Individual differences Eyesneck Flashcards
Eysenck
Stated that there are three dimensions od personality, but on different levels based on genes and inheritance. Theorisd that environment also shapes personality because of external influences through conditioning.
High Extraversion
Typically social, confident and outgoing, but have low arousal levels. They need more environmental stimulation than most people because they get bored easily. May seek stimulation through criminality as keeps them excited and satisfies needs.
Low extraversion
Quiet and shy have high arousal levels. They are less likely to engage in criminal activity as they are fulfilled in their daily activities,
High neuroticism
Be more reactive and volatile have high anxiety levels meaning they are more violent and aggressive/ reactive. More likely to be involved in crime as they do not learn from punishments and are more likely to over react to a situation.
Low neuroticism
Tend to be calm and even tempered meaning they are less likely to be involved in criminal activity, because they ra level headed therfore make more reasonable decisions instead of over reacting. they also fear punishments.
High psychotocism
People with a lack of empathy for others and are aggressive in nature. They are impulsive and selfish and act upon what they want without any regret for the consequences or the feelings of others.
Biological factors
Eysenck realised that personality does not function in a vacuum so he added to his personality theory by coupling it with biological factors. High psychotocism is linked with higher testosterone levels. This explain why men are more likely to commit violent crimes and how both a psychotic personality and hormones work together to lead to a greater likelihood of criminality,
Conditioning factors
Personality is also shaped through behaviourist factors. We learn morals and consequences of certain types of behaviour through socialising and interacting with others through operant conditioning we learn whether to avoid criminal activity due to the punishments they can bring or whether to engage in criminal activity because it’s worth the risk. Eyesneck stated that those who score highly in neuroticism and extraversion aren’t conditioned as easily as other people so they find it much harder to avoid in engaging in criminal behaviour.
Strength: Preventing Crime
Suggests that underlying tendencies that eventually manifest themselves into criminal behaviour are detectable in childhood and it maybe be possible to modify socialisation experiences od high risk individuals so that they do not develop into these offenders, Interventions such as parenting or early treatment for delinquency and hence maybe be of greatr practical benefit,
Ruston and Christon
Compare E N P scores on school children and students. Those who repotted higher levels of delinquency scored higher in E N and P. These scores correlate with Eysnecks prediction. However, research with ‘official’ delinquency do not produce clear cut results. Farrington et al reviewed 16 studied pf the relationship between E N P measures with criminal convictions. They found the majoirty offenders score higher in P or N but not E. Its unclear why the relationship between E and offending is so inconsistent. One possibility is that the E scales measures two things sociability and impulsiveness, but criminality is associated with the latter but not the former.
Research to support Eyesnecks theory is flawed
Research in this area relies heavily on self report methods of personality devised by Eysenck and colleagues. These scales are subject to social desirability. Issue that research has made heavy comparisons between convicted offenders and the general population. Such research excludes those who commit crimes and are not caught and convicted. Consequently, these measures may only be telling us characteristic of unsuccessful offenders.
Mischel
Eysnicks theory suggests that we have a set of stable traits whoch cause people to act consistently across situations. However, situationalisttheoris of personality suggests that no such consistency exists. Mitchell 1968 argues that the apparent consistency in peoples behaviour is an illusions that arises from the fact we typically observe people in similar situations. Criminal personality cannot really exits because of behaviour changes in different situations.
