Eysenck's theory of personality and criminal behaviour

Hans Eysenck proposed a theory linking personality traits to criminal tendencies, emphasising biological influences while acknowledging environmental factors.

Main personality dimensions in Eysenck's theory

Eysenck initially identified two key dimensions:

Initial dimensions:

• Extraversion-introversion - Individuals scoring high on extraversion are typically sociable and impulsive, while those scoring low (introverts) are quiet and reserved.
• Neuroticism-stability - High neuroticism involves anxiousness and restlessness, whereas stability reflects calmness and reliability.

He later added a third dimension:

• Psychoticism - High scorers tend to display aggressive, hostile, and uncaring traits.

According to Eysenck, people inherit a genetic predisposition to these personality types, but environmental influences can shape how they manifest, including in criminal behaviours.

Links between personality dimensions and criminal behaviour

• Psychoticism - Strongly predicts criminal behaviour due to traits like aggression and lack of empathy.
• Extraversion - Associated with criminal acts in younger individuals, linked to impulsivity and thrill-seeking.
• Neuroticism - More predictive of crime in older people, possibly due to heightened emotional instability leading to poor decision-making.

Eysenck's approach integrates biological, psychological, and social elements to explain why certain personalities may be more prone to offending.

Evaluation of Eysenck's theory

• Strengths - Combines multiple perspectives, providing a comprehensive view of criminality.
• Limitations - Relies heavily on self-report questionnaires, which can lack reliability as participants may not respond honestly or accurately.

Criminal thinking patterns and cognitive distortions

Criminal thinking patterns refer to habitual ways of thinking that justify or enable offending, often involving distorted perceptions of reality.

Key research on criminal thinking patterns: Yochelson and Samenow (1976)

• Participants - 260 male offenders.
• Method - Interviews and observations over 15 years to identify common thought processes.
• Results - Identified 55 thinking patterns, including excessive fear, a desire for power, lack of trust in others, impulsivity, and fantasies about criminal acts.
• Conclusions - These patterns contribute to a criminal mindset that rationalises illegal behaviour.

Types of cognitive distortions linked to offending

Cognitive distortions are irrational thoughts that warp an individual's view of events, often excusing criminal actions.

Gibbs et al. (1995) highlighted four main types associated with crime:

• Self-centredness - Prioritising one's own needs above others, ignoring the impact on victims.
• Minimisation - Downplaying the seriousness of an offence, such as viewing theft as minor.
• Blaming others - Attributing fault externally, like claiming provocation justified violence.
• Hostile attribution bias - Interpreting neutral situations as threatening, leading to aggressive responses.

Supporting evidence for cognitive distortions: Liau et al. (1998)

• Participants - Delinquent youths and a non-delinquent control group.
• Method - Assessed thought patterns using questionnaires.
• Results - Delinquents showed significantly higher levels of cognitive distortions than the control group.
• Conclusions - Distorted thinking correlates with offending behaviour, suggesting it as a risk factor.

Kohlberg's theory of moral development and criminal behaviour

Lawrence Kohlberg developed a stage theory explaining how moral reasoning evolves with age and cognitive growth, which can influence decisions about right and wrong, including criminal acts.

Stages of moral reasoning in Kohlberg's theory

Kohlberg outlined three levels, each with two stages, progressing from self-interest to principled ethics:

Pre-conventional level - Morality based on consequences:

• Stage 1: Actions avoid punishment (e.g., not stealing to evade jail).
• Stage 2: Actions seek rewards (e.g., helping others for personal gain).

Conventional level - Morality guided by social norms:

• Stage 3: Actions gain approval from others (e.g., behaving well to be liked).
• Stage 4: Actions uphold laws and authority (e.g., following rules for societal order).

Post-conventional level - Morality rooted in abstract principles:

• Stage 5: Actions consider social contracts and individual rights (e.g., laws can be changed if unfair).
• Stage 6: Actions follow universal ethical principles (e.g., protesting injustice despite personal cost).

Offenders often remain at lower levels, judging actions by immediate outcomes rather than broader ethics.

Evidence linking moral reasoning to criminal behaviour: Allen et al. (2001)

• Participants - Criminals and non-criminals.
• Method - Assessed moral reasoning through dilemmas and interviews.
• Results - Criminals displayed lower levels of moral reasoning compared to non-criminals.
• Conclusions - Immature moral development may contribute to offending by limiting consideration of consequences.

Evaluation of Kohlberg's theory

Strengths:

• Explains progression in moral understanding, applicable to understanding criminal choices.

Limitations:

• Lacks ecological validity, as it uses hypothetical scenarios rather than real-life situations.
• Shows cultural bias; Snarey (1985) found through meta-analysis that only stages 1-4 appear universal, with higher stages less common in non-Western cultures.
• Exhibits gender bias; Gilligan (1982) argued that males and females approach morality differently, with females emphasising care and relationships over abstract justice.

Sutherland's differential association theory of criminal behaviour

Edwin Sutherland's differential association theory (1939) posits that criminal behaviour is learned through social interactions, rather than being innate.

Key principles of differential association theory

Sutherland outlined nine principles, emphasising learning in social contexts:

• Criminal behaviour is learned, not inherited.
• Learning occurs mainly in intimate groups, such as family or peers.
• It involves acquiring techniques for crime, along with motives, drives, and attitudes that rationalise offending.
• Exposure to pro-criminal attitudes outweighs anti-criminal ones, making crime more likely.
• The influence depends on frequency, duration, priority (e.g., early life exposure), and intensity of associations.
• Anyone can learn criminal behaviour, regardless of social background.
• Favourable outcomes from crime reinforce the behaviour.

Supporting evidence for differential association theory: Short (1955)

• Participants - Young people reporting on their behaviours and associations.
• Method - Surveys measuring self-reported delinquency and peer associations.
• Results - Found a positive correlation between delinquent behaviour and time spent with delinquent peers.
• Conclusions - Supports the idea that criminality is learned through associations.

Evaluation of differential association theory

Strengths:

• Explains reoffending, as prison environments may expose individuals to more criminal associations.
• Applies to all demographics, not limited by class or background.
• Adopts an interactionist approach, considering both social and individual factors.

Limitations:

• Ignores biological or psychological individual differences that might predispose someone to crime.
• Difficult to measure objectively, as attitudes towards law-breaking are hard to quantify.