The AQA specification classes Eysenck’s theory as a psychological explanation, so if an exam question asks for a psychological explanation you can include Eysenck. However, it is VERY IMPORTANT to remember that a key part of Eysenck’s theory is BIOLOGICAL. The reason why it is under the branch of psychological is because it focuses on personality.
Eysenck’s theory of criminal personality suggests that personality is biologically based and that personality traits include dimensions of extraversion/introversion (E) and neuroticism/stability (N) that can be measured using a personality questionnaire.
According to Eysenck, extraverts have an under-active nervous system, which means they constantly seek excitement. People with high levels of extraversion have a low level of arousal, meaning they require more environmental stimulation to fuel their excitement. Bungee jumping is the perfect activity for extraverts!
In the context of forensic psychology, this environmental stimulation may include criminal behaviour.
Introverts on the other hand lie at the other end of this scale, being quiet and reserved. They are already over-aroused and shun sensation and stimulation. Introverts are reserved, plan their actions and control their emotions. They tend to be serious, reliable and pessimistic.
A person’s level of neuroticism is determined by the reactivity of their sympathetic nervous system (responsible for flight or fight). Neuroticism refers to the stability of personality. A high neuroticism score would represent someone who is more reactive and volatile. Neurotic individuals have an Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) that responds quickly to stress – over reactive. Those who are neurotic tend to be nervous, jumpy and over anxious. This could lead to criminal behaviour, because they have a lack of stability that leads them to be unpredictable. A stable person’s nervous system will generally be less reactive to stressful situations, remaining calm and level headed.
Later, Eysenck added a third personality dimension, psychoticism, which relates to the degree to which somebody is anti-social, aggressive and uncaring. They tend to be unemotional and cold.
Take Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI) and see how you score:
https://sapa-project.org/blogs/EysenckPersonalityQuestionnaire.html
The criminal personality
Eysenck (1964) believed that a criminal personality, would be characterised by people who score highly on neurotism, extraversion and psychotism.
Socialisation
Socialisation is a process where children are taught to delay gratification i.e. they are able to withhold and control their desires/impulses. Watch the video below. Can you identify the high delayers and low delayers of gratification.
Eysenck believed that people with high extraversion and neuroticism had nervous systems that made them difficult to condition. As a result they find it very difficult to learn how to respond to anti-social impulses. This is because, they are always battling against the nervous system which determines their behaviour. Consequently, they are more likely to be impulsive and anti-social.
Evaluation- SAUNDERS
- Nature/Nurture: Eysenck’s theory underestimates the nurture influences on criminal behaviour, and overestimates the impact of biology and personality. For example, Sutherland assumes that criminal behavior is due to being brought up in an environment where an individual is socialised with more pro-crime values i.e. praising or highlighting the positives of crime, compared to anti-crime attitudes i.e. criticizing and highlighting the negative consequences of crime. This suggests that crime is a learned behaviour rather than an innate behaviour, which suggests that Eysenck’s theory may not account for all criminal behaviour. Therefore, it is important that explanations of criminal behaviour take more of an interactionist approach. This is because we can’t separate nature from nurture, and therefore, any theory which takes a stance on one side, is not going to provide an accurate explanation of crime. Challenge: Furthermore, a deterministic theory such as Eysenck is problematic when trying to explain criminal behaviour. This is because it assumes that individuals with high N, E and P cannot be expected to have freewill, and therefore are not responsible for their behaviour. This does not fit in line with our justice system, and creates issues when justifying punishments such as prison sentences.
- Research to support: There is research to support Eysenck’s criminal personality theory. Evidence: Eysenck (1977) compared over 2000 male prisoners scores on Eysenck’s Personality Inventory (EPI) with over 2000 male controls. They found that prisoners recorded higher scores in extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism than controls. This supports the Eysenck’s criminal personality because it shows clear cause and effect between criminal behaviour and the 3 personality types. Therefore, the theory is credible as there is empirical evidence to prove that personality has an effect on crime. Challenge: On the other hand, this research does not back up his claim that a criminal personality has a biological basis due to the nervous system that is inherited. Further biological research would be necessary to support the entirety of his theory.
- : Another issue with Eysenck’s theory is that it is built on the idea that it is possible to measure personality through the use of psychological tests, and this may not be the case. Eysenck developed his Personality Inventory, by asking questions such as ‘Do you remain calm under pressure?’ and then asking ppts to provide a number from 5 (very much) to 1 (not at all). This questionnaire would then determine whether you have high or low extraversion or introversion, neuroticism or stability. It could be argued that personality types cannot be reduced to a single score because personality is far more complex. For example, our personality changes all the time. Simply being in the presence of different people can alter our personality. Therefore, the EPI may not provide an accurate reflection of an individual’s personality traits. Consequently, the whole theory may be based on data that lacks validity and therefore it may not provide an accurate explanation of criminal behaviour Challenge: Furthermore, people may have lied on the EPI due to social desirability. For example, they may have tended to place themselves in more positive characteristics and avoided negative ones such as being selfish.
- Research to oppose: There is research to oppose Eysenck’s criminal personality theory. Farrington (1982) reviewed several studies and reported that offenders tended to score highly on psychoticism, but not on extraversion or neuroticism. This suggests that Eysenck may have overestimated the impact of N and E on criminal behaviour, as there is not enough evidence which consistently suggests that high scores in P, N and E contribute to crime. The fact that there is evidence to disprove Eysenck’s theory, means that the theory has been falsified, and therefore, there must be a more accurate explanation which could better account for criminal behaviour. Challenge: Furthermore, biological measures such as EEG’s have been used to measure the differences in cortical arousal. It found very little difference between extraverts and introverts which again highlights issues with Eysenck’s biological theory.
- Determinism – Assuming that criminal behaviour is due to the nervous system implies that individuals have limited freewill in their actions. This does not fit in with societies treatment towards criminals. We expect criminals to accept responsibility for their actions, whilst this theory removes some of the responsibility from the criminal and could lead to a divide in agreement between various professionals within this system and implementation of the law.
- Cultural bias – Holanchock (1979) studied Hispanic and African-American offenders and found that many of the offenders were less extravert than a non-criminal control group. This would imply that Eysenck’s theory is not generalisable to other cultures. Further research is needed to understand the cultural differences in the personalities or criminals.
Psychological Explanation: Cognitive Explanations of offending
Kohlberg’s research into Moral development (1968):
Aim: Kohlberg hoped to discover how moral reasoning changed as people grew older.
Sample: In his research, 72 Chicago boys aged 10–16 years, 58 of whom were followed up at three-yearly intervals for 20 years (Kohlberg, 1984).
Research method: Each boy was given a 2-hour interview based on ten dilemmas. What Kohlberg was mainly interested in was not whether the boys judged the action right or wrong, but the reasons given for the decision. He found that these reasons tended to change as the children got older. This was also classed as longitudinal study, as some participants had their moral reasoning assessed over time.
Results: Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages.
Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral development:
Stage 1 – 4-13 years old: Pre-conventional stage: Within this stage, children follow rules because they fear punishment. They are also self orientated, and tend to do the ‘Right’ behaviour due to thinking that it will lead to rewards.
Stage 2 – 14-16 years old: Conventional stage: Within this stage, the child will begin to consider other peoples feelings and perspectives. They will do the right thing because they believe it will please others. They also believe that obeying the law is important to create social order which benefits everyone.
Stage 3 – 17 years-adulthood: Post conventional stage: Within this stage the individual’s believe that rules should be followed, only if that rule impacts everyone equally and fairly, if it doesn’t, it should be challenged. They eventually create their own set of rules and morals based on their own set of ethical principles.
How do Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral development link to crime?
According to Kohlberg, criminals are more likely to be classified at the pre-conventional level of moral development, where as non-criminals will have progressed to the conventional level and beyond. This child like approach to morals suggests that individuals will focus more on their own needs and display poor consideration for others. This therefore shows that they have a selfish and simplistic view of the world making them more inclined to turn to crime. Individuals who have higher levels of moral reasoning tend to sympathise more with others and display behaviours such as generosity and honesty.
Kohlberg (1973) was one of the first researchers to apply the concept of moral reasoning to criminal behaviour. Using his moral dilemma technique, he found that violent youths were significantly lower in their moral development than non-violent youths.
Cognitive distortions –
These are hinged off the concept that our internal mental processes affect how we respond to the world around us. For example, someone without cognitive distortions might view an incident, event or interaction in a different way to someone with cognitive distortions. As a consequence, their behaviour might results in a more threatening, aggressive or careless way compared to someone who processes situations differently. It plays in the computer model whereby, the input (from the environment) is processed (using cognitive distortions) and the output is a product of that processing (criminal behaviour).
Hostile Attribution Bias:
Hostile Attribution bias might explain criminal behaviour in terms of criminals incorrectly attributing more hostile behaviours to the individuals, and thus they feel like they can justify being anti-social and committing offences because they feel victimized or an outcast. For example ‘being looked at’ and seeing this as an open invitation for a scrap, when in reality someone was just looking at your shirt and wondering what shop its from.
Minimalisation Bias:
This is an attempt to deny or downplay the seriousness of an offence. If an individual doesn’t perceive their actions to be wrong, it makes sense for this thought process to link to crime. This is because an individual won’t feel guilty, they won’t take responsibility and they won’t learn from the mistake they have made, because they don’t see if as a mistake.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04tqlrz
Evaluation
- Gender biased theory: One weakness is that Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning is gender biased. Kohlberg (1973) explanation is based on a sample of boys aged 10-16. This is androcentric because it only shows how moral development occurs in boys, consequently, Kohlberg’s theory cannot be assumed to represent moral development of females. However, the prison population is predominantly male, and therefore the theory may benefit from being androcentric.
- Research to support collects in depth data: One strength is that Kohlberg’s levels of moral reasoning was developed through extensive research and interviews which collected qualitative data and used a longitudinal design. Kohlberg (1973) conducted a hypothetical dilemma situation, called Heinz’s Dilemma which encouraged the sample to decide whether to break the law or not. Following 2-hour interviews and a follow up every 3 years, Kohlberg was able to develop his levels of moral reasoning. This allowed Kohlberg to understand the reasons behind the moral decisions of the children, and this helped Kohlberg to make more accurate judgments about the cognitive processes of the individuals. However, the dilemmas were artificial and lacked ecological validity as they would not be dilemmas that individuals would ever come across. Also, they are hypothetical so may not reflect what they do in real life.
- Research to oppose: There is research to oppose Kohlberg’s moral explanation of offending Langdon (2010) suggested that intelligence was a better predictor of criminality compared to moral reasoning. Langdon found that those with lower intelligence (IQ) and pre-conventional morals were less likely to turn to crime. This shows that Kohlberg’s theory may not be accurate because according to his theory, those who had pre-conventional morals would turn to crime, but in Langdon’s study they did not. Furthermore, within Kohlberg’s own research (1973) not all of the violent youths had low moral reasoning. Therefore, his theory does not provide a full explanation of offending.
- Research to support: Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared the moral reasoning of female non-offenders, male non-offenders and convicted offenders. They used 11 moral dilemmas such as keeping a promise to a friend. They found that the offenders had less mature moral reasoning that the non-offenders. This supports the theory as it suggests that those with pre-conventional morals are more likely to commit crime due to having a selfish and simplistic view of the world. Consequently, there is evidence to suggest a link between the way an offender thinks and crime. Furthermore, this was better than Kohlberg’s supporting research because it used more realistic dilemmas, improving the ecological validity. Therefore, the theory is more applicable to real life.
- Usefulness: One strength is that cognitive explanations have been useful because it has led to CBT being used with criminals. Ireland (2000), conducted a natural experiment comparing 50 prisoners who had completed CALM and a control group of 37 who hadn’t. CALM is an anger management programme which uses CBT. Offenders participated in measures of their cognition and aggressive behaviour, before and after the programme. Overall, 92% showed improvement on at least one of the measures, and around half showed improvement on at least two “angry behaviour” measures. However, 8% deteriorated on two measures. This supports the cognitive explanation as it shows that when cognition is targeted, it can improve the behaviour of criminals. However, it made minimal improvement, and it mainly improved aggression, and in some cases made people worse, so addressing cognition may not be useful in deterring future offending. Furthermore, it maybe difficult to implement CBT into prisons due to costs and time. There are huge numbers of offenders behind bars, and this is not a solution that can be practically applied to all offenders. This limits the practical application of cognitive explanations.
- One weakness is that cognitive theories are good at describing the criminal mind, but is not very good at explaining how these cognitions arise in the first place. Kohlberg simply states that being in the pre-conventional makes it more likely for an individual to turn to crime. However, Differential Association theory does give an insight into how criminal behaviour is learned through socialisation of pro-crime attitudes and imitating criminal behaviour of role models. This is a weakness of the approach because without identifying the cause of the cognitive faults, it is difficult to try and prevent them. If we don’t understand how they are developed, it is less useful in helping society to put interventions in place, and it also doesn’t help us to predict offending behaviour. Furthermore, the biological approach also provides more empirical evidence such as low activity in the pre-frontal cortex and the warrior gene, and this means that is it a superior explanation because it can identify direct causes of offending
- Ethnocentric – Kohlberg’s theory is very culturally biased towards western culture – particularly the post-conventional level. Therefore, may have limited generalisability when applying to offending behaviour in different countries.
CGS Psychology Blog: Mrs Harris 