Forensics - Eysenck's theory

Question 1

Supporting evidence

+ COUNTERPOINT

Answer 1

Eysenck and Eysenck

Compare 2070 prisoners’ scores on Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Control group of 2422. Prisoners scored higher average on all scales.

COUNTERPOINT
Farrington et al
Meta analysis of relevant studies. Reported offenders score higher on P scale but nor E or N.

Kussner
Inconsistent findings on EEg measures between extraverts and introverts. Undermines physiological basis of eyesenck’s theory

Question 2

Weakness - oversimplified

Answer 2

Moffit

Distinguished between offending behaviour in adolescence (only) and continued offending behaviour. Personality is poor predictor of length of offending behaviour. Persistent offending behaviour is a cause of environmental factors combined with personality instead. Interactionist idea and therefore more comprehensive and complex than Eysenck.

Question 3

Weakness - Cultural variation

Answer 3

Barlton and Holanchock

Hispanic and African American offenders, maximum security prisons NY. Divided into 6 groups depending on offence type and history. All 6 groups less extroverted than control group. (Opposite of what Eysenck predicted)
Criminal personality can vary according to culture. Sample was culturally different to Eysenck’s. Criminal personality should not be generalised.

Question 4

Issues with measuring personality

Answer 4

Personality should not be reduced to score. Nomothetic vs Idiographic. Quantitative vs Qualitative. Personality is complex and dynamic. Could be considered deterministic.