Personality Correlates (Aggression and Impulsivity) and their Predictive Ability to Self-Report Delinquency

University Degree Biological Sciences

Rajat Passy

Liverpool Hope University College

Hope Park

Liverpool, L16 9JD

Email:

ABSTRACT

A sample of undergraduate university students (n=50) was used to test Eysenckian hypotheses of personality dimensions being able to predict delinquent behaviour. Certain personality variables were conceptually derived from Eysenck’s dimensions and were tested to evaluate a correlation between individuals having the specific personality traits (aggression and impulsivity) and self-reported delinquent behaviour. Self-report delinquency measures and personality variable measures were administered to participants under strictly anonymous conditions. The findings demonstrated clear support for aggression positively correlating with self-reported delinquency (r=0.56, p<0.001) whereas the correlation between impulsivity and self-reported delinquency was not as strong (r=0.35, p<0.05) in line with previous research on neuroticism as a weaker predictive factor. The results are discussed with reference to previous research on personality correlates to delinquency and the implication and limitation of current research are suggested.

Contents

Introduction ……….………. Page 3
Method ……….………. Page 5
Results ……….………. Page 8
Discussion ……….………. Page 9
Acknowledgements ……….………. Page 12
References …………….…. Page 12
Appendix A – Administered Questionnaire …………….…. Page 15
Appendix B – Full Results ……………….. Page 19
Appendix C – Graphical Representation ……….………. Page 20
Appendix D – Raw Data Spreadsheet …………….…. Page 21
Appendix E – BPS Ethics Approval …………….…. Page 22

INTRODUCTION

There is a pressing need to better understand youth crime and delinquency as it has been harming society for decades. Delinquent behaviour is costly to society because not only is it becoming increasingly expensive to operate the juvenile justice system but it also damages the emotional well being of victims (Heaven, 1996). The fatal shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, USA on 20th April, 1999 emphasized on this need for a comprehensive understanding of the reasons behind these motivations and perhaps a way to predict future delinquent or criminal behaviour. Society needs to acknowledge that adolescent crime and violence may be more multifaceted than popularised media reports suggest (Mak, Heaven, & Rummery, 2001). For years, criminologists and other professionals have maintained a socialization-based theory behind delinquent activities (Rivera and Widom, 1990; Farrington, 1989; Widom, 1996 cited in Sigurdsson, Gudjonsson & Peersen, 2001). These suggest that criminal behaviour may be a result of unemployment, racism, poor housing, education and other socio-economic factors (Slayton, Kern & Curlette, 2000).

Nevertheless, although different learning patterns may be an important source of the individual differences in moral behaviour that are found, it is also possible that these may associate with certain “personality dispositions” (Rushton & Chrisjohn, 1981). More recently, psychologists and criminologists have suggested that the personality of delinquents must also be considered more meticulously to understand the reasons and motives of individuals who choose a life of deviance (Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Clinard, Quinney & Wildeman, 1994; Walters, 1990).

In discussion of these criminal personalities, Yochelson and Samenow (1976) and Walters (1990), have proposed that children at an early age develop personality attributes in response to the “harshness of their environments”. These writers have proposed that certain children at a developing age develop belief systems, “cognitive maps” or modes of thinking that gradually evolve into criminal personalities. This leads us into the theoretical need for understanding personality correlates and delinquency. There seems to be continued debate as to the predictive ability of thus far identified personality factors that may be related to delinquency (Binder, 1988; Eysenck & Gudjonsson, 1989; Farrington, 1992). This paper will critically evaluate the major theses put forward by Eysenck and his colleagues and attempt to focus on specific traits within the dimensions identified by Eysenck (1977).

Previous literature has offered several primary personality traits such as anger/hostility, sociability, “venturesomeness” (Heaven, 1993), assertiveness, low conventionality (Binder, 1988), aggression, anxiety, low self-control (Feldman, 1977 cited in Heaven, 1996), impulsiveness, negative attitudes to authority (Rigby et al., 1989), low empathy and sensation seeking. A large amount of research has gone into the Eysenckian perspective by investigating the relationship between delinquency and the three personality dimensions said to include most of the characteristics mentioned above. These dimensions are psychoticism, extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-emotional stability (Eysenck, 1977).

In Crime and Personality (1977), Eysenck hypothesized that criminals will be high-scorers on measures of psychoticism, extraversion and neuroticism. However, Eysenck’s work is not as simplistic. Its predictions are derived from a “causal model of central nervous system functioning” which involve the influence of both genetics and learning (Rushton & Chrisjohn, 1981). Extraversion and psychoticism are related to criminality through “low cortical arousal, poor conditionability, and failure to develop the conditioned response ‘conscience’”(Eysenck & Gudjonnson, 1989 cited in Sigurdsson et al., 2001). It is unnecessary to elaborate on the biological rationale of Eysencks work, as it does not concern the relevance of this study.

Heaven (1996) suggests that psychoticism is the instrument through which personality traits such as anger and hostility, channel their influence on behaviours identified as delinquent. Heaven (1993) expanded his work from Feldmans (1977) research on traits such as low self-control (impulsivity as an element of neuroticism) and anger/hostility (aggression as an element of psychoticism). Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime is considered to support this theory that personality traits can be predictive of delinquency. Eysenck on the other hand, was not in complete agreement with impulsivity being positively correlated with delinquency (Laak, 2003). He argued that successful criminals need to conduct cost benefit analysis of criminal activities and need organizational and computational skills to estimate the risks involved in criminal acts (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976 cited in Laak, 2003). This hypothesis has also been contested; lack of self-control and impulsiveness have often been observed in delinquents (DeHaan & Vos 1993 cited in Laak, 2003). The majority of Eysenck’s theory has been empirically replicated when it came to psychoticism. The claim of a relationship between neuroticism and self-reported was yet to be accepted.

There has been very limited support for Eysenck’s hypothesis regarding neuroticism as predictive of delinquency (Furnham, 1984 cited in Furnham & Thomson, 1991). But it has been suggested that the influence of neuroticism might be selective, that is, its relationship between non-criminal respondents who have engaged in delinquent behaviour, is unclear (Furnham & Thomson, 1991). Furnham et al. (1991) observed that neuroticism may be more important in explaining delinquency among older, rather than younger participants. Heaven (1996) also found no significant relationship between the facets of neuroticism and self-reported delinquency. On the other hand, an association between psychoticism and self-reported ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The present paper attempts to find a relationship between the aforementioned traits of personality and self-reported delinquency. It was hypothesized that scores on self-reported delinquency would be positively correlated with individual aggressiveness and impulsiveness.

METHOD

Design

The design was a ‘within participants’ design which investigated whether there is a correlation between self-reported delinquency being the dependent variable and the personality traits (aggressiveness and impulsiveness) being the two independent variables.

Participants

The participants (n=50, 14 males and 36 females) were undergraduate students from Liverpool Hope University College. The majority of the opportunity sample was drawn from a campus library. Participation was restricted to individuals between the ages of 18 to 25 (M=20.56, SD=2.15) to eliminate age as a confounding variable. Prior to completing the questionnaire, participants were advised that the study is investigating personality correlates and delinquent tendencies instead of delinquency. Being labelled a ‘delinquent’ was not thought of as socially desirable and a softer tone needed to be in place, hence the use of the word tendency. The personality trait measures were also only labelled as ‘Trait A’ and ‘Trait B’ to ensure participants have less of an idea as to what is being measured. Participants were advised that the study is completely anonymous and the data being collected is solely for research purposes only.

Procedure

Participants were instructed not to put any identifying information on the questionnaires, which were typically completed in 8-9 minutes. No attempt was made to measure the refusal rate, as participation was voluntary and anonymous. However, it was clear that the majority of participants who were asked to participate did so. Participants were also aware of the voluntary nature of the questionnaire and that they could withdraw from the study at anytime. Participants were treated in accordance with the BPS Ethical Principles for Conducting Research with Human Participants (1993).

After an introduction to the study, written consent was obtained from participants, as the nature of data they were providing was sensitive. They were asked to indicate their age and gender as optional fields. Participants were then requested to go through the first part of the questionnaire (self-reported delinquency measure), and then decide whether they would like to continue or not. After completion of the questionnaire, participants were handed a brown envelope containing other completed questionnaires and were asked to place their questionnaire in the envelope by them, in order to ensure full anonymity. For details on other ethical considerations, please refer to Appendix E.

Materials

The delinquency questionnaire used was a self-reported measure of anti-social behaviour. Much evidence now supports use of self-reports by adolescents, as they are compatible with official records. A typical self-reported measure of delinquency looks at the less serious end up to serious criminal behaviour (Rushton & Chrisjohn, 1981). Both ends are valid indicators of offenders’ past behaviour. This is validated by support from victimization surveys, studies of the reliability and validity of self-reports and studies of biases in criminal justice processing (Hindelang et al., 1979 cited in Rushton & Chrisjohn, 1981). This and limited access to known institutionalised delinquents was the reason to use a self-reported measure of delinquency.

The questionnaire instructed participants to indicate whether they have engaged in the following activities and a 5-point Likert scale (Likert, 1932 cited in Langdridge, 2004) was anchored with the words, always and never. The questions asked were factual happenings which may have also been anchored with simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers but it was felt that respondents may not respond very truthfully as the data was being disclosed to a research group unknown to them. Examples of questions asked on the self-reported delinquency scale were:

Did you ever consume alcohol when you were less than 18 years old?

Have you ever seriously physically harmed someone, even for self-defence?

Have you ever made personal use of prohibited substances (e.g. amphetamines to keep you awake at night, marijuana, ecstasy etc.)?

The personality measures were designed by the author and co-researchers (see Acknowledgements) to measure aggressiveness and impulsivity of participants. Please refer to Appendix A for full administered questionnaire.

The raw data from the questionnaires was then collated and scored. The self-reported delinquency measure was scored with 10 being the most positive (more delinquent) score and 50 being the most negative (less delinquent) score. Every negatively worded question on the personality measure was reverse scored i.e. if a participant had indicated ‘1’ (‘Yes’) as an answer to a negatively worded question it would actually be scored as ‘3’ as he/she is agreeing with the antonym of the personality trait. The range of scores was 10 as a minimum and 30 as a maximum. Hence, the lower the score on the questionnaire, the more the participant had qualities of the trait being measured.

64entire questions. On the personality measure of impulsiveness, question 10’s reliability was questioned after the results were analysed. If the question was deleted, a higher score of =0.872 would have been obtained. Upon debate, it was concluded that the question is not measuring an impulsive outlook but perhaps goes into the realm of how much a person may like the element of surprise. In spite of this, the questionnaire was generally deemed as reliable.

RESULTS

The hypothesis stating that there would be a relationship between self-reported delinquency and the two personality variables was partially validated. The descriptive statistics are as follows:

Table 1 - Descriptive Statistics

The age (M=20.56, SD=2.149), self-reported delinquency score (M=38.74, SD=10.00), total aggressiveness score (M=20.34, SD=3.479) and total impulsiveness score (M=18.38, SD=3.276) are tabulated above (Table 1). Analysis proved the data to be normally distributed and other assumptions of parametric data were also met (for graphical representations, refer to Appendix C). Therefore, it was appropriate to run a correlational analysis to determine whether the relationship was significant or not. Multiple regression analyses were also carried out (For full results, refer to Appendix B) to judge the precisely to what extent may the personality variables cause self-reported delinquent behaviour.

As predicted, the correlation between self-reported delinquency and aggressiveness (r=0.56, p<0.001) was a moderately strong relationship. On the other hand, the relationship between self-reported delinquency and impulsiveness (r=0.35, p<0.05) was a weak relationship, details of which are tabulated below.

Table 2 – Pearson Correlation

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the relationships were statistically significant even though the psychological significance may not have been convincing. The relationship between self-reported delinquency and aggressiveness as a personality trait had a positive correlation as did delinquency and impulsiveness. An unexpected relationship between aggressiveness and impulsiveness was also observed (r=0.35) but it was not statistically significant. The relationship may have occurred due to sampling error. Thus, it was concluded that aggressiveness as a specific trait has a positive relationship with self-reported delinquency.

DISCUSSION

The present findings are noteworthy in two important ways. Firstly, they confirm the importance of the psychoticism dimension, namely aggression as a personality trait in predicting self-reported delinquent behaviour. Contrary to the controversial status of previous research concerning Eysenck’s theory of criminality, the findings in this study were remarkably consistent. Self-reported delinquency was significantly associated with aggression, an element that makes up Eysenck’s dimension of psychoticism. Secondly, it adds to the growing literature showing no association between neuroticism and its elements as predictive of delinquent behaviour. In line with previous research (Furnham et al., 1991; Heaven, 1996; Rushton & Chrisjohn, 1981), impulsivity as an element of neuroticism, found no support for Eysenck’s predictions.

This lack of support for neuroticism was as clear as the evidence for psychoticism and this may be for a number of reasons. Eysenck could simply be mistaken when he declared neuroticism to be a predictive factor of self-reported delinquency. Rushton & Chrisjohn (1981) interpreted his hypothesis of neuroticism; in that, it played an interactional role, affecting the type of criminal activity under observation. Eysenck’s own hypothesis (1977) is almost agreeing with Furnhams (1991) critique when he implies neuroticism to simply be less crucial during early stages of development of antisocial tendencies. But despite the controversies in relation to this dimension, psychoticism and its behavioural aspects (interpersonal hostility, egocentrism, “affective insensitivity”) are unmistakably useful variables for prediction of delinquency.

A limitation of the sample could perhaps be argued by critics that the conventional way of measuring delinquency would have been through a ‘known-group’ design (Feldman, 1977; Krueger et al. 1994 cited in Romero, Luengo and Sobral, 2001) It has been suggested that the observed relationships between personality and detected delinquency i.e. apprehended delinquents, may simply reflect relationships between personality and likelihood of apprehension. Secondly, the institutionalisation of individuals may also influence personality. In the present study however, an undergraduate sample was studied who were not institutionalised and the study was ecologically valid. Known-group delinquency studies have failed to control the confounding variables of A.) The relationship between different personality variables leading to apprehension B.) The institutionalisation of delinquents may have influenced personality variables to quite an extent. Romero et al. (2001) confirmed this in their study of known-groups and self-reported measures, as they found no difference in strengths of relationships between delinquency and personality variables.

Another perhaps obvious limitation of the study is the fact that the sample could hardly be described as random or representative of young adults. In particular, the sample is heavily biased, containing students who by merit of their school results were selected into a university. Thus, future studies on delinquency would need to replicate the university data on a wider more representative cross-section of young non-criminal adults.

It is also important to note that much of the individual difference research into delinquency has had a tendency to encompass a variety of behaviours under the label “delinquency”. For example, Mak (1993) contained items measuring delinquency, which ranged from “viewing an R-rated movie” to “forcing someone to do sexual things with you against their will”. These items clearly cover a broad spectrum of the seriousness of the behaviour and even though they may be illegal, they differ in terms of affect on the victim (Heaven, Newbury & Wilson, 2004). Hence, despite the current paper identifying specific elements within the Eysenck’s personality dimensions, the extent to which particular behaviour is associated with the different dimensions, remains unanswered.

To provide an appropriate and reliable knowledge base for this relationship, it is crucial to identify theoretical predictive personality factors (such as Eysencks hypotheses) that are strongly related to delinquency. Perhaps future studies could potentially run long-term qualitative studies stressing on personality factors at different stages in individual delinquent careers. In this way, research could provide insight on the predictive reliability of certain personality variables leading to delinquent behaviour.

Despite specific consideration, findings of this type demonstrate the importance of including personality variables into criminological theories, which have conventionally been influenced, as discussed earlier, by sociological view points and little attention has been paid to individual differences. Even in supposedly “integrative” models (Elliot et al. 1985 cited in Romero, Luengo and Sobral, 2001) the personality factors have been ignored.

It is imperative to overcome this shortsighted and discipline bound methodology and to structure models that amalgamate biological and personality variables with psychosocial and socio-cultural aspects. Consideration of personality variables signifies the acceptance of cognitive, affective and behavioural tendencies that favour delinquency therefore improving understanding of these tendencies may improve prevention and treatment. Early intervention of complex problems like delinquency calls for immediate awareness and extensive research from all sources available.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to extend his gratitude to the fellow researchers, Crisenthiya Clayton, Colin O’Connor and Joanne Rogan who assisted in designing the questionnaire and collecting the data without whom this study could not have been carried out.

REFERENCES

Andrews, D.A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Company.

Binder, A. (1988). Juvenile delinquency. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 252-282.

Block, J. (1977). The P scale and psychosis: Continued concern. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 431-434.

British Psychological Society, (1993). Ethical Principles for Conducting Research with Human Participants. The Psychologist, 6, 33-35.

Clinard, R., Quinney, R., & Wildeman, J. (1994). Criminal behaviour systems: A typology (3rd Edition). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.

DeHaan, W. & Vos, J. (1993). De huilende rover en de schaaamteloosheid van de rtionele keuzebenadering [The crying robber and the shamelessness of the rational choice approach to criminal behaviour]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 4, 351-377.

Elliott, D.S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S.S (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Eysenck, H., & Gudjonsson, G. (1989). The causes and cures of criminality. New York: Plenum Press.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck personality questionnaire. London: Hodder and Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Crime and personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (revised edition).

Farrington, D.P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adult violence. Violence and Victims. 4, 79-100.

Farrington. D. (1992). Juvenile delinquency. In J. Coleman (Ed.), The school years: Current issues in the socialisation of young people (2nd edn, pp. 123-163). London: Routledge.

Feldman, M. (1977). Criminal behaviour: A psychological analysis. Chichester: John

Wiley.

Furnham, A. (1984). Personality, social skills, anomie and delinquency: a self report study of a group of normal nondelinquent adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 25, 409–420.

Furnham, A. & Thompson, J. (1991). Personality and self-reported deIinquency. Personality and Indiridual Differences, 12, 585-593.

Gottfredson, M.R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford.

Gray, J. A. (1987). The psychology of fear and stress (2nd edition), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heaven, P.C.L., Newbury, K., & Wilson, V. (2004) The Eysenck pyschoticism dimension and delinquent behaviours among non-criminals: changes across the lifespan? Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1817-1825.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1993). Personality predictors of self-reported delinquency. Personality & Individual Differences, 14, 67-76.

Heaven, P. C. L. (1996). Personality and self-reported delinquency: analysis of the “Big Five” personality dimensions. Personality & Individual Differences, 20, 47-54.

Hindelang, M., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J.G. (1979). Correlates of delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. Am. Soc. Rev. 44, 995-1014.

Howarth, E. (1986). What does Eysenck’s psychoticism scale really measure? British Journal of Psychology, 77, 223-227.

Krueger, R.F., Schmutte, P.P., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T.E., Campbell, K., & Silva, P.A. (1994) Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: evidence from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328 – 338.

Langdridge, D. (2004). Research Methods and Data Analysis in Psychology. Glasgow: Bell & Bain Ltd.

Likert, R. A. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 55.

Mak, A. S. (1993). A self-reported delinquency scale for Australian adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 75-79.

Mak, A.S., Heaven, P.C.L. & Rummery, A. (2001). The role of group identity and personality domains as indicators of self reported delinquency. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9, 9-18.

Rigby, K., Mak, A., & Slee, P. (1989). Impulsiveness, orientation to institutional authority and gender as factors in self-reported delinquency among Australian adolescents. Personality & Individual Differences, 10, 689-692.

Rivera, B., & Widom, C.S. (1990). Childhood victimization and violent offending. Violence and Victims, 5, 19-34.

Romero, E., Sobral, J., Luengo, M.A. & Marzoa, J.A. (2001). Values and anitsocial behaviour among spanish adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(1), 20-40.

Rushton, J.R. & Chrisjohn, R.D. (1981). Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychoticism and Self-Reported Delinquency: Evidence from Eight Separate Samples. Personality and Individual Differences, 2, 11-20.

Sigurdsson, J.F., Gudjonsson, G.H. & Peersen, M. (2001). Differences in the cognitive ability and personality of desisters and re-offenders: A prospective study among young offenders. Psychology, Crime and Law, 7, 33-43.

Slayton, B.J., Kern, R.M., & Curlette W.L (2000). Personality profiles of inmates. Journal of Individual Psychology, 56.

Walters, G.D. (1990). The criminal lifestyle: Patterns of criminal conduct. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Widom, C.S. (1996). The cycle of violence revisited. National Institute of Justice Preview. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S.E. (1976). The criminal personality (Vol. 1). Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc.

APPENDIX A

Personality Correlates and Delinquent Tendencies

We are a group of students from Liverpool Hope University College studying specific personality traits and how they may have a correlation with a tendency towards delinquent activities. The following questions are solely for research purposes only. The information you provide will be strictly confidential and you are assured full anonymity. You may skim through the questions and decide whether you would be happy to provide us with your data and if not, you may return the questionnaire to the researcher without being questioned further. Please provide your signature below if you agree to participate in this study.

Date: __________

Signature of participant: ____________________

The following information is optional.

Age: ________

Sex: Male Female

Please indicate whether you have engaged in the following activities or not on a scale of ‘Always’ to ‘Never’.

1. Did you ever consume alcohol when you were less than 18 years old?