consistently ignoring the individual for a more generalized study of human behavior. By rejecting the view that all behavior is composed of simple innate habits, Allport defined personality. The author introduced the concept that personality guides behavior and decisions as people interact with the environment (Pervin, 1990). Allport recognized that personality developed early in life and was influenced by external factors in the environment. Personality, according to Allport, emerges around four months of age, and develops continually while consistently influencing behavior. Unlike criminologists such as Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), however, Allport notes that the consistency of personality at four months of age should not be taken to imply that personality is fixed during the first year of life; rather later circumstances or interventions can have a tremendous impact (Allport, 1937). The importance of Allport s book at this time was paralleled by the work of Henry Murray (Pervin, 1990). Murray (1938) concurred with Allport and claimed that psychologists have ignored the individual in their analyses. Murray advocated for uncovering the determinants of single behavioral events. He viewed the individual as consisting of an infinitely complex series of temporally related activities extending from birth to death (p.39). Murray (1938) sought an understanding of the consistency of personality while also recognizing that it is subject to maturation. That is, that individuals display a tendency to react consistently but that fluctuations may occur. Personality Trait Measurement The study of personality gained prominence throughout the 1930s and 1940s, however, one problem persisted: the measurement of personality traits. Strictly speaking, no two individuals have an identical organization of personality traits, but rather develop 13

14 comparable characteristics that are manifested differently (Allport, 1938). Assuming individual personality traits can be labeled, determining which labels to use was a complex task. For example, Allport (1937) found there are approximately 18,000 terms (chiefly adjectives) in the English language designating distinctive and personal forms of behavior (p. 304). Within these groups of adjectives, it is theorized that some represent major or cardinal traits and other minor or secondary traits (Allport, 1937). The field of psychology needed a taxonomy that would permit researchers to study and replicate personality traits across individuals instead of studying thousands of adjectives (John, 1990). The work of Cattell (1950) set the stage for the measurement of personality variables. Cattell criticized psychologists for jumping into personality research without thoroughly dealing with the task of objectively describing and measuring its components. The author argued that psychologists relied on the clinical guesswork in their efforts to determine personality structure (Cattell, 1965). As a result, factor analysis gained popularity as a way to develop a taxonomy of personality. The procedure involves present(ing) hundreds-in the long run thousands- of carefully chosen items to large groups of normal persons. Each item is then correlated with every other to see which sets go together (Cattell, 1965, p. 70). The factor analytic approach can be used to compile traits with the recognition that there are natural unitary structures in personality and that it is these traits, rather than the endless labels in the dictionary, on which we should concentrate (Cattell, 1965, p. 55). Once factor analytic procedures produced personality factors, psychologists began constructing questionnaires. In addition, both World War I and World War II led to the 14

15 need for mass standardized testing of soldiers. This need combined with the inception of graduate programs in clinical psychology acted as a catalyst to the development of the standardized personality questionnaire. As such, the development and widespread use of the MMPI (Hathaway & Meehl, 1951), a paper and pencil instrument consisting of 566 statements, would become the framework for many of the personality tests to emerge (Pervin, 1990). Unfortunately the widespread expansion of personality tests also fueled a paradigm crisis. A Paradigm Crisis This rapidly developing branch of psychology did not escape the 1950s and 60s without difficulties. In fact, the study of personality all but disappeared during the 1960s (Pervin, 1980). Negative research findings fueled the eventual shift away from personality research. Specifically, studies testing the reliability and validity of personality scales were not meeting with success. Moreover, there still was no agreed upon definition of personality, researchers were using a variety of instruments that were plagued by response bias, and many studies were breaking down under replication (Pervin, 1980). These factors led many to question the utility of assessing such an abstract construct. Furthering the crisis, Mischel critiqued traditional psychology in support of the situational perspective (Pervin, 1990). Proponents of the situational perspective advocated a shift from emphasizing traits to exploring how individuals cognitively perceive and respond to the environment (Mischel, 1990). The situational perspective was seen as important throughout the 1970s, with one notable exception: the development of the interactional perspective. Researchers began arguing that the trait and situational approaches need not be at odds with one another 15

16 (Epstein & O Brien, 1985; Kendrick & Funder, 1988; Magnusson, 1990). For example, Epstein and O Brien (1985) outline the interaction focus as follows interactionism provides a reasonable resolution to the person-situation debate as behavior can never be determined by the person or the situation alone, but is always the result of the interaction between them (p. 515). In addition, Kendrick and Funder (1988) reviewed the arguments proposed by the situationists and advocated for a more inclusive model that viewed traits as influencing behavior indirectly by causing the individual to respond to different environmental settings and events. Similarly, Eysenck & Eysenck (1985) argue that individuals choose the situations in which they find themselves; therefore, situations are the consequence of an already existing system of perceptions and attitudes influenced by personality traits. Magnusson (1990) concurred and argued that past experiences influence current thought and shape the individual; however, the individual s personality influences and paints the situations he or she will experience. Related to this was the development of Albert Bandura s social learning theory (Pervin, 1990). Social learning theories embrace the complexity of this perspective insisting that individual behavior is the result of the interaction between the individual s prior learning and the immediate environment. From this socio-cognitive perspective, learning and behavior are driven by and individual s perception of the world and their personality experiences. Individual behavior and reactions emerge as the result of both mimicking the behavior of others and from past behaviors that were reinforced (Bandura, 1989). As such, features of the environment that include interactions with others both facilitate and inhibit behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 1998). Social learning theories delineate the 16

17 importance of environmental stimuli while not discounting the importance of individual traits 2 (Bandura, 1989; Bierman & Furman, 1984; Farrington, 1994; and Moffitt, 1993). In a similar vein, self-efficacy beliefs are theorized to affect thought patterns and influence motivation. That is, those with high-perceived self-efficacy were more likely to set higher goals and view themselves as competent and capable (Bandura, 1989). Selfefficacy becomes increasingly important as we explore the literature with regard to personality. Bandura (1989) theorizes that people possess self-directive capabilities that enable them to exercise some control over their thoughts, feelings, and actions by the consequences they produce for themselves (p. 1179). State versus Trait Throughout this discussion, personality has been portrayed as relatively stable and enduring. However, some critics of personality theory often assert that traits are merely states of mind or moods that constantly fluctuate (Mischel, 1968). Specifically, the construct of neuroticism is questioned as a state of mind and not a stable or enduring personality trait. Neuroticism has been defined as a mood dispositional dimension that reflects the pervasive individual differences in negative emotionality and self concept (Brief, Burke, George, Robinson, & Websert, 1988). Although many would agree that anxiety can exist as a state of mind, others argue for its consistency across time and situations (Tellegen, 1985). Researchers have found that anxiety can exist both as a state of mind and as a personality trait. Studies conclude that individuals higher in trait anxiety are consistently more prone to perceive greater danger in their relationships and respond with greater 2 Yet early social learning theorists did not specifically focus on personality. 17

18 elevations of situational or state anxiety (Speilberger, 1985). Individuals with high trait anxiety, often called negative affectivity, tend to be distressed and have a very negative view of themselves, often worry, and tend to dwell on frustrations and disappointments (Watson & Clark, 1984). Moreover, individuals high in neuroticism were shown to be more distressed on average in comparison to low neuroticism subjects. This difference could be attributed to a lower threshold for responding to stressful events among highly neurotic subjects (Bolger & Schillings, 1991). Although some individuals may experience these feelings as a state of mind during times of stress, those high in negative affectivity manifest these feelings even in the absence of stress (Watson & Clark, 1984). In sum, the research concludes that personality traits, including neuroticism, are enduring and consistently affect behavior. Summary Personality research emerged in the 1930s and research continues to the present. Although the feasibility of measuring personality has been questioned in the past, the development of increasingly reliable tools now provides support for further research. Moreover, factor analysis has proven to be a reliable tool in the construction of personality scales and data support the validity and reliability of recent personality inventories (Church, 1994; McCrae & John, 1992; & Tellegen, 1985). Although the development of personality research did not escape the scrutiny of situationists, many psychologists embrace a more tempered view of personality. That is, individual s react with the environment but also that individual s choose the situations in which they find themselves and the situations are the consequence of an already existing system of perceptions and attitudes influenced by personality traits (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1985). 18

19 A review of modern personality texts will reveal that there are many areas relevant to explaining individual behavior. Only a few have been discussed, however, the hope is that this review will provide a historical framing, albeit brief, of how personality has evolved over the last seventy years. Furthermore, in the field of criminology, personality and crime causation studies are supporting the idea that personality is a worthwhile area of inquiry. The focus of the following sections will now shift to the review of how personality influenced the field of criminology. Theoretical and Empirical Context of the Current Study During the 1930s when the field of psychology was adopting personality as an important factor in the explanation of individual behavior, criminology shifted away from individual- centered explanations. As a result, the criminological literature has been dominated by sociological theories for the majority of the twentieth century. Science traditionally values knowledge based in theory that is supported by data and empirical findings. However, with the exception of a few researchers such as Eysenck (1964), studies since the 1950s regarding personality and crime have been limited. For example, Stitt and Giacopassi (1992) concluded that one of the leading journals in the field, Criminology, has only published four articles on the link between personality and crime since its inception. Moreover, a review of Criminology journal issues from 1990 to 2000, conducted by the author, found only three additional personality articles 3. There are a number of justifications cited as to why the field has been dominated by more 3 Self control articles were excluded given the authors argue that self-control is not a psychological construct. 19

20 environmental causes of crime. Grounds for Excluding the Individual For a number of reasons, explanations of crime have drawn heavily from sociology and only tangentially from other disciplines such as psychology and biology. The lack of individual-centered theories and research was justified by some on moral grounds. That is, psychological research was discounted in an effort to protect the individual from being labeled different and confined or segregated based on these differences (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Andrews & Wormith, 1989; and Hirschi & Hindeland, 1977). Psychological theories were mentioned in the context of Lombroso s (1911) or Hooten s (1939) work pertaining to physical inferiority. This type of research did in fact arm some researchers in the early 1900s with evidence to support their own personal biases (Gould, 1980); however, it did not itself negate the existence of individual differences. As a result of the fear of abuse, criminological research moved away from the individual and toward structural explanations of behavior (Andrews & Bonta, 1998, & Lilly, Cullen, & Ball, 1994). However, as pointed out by Andrews and Wormith (1989) although this type of moral reasoning is appreciated in view of some abuse in the early history of correctional treatment, it is obviously suspect on more general grounds (p. 290). Other than protecting the offender, psychological considerations were ignored on professional grounds. Specifically, Andrews & Wormith (1989) point out, professionally, many sociologists discounted psychological contributions in order to promote the importance of their favored variables of political economy, social location, social reaction, and inequality in the distribution of societal resources (p. 291). This 20

21 trend is seen in three popular reviews of the psychological literature (See e.g.; Schuessler & Cressey, 1950; Tennenbaum, 1977; and Waldo & Dinitz, 1967). The studies all found differences in the personalities of offenders and non-offenders even when only four of the 30 different personality tests employed in the early studies were able to meet the psychometric standards of the 1960s (Andrews and Wormith, p. 300, 1989) In another example of this trend, Vold and Bernard (1986) acknowledge a link between personality and crime but as pointed out by Andrews and Wormith (1989), dismissed the link as providing no theoretical relevance to understanding criminal behavior. Interestingly, these reviews were met with resounding support and uncritical acceptance (Hirschi and Hindelang, 1977). Hence, it appears the bias against theories of personality and crime had less to do with protecting the disadvantaged and more to do with protecting sociological criminology. A third factor related to what has been termed anti-individual bias, (Andrews & Wormith, 1989) is the effect of the political crisis during the 1960s and 1970s. Most often the anti-individual bias is discussed in relation to the demise of rehabilitation (See e.g., Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, & Cullen, 1990; Cullen & Gendreau, 1989; Cullen & Gilbert, 1982; Gendreau & Ross, 1987; and Martinson, 1974). During this period conservative politics and the decline in support for treatment at the hands of the state lent support for the development of social or environment-focused policies to reduce crime. As a result, it became popular to discount the individual in discussions of rehabilitation or theory development. A final reason offered by some researchers as an explanation of anti-individual bias, is the death of positivism and a rise in theoreticism (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; 21

22 Andrews & Wormith, 1989). Andrews and Bonta (1998) define theoreticism to refer to theorists who adopt and discard knowledge insofar as it is personally or politically rewarding to do so (Andrews & Bonta, 1998, p. 28.). One can argue, individualcentered theories were discarded not due to evidence, but rather to support more popular and often politically correct theories of crime. It is apparent that early reviews and current thought among some criminologists were influenced by anti-individual bias and knowledge destruction rather than an unbiased reporting of the quality and significance of the findings (Andrews & Bonta, 1998 & Andrews & Wormith, 1989). This review was included to illustrate the importance of exploring reasons why certain ideologies are attacked. The following discussion details the research and possible reasons why personality should be integrated into a broader discussion of criminological theory. Personality and Crime Given the focus of criminological research, studies exploring personality and crime have been limited. However, the existing research is extremely informative. Some of the earliest research on personality and crime comes from the work of Hans Eysenck. A review of the research by Eysenck, outlining his proposal for why criminal behavior occurs, will follow. The EPQ and Crime According to Eysenck, in order to study personality and the impact that it may have on behavior, a theoretical system must be developed. The system should be able to measure traits and make distinctions based on the similarities and differences among individuals (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). As Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) claim what 22

23 one must say, essentially, is that although human beings clearly do differ from each other, they differ along certain dimensions, and their differences and similarities can therefore be quantified and measured (p. 8). Many of the studies of personality and behavior rely on a descriptive model containing: (a) traits and (b) types or superfactors. As stated previously, personality traits are enduring characteristics within the individual that determine his or her behavior. A type, however, is defined as a group of correlated traits (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). The term type in modern personality theory is superordinate to that of a trait. The type corresponds to what others, using factor analysis, have called second order types or superfactors (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Hence, the type or superfactor consists of multiple individual personality traits. Eysenck s work emerged from his exploration of personality traits among 700 male service patients in the 1940s. Eysenck completed a large scale factorial study that resulted in two main types: neuroticism and extroversion-introversion (Eysenck, 1947). Later, Eysenck (1952) constructed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) that included psychoticism. The traits that compose the type neuroticism include: anxious, depressed, guilt feelings, low self-esteem, tense, irrational, shy, moody, and emotional. The traits comprising the type extraversion include: sociable, lively, active, assertive, sensation seeking, carefree, dominant, surgent, and venturesome. Finally, the traits included in the type psychoticism consist of: aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathetic, creative, and tough-minded. The author notes, however, that the majority of individuals are characterized by a balance between the types (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). 23

24 Later in his career, Eysenck extended his work to crime causation studies. Eysenck kept his original typology consisting of neuroticism, extraversion, and psychoticism to explain crime. He theorized that psychoticism was always related to crime, extroversion was related in younger samples, and neuroticism in older samples. Eysenck postulated that neuroticism becomes more important in older samples and contributes to stronger antisocial habits in adults (Eysenck, 1983). Eysenck viewed the study of personality as having two interlocking aspects: the descriptive or taxonomic aspect and the causal aspect including genetics and environment. These two aspects, together, describe the dynamics of why personality exists (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985). Eysenck s theory includes a chain of factors that begins with genetics and ends with criminal behavior. He theorized that an individual s DNA, the genetic structure underlying individual differences, was the first link in the causal chain. But DNA is not responsible for behavior, rather an individual s DNA impacts what Eysenck terms biological intermediaries such as cortical arousal and as a result conditionability and conscience (Eysenck, 1996). Cortical arousal is a state in the brain that is marked by being alert and attentive. Low cortical arousal is related to both extraversion and psychoticism in that both are marked by poor arousal and therefore cause individuals to act out in an effort to attain greater arousal. Specifically, he theorizes that individuals with low cortical arousal seek out arousing and often risky activities that may include criminal acts. Eysenck sought an explanation not of antisocial behavior, but rather why people behave in socially desirable ways. This is where the causal chain continues. Eysenck states that criminals know right from wrong, but prefer the wrong to the right. He then 24

25 explains the reason some commit crimes and others do not is a matter of conscience (Eysenck, 1996). Specifically, he theorized that individuals learn behaviors through operant and classical conditioning. That is, the child who is punished repeatedly for an antisocial act and does not develop the appropriate response (i.e., fear of repeated punishment) will not learn from this punishment and correct behavior in the future by developing a moral conscience (Eysenck, 1983). The likelihood of developing a moral conscience is dependent on a number of factors, including whether conditioning experiences are missing, whether the wrong experiences are reinforced, and whether the person has low cortical arousal (Eysenck, 1996). He conceded that the learning process, or the breakdown of this process, contributes to the likelihood of criminal behavior (Eysenck, 1983). The causal chain ends here with the likelihood of criminal behavior being predicted from the genetic make-up of the individual. The personality tie becomes clearer as he explains that extroversion and psychoticism are linked to low cortical arousal that influences conditionability, conscience, and ultimately behavior. And with regard to neurotics, anxiety may act as the drive or motivation for criminal behavior. In this circumstance, emotions may override reason leading to aggressive and impulsive behavior. In sum, according to Eysenck (1983) all three are involved in antisocial conduct, so that typically the person indulging in such conduct would be extraverted rather than introverted, emotionally unstable rather than stable, and high on psychoticism rather than on superego functioning (p. 64). Table 1 lists the key personality constructs for Eysenck theory of personality. 25

26 Table 1. Summary of key personality constructs for the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Eysenck, 1952). Construct Definition Relationship to Criminal Behavior Extroversion Tend to be outgoing, talkative Eysenck found extroverts tend to have low and friendly. But also tend to cortical arousal which influences conditionability be assertive, sensation seeking, Extroversion more likely in younger samples. and dominate in social situations Neuroticism Tend to be anxious in social Eysenck found neuroticism to be positively situations and often experience associated with criminal behavior in older feelings of low self esteem and samples. guilt. Also tend to be irrational tense, and emotional. Emotions may override reason. Can also exhibit aggressive and impulsive behavior. Psychoticism Tend to be very egocentric and are Eysenck found psychotics tend to have low cortical Unempathetic to others needs. Also tend arousal which influences conditionability. Eysenck To be impulsive, cold, and impersonal suggests psychoticism is positively associated with criminal behavior among all individuals exhibiting the trait. 26

27 The MPQ and Crime Types similar to those defined by Eysenck emerged from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ). The MPQ is a self-report personality instrument designed to assess a broad range of individual differences in behavioral style (Silva, 1990). The ten scales produced by the MPQ can be combined to produce three types or superfactors: constraint, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality (Silva, 1990). As described by Caspi & Silva (1995) constraint is the combination of the traditionalism, harm avoidance, and control scales. Individuals high on this factor tend to endorse social norms, act in a cautious and restrained manner, and avoid thrills. Negative emotionality is a combination of the aggression, alienation, and stress reaction scales. Individuals high on this dimension have a low general threshold for the experience of negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and anger and tend to be involved in antagonistic relationships. Positive emotionality is a combination of the achievement, social potency, well-being, and social closeness scales. Individuals high on positive emotionality have a lower threshold for the experience of positive emotions and tend to view life as being essentially a pleasurable experience (p. 492). Researchers found that positive emotionality, negative emotionality, and constraint emerged as three major dimensions related to a variety of behavioral measures (Tellegen, 1985). Utilizing a modified version of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ), Caspi et al. (1994) studied the relationship between personality and crime among adolescents involved in both the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development (DMHD) study and the Pittsburgh Youth Study. The DMHD study is a longitudinal examination of the health, development, and behavior of 862 adolescent subjects. The 27

28 complete cohort of consecutive births between April 1, 1972 and March 31, 1973 in Dunedin, New Zealand were traced at age 3, and every two years thereafter until the age of 25 (Silva, 1990). Four measures of delinquency were examined: self-report, informant, police contact, and court convictions. The study concluded that among both males and females, constraint and negative emotionality emerged as predictors of delinquent behavior across the self-report, informant, and official record measures (Caspi et al, 1994). In a second analysis of the data, the authors found that persons who engaged in serious delinquent behavior score significantly lower on the superfactor constraint and significantly higher on the superfactor negative emotionality (Caspi et al., 1994). The DMHD study included only Caucasian adolescents living in a mid-sized city. As a result of this sample limitation, a second study was conducted using data from the Pittsburgh Youth Study, a longitudinal study examining the causes and correlates of delinquency that included a more heterogeneous sample (Caspi et al., 1994). The sample consisted of year old boys, of which 54 percent were African-American, and 44 percent lived in a house where the main caregiver has been separated, divorced, widowed, or never married (Caspi et al., 1994). The MPQ was not appropriate with this age group, hence, the Child Q-sort (Block, 1961) was used as a replacement. The Child Q-sort scales were used to create the three superfactors: constraint, negative emotionality, and positive emotionality (Caspi et al., 1994). The delinquency measures included the child s self report, teacher s self report, and parent s self report. Among both Caucasians and African American samples, low constraint and the presence of negative emotionality emerged as correlates of delinquency. Taken as a whole, the study revealed that individual differences in personality can 28

29 predict delinquency across age groups, geographic location, race groups, and gender. The authors suggest that the importance of negative emotionality and constraint may work in tandem. Specifically, negative emotionality refers to a tendency to construe life in a very negative and anxious way and often may perceive benign situations as threatening. Individuals with high trait anxiety, often called negative affectivity, tend to be distressed and have a very negative view of themselves, often worry, and tend to dwell on frustrations and disappointments (Watson & Clark, 1984). In addition, those individuals who also score low on constraint tend to take risks and approach situations with fewer worries of the consequences (Caspi et al., 1994). As a result, individuals with a personality marked by negative emotionality paired with low constraint have a higher likelihood of engaging in criminal acts (Caspi et al., 1994). Given those scoring high on negative emotionality have a negative view of themselves and perceive the world as hostile and threatening, it is also likely that they will not undertake challenging situations. In fact, one study found that Italian children who had high efficacy with regard to academic achievement performed better in school and were able to resist negative peer pressure (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Vittorio Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). In contrast, those who believe they cannot handle threatening or challenging experiences are more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and stress (Bandura, 1989). A subsequent study explored whether personality could predict abstention from delinquency (Kreuger, Schmutte, Caspi, Moffitt, Campbell, & Silva, 1994). Using the same data as the previous study, the authors constructed a measure of delinquency that consisted of three categories: those who reported they had never engaged in delinquency, 29

30 those who engaged in a wide variety of acts, and those who engaged in normative 4 delinquency (Kreuger et al., 1994). The study revealed very different personality profiles between those who engaged in delinquency on a persistent basis in comparison to those who abstained from delinquency. Specifically, constraint and negative emotionality emerged as combined correlates of delinquency among the persistent group. Just as Moffitt (1993) suggests with her life course persisters typology, those high in negative emotionality are likely to approach relationships with adversarial attitudes and have relationships that are short lived. In contrast, the males and females who abstained from delinquency were characterized as conventional, planful, non-aggressive, and nonassertive (Kreuger et al., 1994). Subsequent research has also explored the relationship between personality characteristics, a child s ability to delay gratification, and his or her behavior at home or school. With a sample from the Pittsburgh Youth Study, 508 fourth grade boys were asked to complete the California Q-sort (Kreuger, Caspi, Moffitt, White, and Stouthamer- Loeber, 1996). Teachers and mothers were asked to complete the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach and Edelbrock, 1983). The delay of gratification task had participants choose between an immediately available 40 percent chance to win a nickel or a delayed 80 percent chance to win a nickel. The authors found that youth who persistently sought immediate gratification in the lab (e.g., those exhibiting poor impulse control) were more likely to exhibit problem behaviors in school and at home (Krueger et al., 1996). In contrast, those children who were able to delay gratification by diverting attention away from the task at hand, experienced less frustration. The authors concluded 4 Normative delinquency refers to behavior such as truancy and curfew violations. 30

31 that an antisocial tendency, operationalized as low self-control, influenced the child s likelihood of seeking immediate gratification (Kreuger et al., 1996). Finally, personality researchers have also attempted to document the relationship between personality and violence. It is rare to find individuals who specialize in criminal violence, although it is also rare to find complete generality (Farrington, 1982). In addition, the reason why individuals are violent is the subject of much disagreement. A study by Caspi, Harrington, Moffitt, Begg, Dickson, Langley, and Silva (1997) investigated the relationship between personality and a variety of what they called health risk behaviors that included violent crime. The study used the DMHD data at age 21 from 961 individuals. Personality was assessed at age 18 with the MPQ. The study not only included violent crime but also alcohol dependence, sexual behavior, and driving habits. The results concluded that all categories of health risk behavior were correlated with negative emotionality and low constraint. With regard to violence, individuals with at least one prior violent conviction were exhibiting personality types marked by a very negative and hostile view of the world paired with an impulsive nature. Summary The purpose of this section is to review the literature on crime and personality. The literature base is limited, however, it should be noted that each sample represents a diverse group of individuals over a period of time. The results indicate that personality is related to various types of criminal behavior with a variety of measures, in a variety of situations, with a variety of individuals. Table 2 lists the key personality factors formed by the MPQ and crime research. Given the research finding from the above-mentioned studies, the current study will attempt to mirror those types and examine their relationship 31

32 Table 2. Summary of key personality constructs for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (Caspi & Silva, 1990). Construct Definition Relationship to Criminal Behavior Negative Emotionality Tend to experience adverse By itself may not be related to crime. states such as anger, anxiety, and However, high negative emotionality related irritability. They perceive life to crime in tandem with low constraint. events and acts of others in very hostile and negative ways Positive Emotionality Tend to view life in a very Not related; may act as insulator pleasurable way. They tend to engage in positive social and working interactions with others Constraint Tend to endorse convention and By itself may not be related to crime. normative behavior. Avoid risky Lack of constraint paired with negative situations and act cautious. emotionality more likely in criminal population. 32