ao3 - eysencks and hab

intro

one indvidual difference for criminal behaviour is eysencks theory of personality

supporting

• Study: Furnham (1984)

• Sample: 210 UK non-delinquents

• Variables measured:

  • Personality traits (psychoticism, neuroticism, extraversion)

  • Anomie (lack of moral guidance)

  • Social skills

• Findings:

  • Best predictor of self-reported delinquency: Psychoticism

  • Followed by: Neuroticism, Anomie, Extraversion, Social skills

• Supports: Eysenck’s criminal personality theory

• Implications:

  • Helps assess likelihood of offending

  • Can contribute to early intervention

  • Potential for safer society through preventative strategies

refute

However, Farrington (1992) research depends on the measure used for level of offending behaviour.

 ‘Official’ offenders (caught and convicted) are high in neuroticism and low in extraversion whereas when self-report measures are used to measure criminal activity, those who report criminal behaviour are actually low on neuroticism and high in extraversion.

Since not all criminals have high levels of extraversion and neuroticism, it could be argued that Eysenck’s theory of there being a criminal personality is limited. The individual differences between types of offenders could be more vast and varied 

g

methodological

• Personality traits are often measured using self-report questionnaires

• Participants may not provide accurate or honest responses:

  • May lack self-awareness

  • May give socially desirable answers

• This can result in invalid data

• Reduces validity of the research underpinning Eysenck’s theory

• Suggests we cannot fully rely on this theory to explain criminal behaviour

• Highlights the need for multiple methods and explanations

intro 2

explanation of criminality expored by cognitive factora and cognitive distortions used by offenders

supporting

• Study focus: Relationship between cognitive distortions and anti-social behaviour

• Sample: Anti-social young adults

• Key finding:

  • Strong relationship between anti-social behaviour and minimalisation

  • Offenders may downplay or justify negative behaviours

• Implication:

  • Supports idea that cognitive biases (e.g. minimalisation) contribute to criminal behaviour

  • Helps explain cognitive factors behind offending

  • Useful for offender rehabilitation (e.g. cognitive behavioural therapy)

refuting

Criticism: Maruna & Mann (2006)

• Maruna and Mann (2006) argued that minimalisation may not be a cause of offending, but rather a coping mechanism used by offenders to deal with feelings of guilt after committing a crime.

• They noted that rehabilitation programmes often aim to challenge minimalisation, but suggest the focus should instead be on encouraging offenders to take future responsibility, rather than dwelling on past actions.

• This implies that cognitive distortions like minimalisation are psychologically protective, helping offenders justify or manage their actions after the fact.

• Conclusion: If minimalisation is a consequence of offending rather than a cause, this challenges the validity of cognitive explanations for criminal behaviour, as they may misinterpret effect as cause.

methodological

Methodological Criticism: Use of Hypothetical Scenarios

• Cognitive biases are often measured using hypothetical situations

• This may lack predictive validity:

  • Responses in a study may not reflect real-life behaviour

• Offenders might respond differently in real-world, emotional or high-pressure contexts

• Implication:

  • Limits the real-world applicability of findings

  • Weakens the argument that cognitive biases cause criminal behaviour

• Conclusion:

  • Controlled studies may not accurately represent how biases operate in actual offending situations

reductionist

Eysenck’s Theory

• Focuses mainly on biological personality traits (PEN)

• Ignores other factors such as:

  • Cognitive influences (e.g. moral reasoning)

  • Social factors (e.g. gender socialisation)

Cognitive Explanations

• Focus only on internal thought processes (e.g. minimalisation, moral reasoning)

• Ignore environmental and biological influences

• Do not explain how or why these dysfunctional thoughts develop

ysenck’s Theory

• Suggests specific personality traits predetermine criminal behaviour

• Neglects individual differences and free will

Cognitive Explanations

• Implies that having cognitive distortions leads to offending

• Overlooks the fact that not all individuals with biases become criminals

• Other cognitive factors (e.g. empathy, self-control) may prevent reoffending