Perspective Chapter: Personality and Criminal Behaviors

Abstract

In this chapter, first of all, the social order and deviation, the concept of crime and the development of the concept of crime, the elements and types of crime, and the theories explaining the crime are given. Then, the concept of personality, the concepts of character, temperament, personality theories, the relationship between personality and crime, and the relationship between personality traits and psychopathology are addressed. While examining the relationship between Criminal Behavior and Personality, 10 studies that were written for graduate education in Turkey and that deal with the relationship between personality traits and criminal behavior from different perspectives were examined theoretically. A general inference was tried to be made to shed light on future studies and to provide a basic platform.

1. Introduction

1.1 Deviation from norms and criminal Behaviors

A person opens his eyes to life in a community, and continues his life and dies. Social life works according to certain rules and the learning of these rules starts from the family, continues on the street, in educational institutions, in the working environment, in various sub-cultural groups and finally in other areas of life. Malinowski, who examined the primitive Melanesian population in the Trobriand Archipelago in the northeast of New Guinea, explains the result of his research as follows: “Such an examination reveals that the rules of laws and traditions cannot be evaluated separately from each other, but that there are organic ties between them. This law, customs and traditions contain many sensitive points due to their nature. Time will show us that these sensitive points are reflected in the functioning of social life and that rules exist only in the chain of social transactions and are nothing more than a link in this chain.” As it is seen, including primitive societies, this learning, in other words, socialization process, prepares the individual for social life and the process continues throughout life. The family, which is the first social institution that the child encounters, is also the place where the first moral norms and value judgments and customs and traditions are learned. With this function, the family is an irreplaceable institution in the socialization process. This is the period in which the child learns moral norms such as good-bad, beautiful-ugly, and emotions such as pleasure, liking, pain, and hatred before learning the reason for reasoning and behavior. The foundations for the next years of life are laid in this period. The environments of socialization after the family are: street, educational institutions, sub-cultural groups, business environment, social, cultural, and political environments. Thanks to the rapid social transformation, “mass media” has been effectively added to these environments. In the accepted expression, “the influence of the media is more profound and continuous today than the others.” In recent years, it has been observed that while the influence of traditional socialization environments (family, street, educational institutions, work environment) has decreased, the influence of the media has increased. The individual learns and internalizes the values and norms of the society in which he grew up during the socialization process. In this way, while gaining an unique identity and self, it also provides continuity to the society in which it is located. The society stands as long as these values and norms are followed. This standing of society is called “social order.” Social groups put pressure on their members for the continuation of the social order, and they are largely successful in this. However, it is not always possible to fully comply with social rules. Here, deviant behavior emerges when there is no compliance with the social rules. Deviation may not always be negative, harmful to the social structure. Philosophers, saints, and scholars are also people who behave outside the average norms of the societies they belong to, and their behaviors above the average social norms are met with appreciation and admiration, not reaction. For this reason, it is necessary to examine the deviation in two dimensions as positive and negative [1]. However, if the deviation disrupts the functioning of the social structure through the social problems it causes, it is useful to consider whether this deviation is a crime.

The phenomenon of crime is a multifaceted social problem. This phenomenon can be handled from its moral, legal, economic, political, religious, and cultural dimensions and its analysis can be made on different grounds. It is an important problem in our country as well as in the whole world, both sociologically and legally. For lawyers, crime is an action that the law considers a crime and requires a sanction [2]. Although the phenomenon of crime is included in a legal definition, its sub-dimensions and problematics can be reached when it is evaluated within a social and cultural structure. Therefore, Seligman and Johnson defined the concept of crime as any action directed against the traditions and customs of a community or group. According to Lombrosso, crime is a natural phenomenon as the concepts of birth and death. All acts and thoughts that threaten the welfare of a group or the community disrupt the peace and order, and contain contradictions included in the concept of crime. For years, the concept of crime has become a universal problem in which communities reflect their interests and fears, investigate the causes, and carry out preventive studies [3].

The fact that a crime can be legally considered a crime according to the Turkish Penal Code is evaluated in terms of legal, material, illegality, and morality. In order for a behavior to be considered a crime, it must be clearly stated in the law. This element, also known as the element of typicality in crime, can be considered as a form of behavior contrary to the legal order within the framework drawn by the laws. The basic concept here is the principle of “no crime and punishment without law” [4]. Material element, unless there is a positive or negative action aimed at creating a change in the external world, the existence of crime cannot be mentioned. There must be an action in the middle. In other words, to realize the material element of the crime, there must be an action that is reflected outside [5]. The unlawful element of the crime is accepted as the acceptance of the act as a crime in the laws and the presence of penal sanctions related to it. In other words, the main theme of illegality is stated not only as a violation against the criminal law but also as a violation against the entire legal order [6]. Finally, the moral element of the crime means that the conscious and mental abilities of the perpetrator are at a minimum standard. In other words, the spiritual element is the state of the perpetrator not to be a minor child or to have mental weakness or mental illness [7].

Apart from the elements of the crime, it is useful to mention the types of crime to better understand the crime phenomenon. Types of crimes can be broadly grouped as personal (violent) crimes, sexual crimes, addictive substance criminality, and property crimes. Violence refers to a behavior that results in physical, psychological, or social harm to the victim. Violent crimes can be listed as willful murder, looting, blood feud, and domestic violence. Sex crimes are crimes against the same or opposite sex. Rape, adultery, and prostitution crimes, which are considered in the category of sexual crimes, are crimes that are lower than other types of crimes. Addictive substance crimes are examined in two groups as providing addictive substances and using addictive substances. Theft is one of the most common crimes against property [8].

Because criminal behavior is diverse, there are multiple theories of criminality. The first of the guilt theories is the classical school (utilitarian school) based on “Hedonistic Psychology.” Hedonistic belief (hedonistic, utilitarian) suggested that man adjusts his actions according to the principle of pleasure and pain. The pleasure of a behavior should be balanced with the pain that that behavior will cause. Otherwise, if the pleasure that the individual gets from his behavior is more than the pain it causes, the individual will tend to this behavior. This view was pioneered by Jeremy Bentham and Marquis Beccaria. According to Bentham, punishment should be such that the offender does not commit a greater crime when released. The classical school looks at crime and punishment from a legal point of view. It envisages that the evaluation should be made by ignoring the individual differences seen in individuals who commit crimes. Beccaria summarizes this situation as follows: All persons who commit illegal acts should be punished equally, regardless of their age, status, or state of health. However, the classical school criticizes the unlimited power of the state to punish and proposes a more realistic approach to crime and punishment. In the nineteenth century, the Neo-classical school (new classical school) emerged, based on the same foundation as the classical school. Neo-classicals are of the opinion that the harsh punishments of the classical school should be more humane and softened. It is not wrong to say that the new classicists made the first scientific studies in the field of juvenile delinquency. Among the innovations they have introduced are the provisions that no penalties are applied to those under the age of seven and that those with mental disabilities are not criminally liable [9]. The classical school deals with the crime phenomenon legally. The positivist school, on the other hand, deals with crime psychologically, sociologically, and biologically. According to the positivist school, many sociological, psychological, and biological reasons affect human behavior. In social life, people are under the influence of many factors. This situation plays an important role in the criminal behavior of people. Individuals exhibit criminal behavior by being affected by their environment, economic situation, and psychological disorders, so the source of criminal behavior is not the person himself, but the factors that affect him [10]. According to the geographical theory, which is one of the first elements of the positivist school, crime is examined according to geographical regions. In this method, the effects of regional differences, climatic characteristics, and geographical location on individuals committing crimes are emphasized. Claiming that crime rates are higher in equatorial climates, Montesquieu argued that alcoholic beverages are more preferred in the arctic region. It is possible to say that Aristotle’s views on the effects of natural conditions on the lives of individuals, social life, and therefore on laws, are parallel to Montesquieu, in this context, Aristotle’s advocacy of individuals living in cold climates to be liberal and saying that freedom does not mean anything for societies living in hot regions. It is possible to think that it is related to the fact that Ibn Khaldun said that the Bedouins living in harsh weather conditions were brave people. Quetelet, on the other hand, argued that crimes against individuals increased in southern regions and hot climates; on the contrary, there were many conflicts over property in northern regions and cold climates, and such crimes were more common. He named this theory as “the heat law about guilt” [4]. Psychological explanations focus on intrinsic drives and motivations that influence behavior. Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psychoanalytic theory, argues that early childhood experiences leave permanent traces and are effective in criminal behavior. He also states that guilt can be used as a defense mechanism to get rid of the stress created by sexual and aggressive impulses, especially during adolescence. Erik Ericsson’s Psychosocial Development Theory, who has a psychoanalytic view, also states that identity development is closely related to antisocial behavior. He argues that adolescents may engage in illegal behaviors and experience severe emotional problems while resolving identity confusion. Another psychological explanation is the explanations of Learning Theories. Watson, Skinner, Rotter, Bandura, Akers, and Berkowitz emphasize the importance of learning in the development and maintenance of criminal behavior. Watson and other behavioral theorists, one of the pioneers of Behaviorism Theory, argue that it would be better to eliminate all concepts related to the mind and mind, since it cannot be observed and measured, and that the stimulus–response model explains criminal behavior more clearly. They emphasize that the reinforcements or punishments given after the behavior affect the subsequent behavior and that the criminal behavior is learned and strengthened by the reinforcements gained. Skinner also argues in Operant Conditioning Theory that it is not very meaningful to investigate the temperaments or personalities that cause criminal behavior, and that criminal behavior is determined by the environment one lives in. According to Skinner and his followers, to eliminate crime, it is necessary to establish a social order in which people can get rewards only if they comply with social rules and regulations, and in which they will not receive rewards if they do not obey the rules. According to the Social Learning Theory, which emphasizes the importance of mental processes as well as the stimulus–response link when explaining human behavior, finding Skinner’s theory too limiting, human beings are active problem solvers who perceive, encode, and interpret environmental stimuli. To comprehend criminal behavior, it is crucial to have a deep understanding of perceptions, thoughts, expectations, competition, and values. Among social learning theorists, the theories of Rotter, Bandura, Shuterland, and Akers explain criminal behavior. Julian Rotter’s Expectancy Theory draws attention to the importance of expectations about the consequences of behavior. People develop fixed and coherent “generalized expectations” in the face of relatively similar situations. Before performing a behavior, the person asks himself, “What were the consequences of this behavior before and what will I gain now?” asks the question. According to Rotter, whether or not a certain behavior pattern will be revealed depends on the person’s expectations of the results and how much they value those results. When Rotter’s theory is applied to criminal behavior, it can be said that the person expects a change in status, power, security, love, financial gain, or living conditions as a result of an illegal behavior. Although they can regulate their own behavior and their moral development is normal, people who commit illegal acts perceive and interpret the situation and choose the behavior they think is most effective under these conditions. The person can perform the behavior by observing that another person gains as a result of the behavior, as well as considering previous experiences about the consequences of the behavior. In his Social Learning Theory, Bandura argues that people can be led to do that behavior by watching what another person does without the need for a reward. Bandura claimed that most behaviors are acquired by following models in the first place. Social learning theorists believe that the social environment is the most important factor in the acquisition of most human behaviors. However, they also recognize the necessity of reward for maintaining the behavior. Criminal behavior is first gained through identification and observation, but whether the behavior is preserved or not is explained depending on the reward. If no reward is received, the behavior will most likely not be repeated (extinction). If the behavior produces undesirable consequences (punishment), it prevents or suppresses similar behavior that may occur in the future. Adolescents imitate the behaviors of individuals they respect and admire. If the behavior of a role model is anti-social, the adolescent may imitate this model. Particularly, if the model is financially or socially successful, the likelihood of imitation may increase. If criminal behavior brings wealth, status, prestige, or the appreciation of friends, the behavior is likely to increase. If criminal behavior eventually loses credibility in the eyes of adolescent friends or those important to him, these behaviors will disappear. According to Bandura, if the observer sees a model that receives a reward, it is more likely to be imitated. Conversely, if the model is punished, the behavior is less likely to be imitated. In Bandura, he believed that a person’s decision to use the new acquired behavior depends on the situation or the expectation of potential gain. This potential gain can come from outside (praise of others, financial gain) or from within (rewarding oneself for perceiving oneself successful at a job). Sutherland states in Differentiated Associations Theory that a person learns to behave deviantly (unusual) through his interpersonal relationships with his social environment. According to the theory, the important factors in acquiring deviant behavior are “the person with whom the identity is established, the duration and frequency of the automata and how important it is in the development of the person.” Sutherland states that appropriate or inappropriate messages are learned in close relationships, and negative messages are more common in breaking the law and criminal behavior. Ronald Akers developed the Social Learning Theory of Deviance by combining the core elements of Skinner, Bandura, and Sutherland’s Differentiated Association Theories. Akers states that deviant behavior most likely develops as a result of social rewards given by significant others, such as a peer group. The group first creates normative definitions about what behavior is good or bad, right or wrong, approved or disapproved. These normative definitions become internal and cognitive guides. At the same time, the strength of the deviant behavior is related to the amount, frequency, and probability of the reward that the person has earned as a result of that behavior in the past. According to Akers, there are two groups of distinctive stimuli that promote deviant behavior. The first discriminating stimulus is the behaviors encouraged by the subgroup. The person who performs these behaviors wins the social rewards given by the group. The second type of discriminative stimulus is the neutralization or justification of behavior. It neutralizes warnings of certain behaviors that are inappropriate or illegal by society. According to Akers, when the individual defines the behavior that others condemn and defines as bad at first, as problem-free, justified, forgivable, necessary, the best of the two evils, not really deviant, he does that behavior. Phrases such as “everyone has a prize,” “I can’t help myself,” or “he deserves it” reflect the neutralized stimulus. Another learning theory that tries to explain criminal behavior is Berkowitz’s Frustration Theory. When a purposeful behavior is inhibited, the arousal increases and the person reacts to reduce it. Behavior done to reduce frustration is self-reinforcing because it changes the stimulus and reduces the unpleasant stimulus. The guilty individual is someone who has experienced long, strong disappointments as a result of their unmet needs. According to Berkowitz, both modeling and frustration play an important role in the development of criminal behavior. Particularly if the individual’s expectation of achieving a goal is very high, disappointment is also great. Berkowitz states that children who are neglected by their family and whose trust and emotional needs are not met will not trust people and will experience disappointment, and as a result, they may turn to criminal behaviors [11]. Criminal behavior was first studied sociologically by scientists in the early twentieth century. The most detailed explanation about the causes of both juvenile and adult delinquency has been made by sociological crime theories. Considering the causes that lead to crime and delinquency, basic theories, social norms, social organizations, social structure and changes, social process and the relationship between social conflict and deviant behavior are emphasized. When criminal behavior is viewed from a sociological perspective, crime is the product of the social environment. So sociologically, the problem is in the society itself. When examining crime, modern sociologists have focused on two things in particular. One is structure and the other is process. Social structure theorists have tried to explain the relationship between crime and social structure. They are interested in how the crime event first started and what the characteristics of the social structure are. One of the most important issues is whether crime rates change as social structures change. The second approach issue that sociologists are interested in has been people who exhibit criminal behavior. Sociologists are concerned with the process between the criminal and the non-criminal [12]. The first theories about crime are those that deal with crime from a biological perspective. It is Lombroso who laid the foundations of this theory. Known as the father of criminology, Lombrosso, who initiated biological explanations, tried to establish a relationship between delinquency and heredity. Lombrosso researched the biological structure of human behavior, especially stating that physical deficiency causes delinquency. “Crime is a natural event in general causation. Crime is largely the product of organismal conditions. Some people are born criminals. Man commits crimes because of the anatomical, biological and psychological unusual features in his body. Punishment does not destroy the natural forces that created the crime. Therefore, instead of punishment, good health protection, health information is more effective in preventing crimes. The state must fight crime to ensure social defence. Over time, Lombroso limited his statements to one-third of all criminals born guilty. Thus, he drew attention to the social causes of crime.” Looking at the studies in this area, starting from Lombroso’s attempt to explain the origins of juvenile delinquency with biological theories, it is found that Sheldon stepped in and tried to establish relationship between buddy structure and juvenile delinquency. He tried to establish a relationship between temperament and personality traits in certain physical characteristics. “It continued with the Somatotype School, a movement that has developed since the beginning of the twentieth century and explores the relationship between body structure and crime.” The leading names of this school are William H. Sheldon. As a result of this research, he developed a highly detailed model consisting of four categories: picnic (pyknik), athletic (athletic), asthenic (asthenic), and mixed type (unclassified mixed type). In this model, he also mentioned body types and three personality types, which he named cycloid, schizoid, and dysplastic. Sheldon divided people into three different groups according to their body structure. These are Endomorphic (short, small-boned, fat, soft-skinned), Ectomorphic (sensitive, gentle, shy, slender, low-shouldered, small-faced), and Mesomorphic (bony, muscular, broad-chested, tough, athletic, and aggressive). Theorists mentioned in this field have determined in their studies that people with mesomorphic body structure are more prone to criminal behavior [2].

1.2 Personality

Personality can be defined as the whole of the behaviors that an individual does in order to adapt to his environment, and also as the physical, spiritual, and mental characteristics that distinguish each individual from the other [7]. To touch on the concepts of character, temperament, and temperament, which are related to personality and are often confused with the concept of personality and which are actually different components of personality, studies on character analysis have made us think that character (insight-based learning) is formed after temperament and with learning dispositions over time. Character is formed by being motivated by the events that children experience, for example, by some defense mechanisms they develop. Character is formed and shaped by the individual’s responses to a set of volitional goals and motives. The concept of identity, that is, character, no longer represents the unconscious responses we can give, such as temperament, but the behaviors shaped by our brain by establishing some cause-effect relationships. On the other hand, “temperament” is the general attitude and predispositions of the individual, which is genetic, that is, innate. The word “temperament” is of Arabic origin. In TDK’s General-Turkish dictionary, temperament is a noun in the sense of “humor, creation, nature, character.” In psychology, temperament is the motivational processes underlying some habits in the individual that develop with emotions. Finally, temper is defined as “the whole of the creation and spirit characteristics of a person, temperament, nature” [4].

When the studies on the concept of “personality” are examined, some researchers focus on the factors that make up the “personality,” consider the concept of “personality” as a part of the developmental process, and consider it as an organization that is formed by the influence of both innate characteristics and environmental factors in the development process, and that this organization is formed by the individual’s thought. He tried to explain how it was reflected in his feelings and behaviors. Some researchers have considered the phenomenon of “personality” as the initial mechanism that affects thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and tried to explain the differences observed in the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of people with the same qualities in the context of “personality traits.” In addition, as a result of this, they identified the personality traits of people who had similar thoughts and feelings about events and gave similar reactions as a result, and grouped these concepts related to the personality traits they determined and categorized them under umbrella concepts. Freud, who is known as the founder of psychoanalytic theory, comes first among those who focus on the factors that make up the personality. Freud put forward the view that the first five years of childhood affect personality traits in adulthood, and he argued that the psychological and social conflict around the sexual impulses in the first years of life is one of the most influential factors on the development of the person. Based on this argument, he analyzed human development by dividing it into five psychosexual stages of development: oral, anal, phallic, latent, and genital. Drawing attention to the fact that the sources of sexual pleasure are different in these five developmental stages, he argued that personality traits are formed on the basis of whether or not satisfaction is achieved in terms of sexual pleasure with the influence of the environment. Karl Abraham, one of the scientists who grew up with a psychoanalytic orientation, emphasized that the main factor forming the personality is the early relationship between the mother and the child. Horney, Fromm, and Sullivan did not accept Freud’s theory of drive and, in relation to Fromm’s theory of personality, there are four neurotic mechanisms: masochism, sadism, destructiveness, and automatic conformity. He defined five character types as accepting, hoarding, consuming, exploiting, and producing. Erikson, on the other hand, discussed personality development in terms of organ and organ function in terms of somatic perspective, self, and social context. In addition, he added the person’s past life, biological structure, sociological, and anthropological knowledge into the personality organization and preferred to use the notions of zone, mode and modality for eight periods in the psychological development process of the person. On the other hand, researchers who discussed the concept of “personality” in the context of the consequences of “personality traits” realized that personality traits were a confounding factor, especially during diagnosis in the clinical sample, and initially considered personality traits categorically as “there is a disorder” and “no disorder.” However, later on, they found it more appropriate to think that what is meant by personality disorder in the natural universe, not in the clinical sample, is an extension of “normal,” and in this context, they discussed personality traits with a dimensional approach to explain human behaviors and gather similar behaviors under a group. Jung, who is one of the proponents of analytical theory and has different views from Freud, argued that typology has an effect instead of analytical perspective on personality theory. In this context, he made definitions about the characteristics of introverted and extroverted people and made definitions that lay the groundwork for moving from typology to dimensional features. These features have inspired many personality theorists, one of whom is Eysenck, to change the evaluations of personality traits from typology to dimensional features. Based on the dimensional characteristics of the personality, the typological modeling has been moved to the structural-developmental modeling. With this development, experimental studies were started for the first time while defining the personality structure. Another view that guides these studies is the assumption that personality traits may have an effect on the natural structure of language due to the use of language in social relations. Based on this assumption, G. Allport and H. Odbert created a comprehensive dictionary by listing personality-related traits. In the ensuing studies, thousands of words have emerged that clarify these features. Then, these words were formed to be gathered under five factors by factor analysis method. For this purpose, Cattel comes first among those who use the factor analysis method, and in 1973, he gathered complex personality traits under 16 different dimensions. In 1975, Eysenck also grouped personality under two dimensions as extraversion and introversion and neuroticism and stability. In 1980, Costa and McCrae added the dimension of openness to change as a third dimension to these two dimensions, and the dimensions of reconciliation and conscientiousness as the fourth and fifth dimensions in 1987. Costa and McCrae expanded their work based on the criticisms made against lexical dimensions and created the Five Factor Model. These factors are neuroticism, in other words, neuroticism, extroversion, openness to change, conscientiousness, and compromise. They added two more factors that they called irritability and activity for children and adolescents to these five factors they defined [13].

1.3 Personality and criminal behaviors

In studies on identifying criminal behavior related to personality, it has been stated that thoughtless and sudden reactions such as hyperactivity, inability to control oneself, and lack of control are affected and criminal behavior occurs in individuals with such behavioral characteristics. When we consider the personality as the combination of social factors and the individual’s unique heredity structure, determining the personality traits of the individual can guide us in this sense. The role of family, social factors, and education is very important in the formation of personality traits. In many crime theories, it is emphasized that these factors cause crime separately. Sutherland stated that crime is a learned behavior like other behaviors and that the learning process occurs as a result of a certain interaction. With learning, the individual is affected by the behaviors of other individuals in general, and these behaviors that form the personality have an important role. In these studies, which are mentioned in the literature as learning theories, it is stated that the behaviors of individuals are learned exactly. The importance of the advances in the cognitive movement in psychology and the shaping of individuals’ behaviors in this dimension have also affected the studies in the science of criminology. In the subculture theory of crime, he stated that individuals should act together to raise themselves to the top in the environment they are in and that criminal subcultures can be formed according to their own traditions and the characteristics of the environment. Individuals who are members of the subculture stated that they see criminal behavior as a normal behavior, think that they are pushed into this situation, and resort to all kinds of violent behavior to prioritize respectability. In the following process, individuals’ seeing this as a rule belonging to the society ensures that these behaviors are reinforced, and it is emphasized that living individuals think that the streets have their own rules. Finding the tendencies of individuals as personality will be an important input in determining which behaviors they are prone to processing. From the point of view of criminal behavior, in general, the realization of a behavior by individuals, with the exception of an accident situation and individuals with a biological disease, does not occur from an instantaneous development. These instantaneous events are affected by the experiences of the individual, the events he has learned, his feelings, thoughts, in short, his personality, because these concepts we have mentioned form the personality. In this sense, the concept of psychopathy was first used in studies in this field. In the case of psychopathy, it is understood that individuals exhibit irresponsible behavior and aggressive behavior from childhood to adulthood. Negative personality traits such as irresponsibility, lack of empathy, lack of guilt, sudden and thoughtless reactions, and lack of emotional depth are observed in individuals with psychopathy characteristics. Psychopathy and individuals committing crimes as a result of momentary behavioral disorders have led to the determination that there are some problems in behavioral mechanics. It has been concluded that there are some deficiencies in thinking and some learned rules come into play at this point, and the concept of personality of individuals cannot fully settle [6].

2. Methodology

In this study, the studies written by Akdemir, Arduç, Balcıoğlu, Çalışkan, Güney, İşbakan, K. Güneş, Koçak, Küçükbaşol, and Okumuş for graduate education and in which they discussed the relationship between personality traits and criminal behavior from different perspectives were examined.

3. Results

In Akdemir’s study in 2015, in which the personality traits of convicted and non-convicted individuals were compared in the context of the average of their antisocial behavior tendency levels and the average of their psychopathy scores, it was observed that the mean of the antisocial behavior tendency levels of the convicts and the mean of their psychopathy scores were higher than those who were not convicted, with the difference being significant [14].

In the study by Arduç in 2016, in which the convicted and non-convicted group compared the average scores of the sub-dimensions of the temperament and character scale, while it was observed that the average of the convicts’ novelty seeking, harm avoidance, and self-transcendence scores were higher than the non-convicts and the difference was significant, the average of the reward dependence, self-direction, and cooperation scores of the non-convicts was higher than the convicts and the difference was significant [4].

In the study by Balcıoğlu, in which he compared the average scores of those who committed repetitive crimes, those who committed a single crime and those who never committed a crime, from the sub-dimensions of the temperament and character scale, it has been observed that those who commit repetitive crimes have a statistically significant higher search for novelty than those who commit a single crime and those who commit a single crime than those who have never committed a crime. In the same study, it was observed that those who have never committed a crime have a statistically significantly higher tendency to self-direct and cooperate than those who have committed a single crime and those who have committed a single crime than those who have committed repetitive crimes [15].

In a study conducted by Çalışkan in 2014 on the comparison of the personality traits of individuals in prison and those working in the police force within the framework of the five-factor personality theory, the average of emotional stability and openness scores of individuals in prisons was found to be higher than those of those working in the police force, with the difference being significant. Was found to be significantly lower [7].

In the study conducted by Güney in 2020 on the determination of the personality traits and criminal profiles of female murderers in Turkey, the research analyzed the Five-Factor Personality Scale’s subdimensions’ average scores and the causal relationship between social stressors and personality characteristics. She found that the women’s highest personality trait was Conscientiousness. However, Agreeableness levels differed from Conscientiousness scores, which differed from Extraversion scores, and the latter differed from Emotional Inconsistency and Negative Valence scores. The research also indicated that Openness to experience scores were higher than negative valence scores. Güney pointed out that positive personality traits, such as conscientiousness, combined with challenging living conditions, acted as a trigger for the crime of murder [16].

In İşbakan’s 2011 study on the examination of personality traits of individuals who committed crimes against life and property in the context of Rorschach Personality Test results, individuals who commit crimes against life are more intellectual, dreamy, realistic, impulsive, having difficulty in controlling their emotions, compared to individuals committing crimes against property. While it is observed that they are compatible with the outside world and social environment and are childlike, the content of thought of both groups is poor, having difficulty in practical and concrete thinking, shallow and superficial, emotionally childlike, primitive, experiencing intense emotional depression, not attaching much importance to reality and objectivity, and impulsive in internal processes. It has been observed that they tend to behave in a way, have weaknesses in their relations with their social environment, and have low ability to establish social relations [8].

In the study conducted by Güneş in 2018 on the effect of adolescents’ personality traits and perceived parental attitudes on criminal behavior, it was found that there was a high level of positive and statistically significant correlations between adolescents’ hostility and aggression tendencies and criminal behavior. It was observed that there was a positive, moderate, and statistically significant relationship between emotional consistency and worldview and criminal behavior, while a negative, low level, and statistically significant relationship was observed between addiction and defensive independence and criminal behavior [17].

In Koçak’s 2017 study on the effect of childhood traumas on the violent and non-violent criminal behavior of young adults, there was a negative, low, and statistically significant and developmental relationship between women’s levels of self-control and mildness and their levels of violent and non-violent criminal behavior. It has been observed that there is a negative, low, and statistically significant relationship between openness levels and non-violent criminal behaviors. In addition, there is a negative, low, and statistically significant relationship between men’s levels of amenableness and violent and non-violent criminal behaviors, and there is a negative, low, and statistically significant relationship between self-control and openness to development and non-violent criminal behaviors. It was observed that there was a positive, low, and statistically significant relationship between the levels of tendency to be emotionally unstable and non-violent criminal behavior [18].

In the study of Küçükbaşol conducted in 2005 on the relationship between the personality traits and deviant behaviors of secondary and high-school students, there was a negative, low, and statistically significant relationship between the level of self-control, theft, and drug crimes; and negative, moderate, and statistically significant between the level of self-control and sexually explicit criminal behaviors. It was observed that there was a negative, moderate, and statistically significant relationship between the level of self-control and status crime and violating school rules, and a negative, moderate, and statistically significant relationship between the level of self-control and status crime related to driving. In addition, it was observed that there was a positive, low, and statistically significant relationship between the level of emotional instability and heavy-light theft and drug crimes, and a positive, low level and statistically significant relationship between emotional instability and status crime and behaving against school rules. In addition, it has been observed that there is a negative, low and statistically significant relationship between openness and sexually explicit criminal behaviors, and a negative, low, and statistically significant relationship between openness and status crime related to driving. Finally, there was a negative, low, and statistically significant relationship between the levels of compatibility and responsibility and the status crimes related to heavy and light theft and drug crimes, sexually-related criminal behaviors, and driving, and there were also differences between the levels of compatibility and responsibility and status crimes and violating school rules. It was observed that there was a negative, moderate, and statistically significant relationship [19].

Finally, in the study in which Okumuş evaluated the personality structures of the perpetrators of sexual crimes within the scope of the Rorschach Personality Test in 1994, it has been seen that the most common personality structures in perpetrators of sexual crimes and theft crimes are infantile personality structure (childlike), einotif personality structure (attribute), impulsive personality structure (impulsive), simple personality structure, puerile personality structure (pure), and inadequate personality structure. Among both crime groups, infantile personality structure was found to be the most effective [20].

4. Conclusion

This chapter explored the concepts of personality, character, and temperament, along with various personality theories. It also discussed the relationship between personality and criminal activity, and how personality traits can be associated with psychopathology. To investigate the connection between criminal behavior and personality, 10 studies at the post-graduate level conducted in Turkey examined in terms of the link between personality traits and criminal activity from different perspectives. The chapter also covered various topics related to crime, such as social order and deviation, the evolution of the crime concept, different types of crime, and theories that attempt to explain criminal behavior.

Certain researchers focus on the components that contribute to a person’s “personality.” They view “personality” as a part of the developmental process, shaped by both innate characteristics and environmental factors, resulting in the formation of an individual’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Some researchers consider “personality” as the primary mechanism that influences thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and aim to explain the differences observed in people with similar qualities. Consequently, they identify personality traits of individuals with similar thought processes and emotional reactions, categorizing them under umbrella concepts.

Considering the studies on personality traits and criminal behavior, it has been observed that novelty seeking and harm avoidance behaviors among the Five Factor Personality Traits increase the tendency to commit crimes. It has been observed that those who can manage themselves, those who are open to cooperation and those who are compatible, have a decreased tendency to commit crimes. In addition, it has been observed that impulsive and immature individuals with antisocial personality traits, which are related to psychopathology, have an increased tendency to commit crimes.