Eysenck’s Personality Theory

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, although classified by AQA as a psychological explanation, Eysenck’s theory is strongly biologically influenced because personality traits are assumed to be inherited and linked to nervous system functioning.

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 is the dimension that ranges from emotional stability to emotional instability. 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

• Research to support: A strength of Eysenck’s theory is that there is some empirical evidence to support the existence of a criminal personality. Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) compared the personality profiles of over 2,000 male prisoners with over 2,000 male controls using the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). They found that offenders tended to score higher on extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism than non-offenders.
• Contradictory Research Evidence: Research does not consistently support Eysenck’s criminal personality theory. Although some studies have found that offenders score more highly on extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism, other research has failed to find the same pattern. For example, Farrington found that offenders tended to score higher on psychoticism but not necessarily on extraversion or neuroticism. This suggests that Eysenck may have overestimated the role of E and N in offending behaviour.
• Overemphasis on Nature: Eysenck’s theory may place too much emphasis on biological factors and personality. Social learning explanations, such as Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, argue that criminal behaviour is learned through interactions with others. This suggests that environmental influences may be more important than Eysenck proposed and that offending behaviour is likely to result from an interaction between biological and social factors.
• Scientific Approach: A strength of the theory is its scientific basis. Eysenck attempted to explain criminal behaviour using measurable personality traits and biological processes, such as cortical arousal and autonomic nervous system activity. This makes the theory more objective and testable than explanations based solely on subjective observations. Challenge: However, some physiological research has failed to find the predicted differences in nervous system functioning between extraverts and introverts, reducing support for the biological aspects of the theory.
• Reliance on Self-Report Measures: The theory relies heavily on personality questionnaires such as the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI). Self-report measures may lack validity because participants can misunderstand questions or give socially desirable answers. This means the personality scores used to support the theory may not accurately reflect an individual’s true personality.
• Determinism: Eysenck’s explanation is biologically deterministic. It suggests that inherited personality traits increase the likelihood of offending. This reduces the role of free will and personal choice, raising questions about whether individuals can be held fully responsible for their criminal behaviour.
• Cultural Bias: Research suggests that the relationship between personality and criminality may vary across cultures. For example, Holanchock found that some offender groups were less extravert than non-offenders. This suggests that Eysenck’s theory may not apply equally to all cultural groups and may lack generalisability.

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 Levels of Moral development:

Level 1: 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.

Level 2: 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 (social approval). They also believe that obeying the law is important to create social order which benefits everyone.

Level 3: 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 are more likely to 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, Kohlberg found that delinquent youths were more likely to display pre-conventional moral reasoning than non-delinquent youths, suggesting a relationship between immature moral development and offending behaviour.

Evaluation – Kohlberg’s Moral Reasoning

Research Support (Palmer & Hollin, 1998)

Point: A strength of Kohlberg’s theory is that there is research evidence to support the link between moral reasoning and offending behaviour. Evidence: Palmer and Hollin (1998) compared the moral reasoning of convicted offenders with non-offenders using a series of moral dilemmas. They found that offenders showed less mature moral reasoning than non-offenders and were more likely to reason at lower stages of moral development. Explanation: This supports Kohlberg’s theory because he argued that individuals who remain at the pre-conventional level are more concerned with avoiding punishment or gaining rewards and are therefore more likely to engage in criminal behaviour. The findings suggest that immature moral reasoning is associated with offending, increasing the validity of the theory.

Gender Bias (Gilligan, 1982)

Point: A weakness of Kohlberg’s theory is that it may be gender biased. Evidence: Gilligan (1982) argued that Kohlberg’s theory was based primarily on male participants and assessed morality in terms of justice, rights and rules. She suggested that females are more likely to use a morality of care, focusing on relationships and responsibility towards others. Explanation: This means Kohlberg may have underestimated the moral reasoning of females because his stage system reflects a male perspective of morality. As a result, the theory may lack population validity and cannot be assumed to accurately explain moral development in both males and females.

Methodology used, lack of Ecological Validity

Point: A weakness of Kohlberg’s theory is that the research used to develop it lacked ecological validity. Evidence: Kohlberg assessed moral reasoning using hypothetical dilemmas, such as Heinz’s dilemma, and asked participants what they thought a person should do in that situation. Explanation: Because these scenarios were artificial and hypothetical, participants may have responded differently from how they would behave in real-life situations involving genuine consequences. This means that moral reasoning measured in the research may not accurately reflect real-world moral decision-making, reducing the validity of the theory.

Describes Rather Than Explains Moral Development

Point: A weakness of Kohlberg’s theory is that it explains differences in moral reasoning but does not explain why some individuals fail to develop beyond the lower stages. Evidence: Kohlberg argued that offenders are more likely to remain at the pre-conventional level of moral reasoning. However, the theory does not explain what causes some individuals to become stuck at this stage. Explanation: Other explanations, such as Differential Association Theory, suggest that criminal attitudes are learned through interactions with criminal role models. This provides a more complete explanation of offending behaviour by explaining how criminal thinking develops in the first place. Therefore, Kohlberg’s theory may be limited because it describes the relationship between morality and crime without fully explaining its origins.

Alternative Explanation

Point: One weakness of Kohlberg’s moral reasoning explanation is that criminality may be better explained by intelligence than moral development. Evidence: Langdon et al. (2010) found that IQ was a stronger predictor of offending behaviour than an individual’s level of moral reasoning. Explain: This suggests that offenders may not commit crimes because they are stuck at the pre-conventional level of moral development. Instead, lower cognitive ability may make it more difficult to understand consequences, solve problems or make appropriate decisions.

Cognitive distortions

These are based on 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:

This is the tendency to interpret the actions of others as hostile, even when there is little or no evidence of hostile intent. It is commonly associated with reactive aggression and violent offending. 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, them committing a crime becomes a lot easier. 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.

For example:

“Nobody got hurt”, “It was only a bit of vandalism”, “Everyone does it”.

This captures both aspects of minimisation:

• reducing harm
• denying responsibility

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04tqlrz

Evaluation – Cognitive Distortions

Biological Factors May Also Influence Offending

One criticism of cognitive distortion explanations is that they may underestimate the role of biological influences. Brunner et al. (1993) studied a Dutch family with a genetic mutation linked to low levels of the MAOA enzyme and found unusually high levels of aggressive and violent behaviour among affected males. This suggests that some individuals may possess an inherited predisposition towards aggression and antisocial behaviour. As a result, offending behaviour may not be fully explained by distorted thinking alone. The findings suggest that a complete explanation of criminal behaviour may need to incorporate both biological and cognitive factors.

Research Support for Hostile Attribution Bias

There is evidence supporting the role of hostile attribution bias in offending behaviour. Schönenberg and Jusyte (2014) found that violent offenders were more likely than non-violent controls to interpret ambiguous facial expressions as angry or threatening. This suggests that offenders may process social information differently from non-offenders and are more likely to perceive hostility where none exists. Such findings support the cognitive explanation because they identify a specific cognitive mechanism that may contribute to aggressive and criminal behaviour. This strengthens the credibility of the explanation and makes it more scientifically useful because it generates testable predictions about offender thinking.

Research Support for Minimalisation

Research also supports the role of minimalisation in criminal behaviour. Barbaree (1991) found that many sex offenders downplayed the seriousness of their crimes and denied causing harm to their victims. This suggests that offenders may distort their interpretation of events in order to reduce feelings of guilt and avoid taking personal responsibility for their actions. Such distortions may make criminal behaviour easier to justify. The findings have practical value because they have informed rehabilitation programmes that aim to challenge offenders’ thinking patterns and encourage them to recognise the consequences of their actions.

Cognitive Distortions May Be a Consequence of Offending

Another criticism is that cognitive distortions may not be the original cause of offending behaviour. Some offenders appear fully aware that their actions cause harm and do not genuinely misinterpret situations. Instead, distortions such as minimalisation may develop after a crime has been committed as a way of protecting self-esteem and reducing feelings of guilt. This suggests that cognitive distortions may help offenders justify their behaviour rather than explain why they offended in the first place. Consequently, the cognitive explanation may be better at explaining the maintenance of criminal behaviour than its initial causes.

Cognitive Distortions Are Not Unique to Offenders

A further weakness is that cognitive distortions are not exclusive to criminals. Many non-offenders occasionally engage in biased thinking, such as blaming others for mistakes or downplaying the consequences of their actions. This suggests that distortions such as hostile attribution bias and minimalisation may be normal features of human thinking rather than characteristics unique to offenders. As a result, cognitive distortions alone may struggle to explain why some individuals commit crimes while others do not. This reduces the predictive value of the explanation and suggests that additional factors are likely to contribute to offending behaviour.