essay for traits predicting criminal behaviour

Question 1

what will be included in the introduction?

• what is a trait and how well do they predict criminal behaviour?

Answer 1

start with: traits are enduring characteristics displayed across different contexts, which everyone has to a certain extent along a normally distributed bipolar continuum

trait theories are based on the assumption that individual differences can be seen in terms of the degree of traits possessed, with this essay focusing on the essential trait theories of Eysenck’s theory of a criminal personality (1964) and the Five Factor Model of personality (McCrae et al, 1992), using 3 and 5 higher-order traits, respectively, to understand personality

in order for traits to be used to predict criminal behaviour, the internal causality view must be adopted, over the descriptive view which sees traits as merely descriptions, not causations of behaviour

this essay will firstly address how well Eysenck’s theory of a criminal personality made up of three traits predicts criminal behaviour, both as a type and as individual entities
following this, the separate contribution of the elements of agreeableness and conscientiousness from the Five Factor Model will be critiqued
finally, a conclusion will be drawn regarding the extent to which traits can predict criminal behaviour, based on current research and analysis of the methods in use

Question 2

paragraph regarding the ‘criminal personality’ proposed by Eysenck?

Answer 2

Eysenck (1964) proposed a biologically based criminal personality type, whereby individuals more likely to commit crime were higher in extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism, due to their biological underpinnings

support for this:

• recently found that when matching 100 criminals with non-criminals, that criminals were consistently higher in all 3 domains (Dinesh et al, 2017)
• although generally seen that more support for high neuroticism and psychoticism, but this may be due to certain scales testing extraversion to yield different results within a prison environment, such as ‘i enjoy social gatherings’ which may be altered due to the nature of gatherings in prison (van Dam et al, 2005). this issue with applying data to retrospective events is discussed later as limiting predictability
• moreover, higher levels of each trait may predict different forms of crime, which will now be individually discussed

Question 3

paragraph regarding extraversion?

Answer 3

lower-order traits of sociability, venturesomeness and assertiveness

biological underpinnings:

• van Dam et al, 2007 - associated with low levels of cortical arousal, leading to seeking exciting and novel situations to increase arousal, reduced susceptibility to punishment and fear. supported by low resting heart rate linked to criminal behaviour and low arousal levels (Ellis et al, 2009) and low resting heart rate being the best physiological predictor of criminal behaviour in children and adolescents (Ortiz et al, 2004)
• Choy et al, 2015 - 2 theories: either commit crime to increase excitement OR lack of fear so less worried about consequences
• overshadowed currently by reward-processing view of extraverts being more sensitive to rewards, thus finding all behaviours rewarding (Smilie et al, 2010)
• suggested that greater predictive link to white-collar crimes, perhaps due to sociability aspect or sensitivity to reward (Alaehto, 2013)

Question 4

paragraph regarding neuroticism?

Answer 4

lower-order traits of anxious, emotional and irrational

biological underpinnings (how to predict criminal behaviour other than self-report measures which have potential for self-presentation bias, whilst also providing explanation for behaviour):
- higher levels are linked to higher activity of the autonomic nervous system, leading to stronger reactions to stressful stimuli, supported through increase BOLD activation signal in mPFC associated with coordinating systems in stress response (Kehoe et al, 2012), suggesting that higher emotionality in situations may lead to criminal behaviour

• Furnham et al, 1991 - more correlated in criminal activity in older population, for blue-collar crimes (Pedaran et al, 2015) of a serious nature (Kemp et al, 2003)

Question 5

paragraph regarding psychoticism?

Answer 5

lower-order traits of impulsivity and aggression

biological underpinnings:
- higher levels of testosterone, supported by finding that 50 murderers matched with 50 normal peoplpe, consistently had higher testosterone levels (Alnourani et al, 2017), indeed, higher levels in aggressive criminals than moderately aggressive criminals (Chichinadze et al, 2010)

specific lower-order trait of impulsivity linked:

• best predictor of criminal behaviour of youth delinquency in longitudinal study from nursery-13y/o (Tremblay et al, 1994)
• high scores of impulsivity the most significant predictor of criminality in criminals vs non-criminals (Sinha, 2016)

Question 6

paragraph on the inclusion of Five Factor Model?

Answer 6

why include this model? (McCrae et al, 1992)

conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and neuroticism were related to criminal behaviour (O’Riordan et al, 2014), therefore seems that C and A may aid prediction on top of Eysenck’s 3, compliments due to similarity in definition of E and N regarding positive and negative affect, respectively and psychoticism representing some of the negative facets from O,C,A, like impulsivity similar to deliberation in conscientiousness, both linked to criminal behaviour (Matthews et al, 2003)
and also found that factor analysis was able to extract the five factor model with assigned facets from an instrument (EPP- eysenck personality profile) aiming to measure Eysenck’s 3 factor model in 229 people, suggesting that the 5 factors may be a better fit with their assigned facets than merely 3 (Costa et al, 1995)

agreeableness: low levels are related to violent crimes (Virpi, 2015) as has facets of deliberation (rushing into things) and dutifulness (breaking rules)
together with conscientiousness: linked to white-collar crime (Turner et al, 2014) and can differentiate between those commiting crimes with others, and non-criminals (Fuller, 2012)

Question 7

paragraph on limitations?

Answer 7

issue with majority of data being used for retrospective purposes (mentioned earlier in regards to extraversion):

• suggested that traits have a set point, but can deviate in response to significant life events, during which time they complete personality measures, then return to that point after (Ormel et al, 2012)
• indeed found both criminals and prison guards had much higher levels of non-criminal facets of conscientiousness than normal population such as order, suggesting that the strict routine in prison may alter personality, reducing the validity of predictions determined in studies as personality may be different before prison (Erikkson et al, 2017)

five factor model predictions limited by relying on these measures, whereas eysenck’s can have physiological measurements:
- example of Allport’s suggestion that traits are known for what they cause, not whats causing them (1927), so no biological underpinnings to support them

Question 8

conclusion?

Answer 8

bit to add: the findings regarding traits ability to predict crime are supported through findings that in middle age, lower levels of criminals activity correlates with general reductions of neuroticism and extraversion, and increasing conscientiousness and agreeableness, supporting the ability of levels of traits to predict criminal behaviour and likelihood of committing criminal acts (Srivistava et al, 2003)

extent to which traits can predict criminal behaviour relies heavily on the use of research to retrospectively determine the relation of traits to crime, which is limited due to ability of traits to be altered in strong situations such as prison
however, eysenck’s theory of personality is able to offer physiological data to determine biological underpinnings of traits, regardless of whether surface descriptions have changed

therefore, the extent that traits can predict different criminal behaviours is limited through retrospective questionnaires applying present personality to past actions, but the use of longitudinal studies and physiological measures at least supports high psychoticism and neuroticism as prediciting criminal behaviour