The Relevance of Personality to Criminal Behavior

Abstract

This chapter explores personality theories as they relate to criminal behavior. According to these theories, criminal behavior is linked to the presence of certain personality traits or a specific criminal personality. Psychologists link personality to criminal behavior by examining an offender’s specific traits or certain clusters of traits that drive them toward the criminal behavior. This chapter focuses on personality theories that attempt to explain the major traits of criminal propensity, including undercontrolled vs. overcontrolled personality traits, Eysenck’s Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism dimensions, and Tellegen’s Positive Emotionality, Negative Emotionality, and Constraint. Empirical evidence for each theory is presented, and the relevance of personality to criminal behavior is discussed.

1. Introduction

Personality theories, such as Eysenck’s biosocial personality theory, offer additional insights into the psychological aspects of crime. This perspective suggests that the presence of certain personality traits is associated with crime and delinquency. Personality traits are stable characteristics of an individual that remain consistent over time and across various social contexts. Scholars associate personality with criminal behavior in two primary ways. First, an offender may possess specific personality traits that make them more prone to criminal activity. Second, some psychologists suggest that certain criminal offenders, known as psychopaths or antisocial personality disorder, exhibit a criminal personality. This criminal personality comprises a cluster of personality traits that predispose individuals toward criminal behavior.

Given this introduction, many studies of personality and behavior rely on a descriptive model containing: (a) traits and (b) types of super factors. As noted above, personality traits are enduring characteristics that determine the individual’s behavior. However, a type is “a group of correlated traits” [1]. The term 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 [1]. Hence, the type or superfactor consists of multiple individual personality traits.

Based on this distinction, it is mainly focused on personality theories on superfactors of criminal behavior. In this context, three personality theories will be discussed that try to explain the major traits of criminal propensity. These are: Megargee’s [2] undercontrolled vs. overcontrolled personality traits; (2) Eysenck’s [3] Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Psychoticism dimensions; and (3) Tellegen’s [4] Positive Emotionality, Negative Emotionality, and Constraint. Empirical evidence of these three personality theories will be provided in their own section. Finally, one theory will be selected to discuss how personality is relevant to criminal behavior.

2. Undercontrolled vs. overcontrolled personalities

In attempting to explain antisocial aggression, Megargee [2] posits two distinct personality types: the undercontrolled and the overcontrolled persons. Megargee [2] questions Berkowitz’s [5] notion that when inhibitions exceed instigations, aggression dissipates over time. He suggests that residual aggression may remain active for extended periods of time and be augmented by additional frustrations.

The main assumption of this distinction is that individuals may develop two distinct personalities from their immediate environment that drives them into antisocial aggression. Megargee hypothesizes that the high level of inhibition prevents overcontrolled individuals from regularly exhibiting their anger. Thus, over time and repeated provocation, the instigation accumulates to such a degree that the result is an explosion of anger and violence well beyond the current level (not a contingent base).

Given this typology, Megargee [2] studied four groups of delinquents. The first two groups included delinquents, who were all assaultive offenders. Based on an aggression scale, these delinquents were placed into Extremely Assaultive and Moderately Assaultive groups. The other two groups were matched non-assaultive delinquents detained for either incorrigibility or property crimes. A battery of psychological tests was conducted on the delinquents, and the results supported 22 of the 28 hypotheses, with the Extremely Assaultive group displaying less aggression and more control than all three other groups.

Verona and Carbonell [6] investigated the validity of the overcontrolled hostility (OH) scale of the MMPI-2 with non-violent (NV), one-time violent (OV), and repeat violent (RV) female inmates. They hypothesized that: (1) the non-violent females would not conform to either the under- or overcontrolled typology; (2) the repeat violent offenders would better conform to an undercontrolled typology, and (3) the one-time violent females would be best classified as overcontrolled. Results were supportive of these hypotheses. The overcontrolled hostility (OH) scale successfully differentiated the OV group from the NV and RV groups. Furthermore, the OV women had significantly shorter nonviolent criminal histories than the other two groups and were more likely to have committed an extremely violent act than the RV group. Thus, Verona and Carbonell [6] lend support for the under-/overcontrolled typology.

Similarly, Moffit [7] found that while individuals with overcontrolled personalities are more likely to engage in life-course-persistent antisocial behavior, such as white-collar crime. Contrarily, undercontrolled personalities associated with impulsivity and sensation-seeking behavior are more likely to engage in adolescence-limited antisocial behavior, such as delinquency and drug use. Piquero and Tibbetts [8] study how undercontrolled and overcontrolled people differ regarding their planned and unplanned criminal behaviors. Their study shows that individuals with undercontrolled personalities are more likely to engage in impulsive and unplanned criminal acts. On the other hand, individuals with overcontrolled personalities are more likely to engage in planned and deliberate criminal acts. Kruger, Hciks, Patrick [9] studied various crime involvements for undercontrolled and overcontrolled individuals. They found that individuals with undercontrolled personalities more likely engage in a variety of criminal behaviors, including violent crimes, property crimes, and drug offenses. On the other hand, overcontrolled personalities are less likely to engage in criminal behavior; however, they may be more likely to engage in white-collar crimes.

In their recent study, Jang and Lee [9] found that undercontrolled personalities were more likely to engage in delinquent behavior compared to those with overcontrolled personalities. Laajasola and Hakkanen-Nyholm [10] re-stated a well-known finding that undercontrolled personalities, characterized by impulsivity, sensation seeking, and aggressiveness, were more likely to be violent offenders than those with overcontrolled personalities. Finally, Yildirim and Ozdemir’s [11] findings showed similar results for juvenile delinquency. The authors conclude that undercontrolled personalities who are characterized by impulsivity, emotional instability, and low agreeableness were more likely to engage in juvenile delinquency than those with overcontrolled personalities.

3. Extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism

Eysenck’s work emerged from his exploration of personality traits among 700 male service patients in 1940s. Eysenck completed a large-scale factorial study that resulted in three main types: neuroticism (N), extroversion (E), and psychoticism (P).

Neuroticism: The traits that compose the type neuroticism include: anxious, depressed, guilt feelings, low self-esteem, irrational, shy, moody, and emotional. Individuals falling under this super factor are prone to feeling anxious in social situations and often experience low self-esteem and guilt. They may exhibit irrational and emotional behavior, where emotions override reason, leading to aggressive and impulsive actions. According to Eysenck, the multiplicative process of the traits composing neuroticism becomes more evident over time, resulting in a positive association between neuroticism and criminal behavior in older samples.

Extraversion: Extraverted persons tend to be outgoing, talkative and friendly, but also assertive, sensation seeking, and dominate in social situations. Eysenck found that extraverts tend to have low cortical arousal which influences conditionability. Eysenck uses conditionability to refer social learning mechanism. He states that learning is really a conditioning phenomenon. Differences in cortical arousal are associated with differences in conditionability. High cortical arousal is connected with better conditioning. Finally, Eysenck associates differences in cortical arousal with biological factors (i.e., low MOA).

In addition, Eysenck recognized that extraversion is more likely in younger samples since these traits gradually may lose their influences with aging. For instance, socializing experiences influence risk-taking behaviors in some individuals.

Psychoticism: Finally, persons characterized with psychoticism tend to be very egocentric and are unemphatic to others’ needs. They also tend to be impulsive, cold, and impersonal. Eysenck suggests psychoticism is positively associated with criminal behavior among all individuals exhibiting the traits that compose psychoticism.

Taken together, high scores on all three personality domains greatly increase the likelihood that someone will exhibit criminal behavior. However, Eysenck [3] notes that not all three dimensions are required for criminal conduct to occur. Furthermore, it is important to note that Eysenck’s notion of personality stems from both biological and social factors. He recognizes both (1) the importance of genetics and their biological manifestations to personality (e.g., cortical arousal, neurotransmitters, limbic system) and (2) the environment’s effect on personality (e.g., whether the individual is around prosocial conditioning and frequency of conditioning).

Empirical evidence for Eysenck three personality dimensions: Johnson Listwan et al. [12] discusses four separate studies that reveal the importance of identifying neurotic, or highly anxious, offenders. Across all four studies, the Jesness Inventory was used with adult male offenders. Studies revealed that inmates characterized as neurotic were significantly more depressed than the remaining three groups, recidivism rates are significantly higher (controlling race and risk), and they were more likely to involve in drug offenses. In addition, examining personality types in child molesters revealed that neurotics differed significantly on three dependent measures including self-esteem, distress, and fantasy (i.e., an intellectual component of empathy). Specifically, neurotics scored significantly higher on both measures of distress and fantasy, and significantly lower on self-esteem.

By using Dunedin sample (ages 13 to 18 males), Moffitt, Lynam, Donald, and Silva [7] found that individual differences in neurological functioning were related to early onset. In other words, delinquency at age 13 predicts delinquency at age 18, and neurological measures contribute for this stability. Based on this finding, it can be argued that neurological deficits create variation in cognitive ability of individuals, which in turn yield to behavior differentiation in the same birth cohort. In his social learning theory, Bandura [13] also mentions about the role of biological factors for the acquisition of aggressive behavior. Bandura asserts that neurological deficits may impair cognitive capability of individuals, which in turn reduces the chance of direct and observational learning capacity of individuals for prosocial behavior. In addition, similarly, Eysenck [13] well integrates the role of biological factors on neuroticism and psychoticism.

Subsequent studies reported similar findings. For instance, Miller and Lynam [12] found that extraversion was positively correlated with criminal behavior, particularly property crimes. The study by Francis, Penny, and Campbell [13] showed that individuals scoring high on extraversion were likelier to engage in risky behaviors such as drug use and crime. Another study by Coid et al. [14] found that extraversion was positively correlated with violent and nonviolent criminal behavior. Francis et al.’s study [15] reported that extraversion was positively correlated with aggressive behavior and delinquent behavior among adolescents. Hartman, van Rooijen, and van de Weijer-Bergsma [16] found that extraversion was positively correlated with bullying behavior among adolescents.

Junger-Tas and Marshall [17] studied neuroticism and found that neuroticism was positively correlated with violent behavior. Similarly, Meldrum and Young [18] stated that individuals who score high on neuroticism were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, particularly drug-related crimes. A study by Trimpop, Stoll, and Juckel [19] found that neuroticism was positively correlated with criminal behavior and recidivism. Likewise, Huitema, Bogaerts, and Lens (2019) reported that neuroticism was positively correlated with criminal recidivism among adult offenders. Finally, Clark and Ireland [20] found that neuroticism was positively correlated with violence among prisoners.

Studies report similar results for the relationship between psychoticism and crime involvement. For instance, Hare et al. [21] stated that individuals who score high on psychoticism were more likely to engage in violent and aggressive behavior, which are common features of criminal behavior. Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson [22] found that psychoticism was positively correlated with delinquent behavior and recidivism. Tang and Fu’s [23] study reported that psychoticism was positively correlated with adolescents’ aggressive behavior. Finally, Vierikko et al. [24] found that psychoticism was positively correlated with political violence and terrorism among Palestinian youth.

4. Positive emotionality, negative emotionality, and low constraint

The personality traits that form positive emotionality, negative emotionality, and constraint are based on the work of Tellegen’s [4] Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. The MPQ is a self-report personality instrument designed to assess a broad range of individual differences in behavioral style. In their study, Caspi and Silva [25] identified constraint as a composite of traditionalism, harm avoidance, and control scales. This construct is associated with individuals who tend to conform to social norms, behave in a cautious and restrained manner, and avoid thrill-seeking behaviors. On the other hand, negative emotionality is composed of the aggression, alienation, and stress reaction scales. This reflects those individuals who have a low threshold for experiencing negative emotions such as fear, anxiety, and anger. These individuals are also more likely to engage in antagonistic relationships. Finally, positive emotionality encompasses the achievement, social potency, well-being, and social closeness scales and characterizes individuals who tend to have a pleasurable experience. These three dimensions emerged as major factors related to a variety of behavioral measures in previous research [4].

Perhaps one of the best tests of these three super factors comes from Caspi et al. [26]. Using multiple, independent measures of personality and delinquency, the researchers found that individuals high in negative emotionality or low constraint were significantly more likely to engage in delinquency. This finding is held across gender, race, and country (New Zealand and Pittsburgh, USA). Although they did not test for interaction effects, Caspi et al.’s [26] results suggest that those who are high in both traits are even more likely to commit criminal acts.

Such an interaction effect was found by Agnew et al. [27]. These authors investigated whether negative emotionality and low constraint condition the effect of strain on delinquency. Support for this hypothesis was found. Furthermore, negative emotionality/low constraint was found to have virtually no effect on delinquency when strain was low, but a substantial effect when strain was high. Thus, General Strain Theory is one criminological theory to which personality is relevant. Another study by Jonason, Li, and Richardson [28] found that positive emotionality was positively correlated with aggression and delinquent behavior. Likewise, Reijntjes et al. [29] stated that positive emotionality was positively correlated with bullying perpetration among adolescents. Another study by Ttofi et al. [30] found that positive emotionality was positively correlated with cyberbullying perpetration among adolescents. From the opposite direction, Ullrich et al. [31] reported that negative emotionality was positively correlated with violent and nonviolent criminal behavior among male offenders. Piquero and Moffitt [32] found that negative emotionality was positively correlated with criminal behavior and recidivism. Harada et al. [33] found that negative emotionality was positively correlated with criminal thinking among adult offenders. A study by Natividade et al. [34] found that negative emotionality was positively correlated with violent behavior among Brazilian youth. Regarding low constraint, Lynam & Gudonis [35] found that low constraint was positively correlated with criminal behavior and recidivism. Similarly, Wolff et al.’s [36] study showed that low constraint was positively correlated with criminal thinking and delinquent behavior among incarcerated adults. A study by Raftery and Tafrate [35] found that low constraint was positively correlated with violent behavior among forensic psychiatric patients.

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s [37] low self-control theory suggests that individuals with low self-control are more likely to engage in criminal behavior. Low self-control is associated with impulsivity, a lack of persistence, and a lack of concern for the long-term consequences of one’s actions. According to this theory, low self-control is the leading cause of criminal behavior. It is developed early in childhood through ineffective parenting practices. These individuals cannot resist immediate gratification, making them more likely to engage in impulsive, criminal behavior.

Moffitt’s [7] dual taxonomy theory proposes that there are two types of offenders: adolescent-limited (AL) and life-course-persistent (LCP). While AL offenders engage in delinquent behavior only during adolescence, LCP offenders continue their criminal behavior during their adulthood. According to this theory, individuals with AL criminal behavior are motivated by peer pressure and are more likely to exhibit impulsivity and engage in risky behavior during adolescence. In contrast, LCP offenders have neurological deficits that impair their ability to regulate emotions and make decisions, which results in a lack of impulse control and greater susceptibility to committing crimes.

Sampson and Laub [38] suggest that social bonds can impact criminal behavior. This theory proposes that individuals who have strong social bonds with family, school, and work are less likely to engage in criminal behavior. Similarly, individuals who experience turning points in their lives, such as getting married or starting a career, are less likely to engage in criminal behavior. Impulsivity, however, can disrupt the formation of these social bonds and lead to a disconnection from conventional society. As a result, individuals who exhibit high levels of impulsivity may be less likely to develop strong social bonds and more likely to engage in criminal behavior throughout their lives.

Taken together, criminological theories suggest that personality traits such as impulsivity and self-control can significantly impact criminal behavior. Those who lack self-control or are prone to impulsive behavior may be more likely to engage in criminal activity, especially if they have a history of ineffective parenting or a lack of positive social bonds.

5. Conclusion

One of the aims of criminological studies is to determine who will more likely to commit crime relative to others. Eysenck and Eysenck [1] claim human beings differ not only for their appearances but also for their certain dimensions. Quantifying and measuring differences and similarities across people, personality theories try to understand what kind of personality types are more likely associate with criminal behavior.

Over the last three decades, studies have found that certain personality dimensions are significant in predicting future criminal involvement. This is a great assessment tool to prevent criminal propensities for individuals and offenders. Finally, as opposed to prior acceptance, personality traits occupy newly developed theories, such as Gottfredson and Hirschi’s low self-control, Moffitt’s dual taxonomy of adolescent limited and life course persistent and even Sampson and Laub’s [38] age-graded informal social control theory.

Taken together, the criminological theories suggest that there is a significant relationship between personality traits (e.g., impulsivity, self-control) and the criminal behavior. Individuals with low self-control or a tendency to impulsive behavior may be more likely to engage in criminal activity. The magnitude of the relationship increases when there is a history of ineffective parenting or weak social bonds.