Eysenck's Criminal Personality Theories

A theory that named its own machinery

Look at what this part of your specification asks for and notice something odd about it. It names two pieces of work from 1964 and 1992 about criminal personality, and then a third from 1967 about the biological basis of personality. ⚠️ THAT LOOKS LIKE TWO TOPICS SHARING A ROW. IT IS NOT. IT IS ONE ARGUMENT IN TWO HALVES. Most theories of personality describe. They say that people differ along certain lines, they give those lines names, and they stop. ⭐ EYSENCK WENT FURTHER AND SAID WHAT HE THOUGHT WAS PRODUCING THE DIFFERENCES: particular systems in the brain and nervous system, doing particular things. The first half proposes the traits. The second half proposes the machinery. ⭐ AND THAT DECISION IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING ABOUT THE THEORY, FOR TWO OPPOSITE REASONS. It is what made the theory testable. ⚠️ A DESCRIPTION CANNOT REALLY BE WRONG. A MECHANISM CAN. Once you claim that a specific brain system produces a specific tendency, you have said something that evidence can go and check, which is why there are studies to name at all. And it is exactly where the theory is attacked. A claim resting on biology is a claim about tendencies across groups of people. ⚠️ BUT PEOPLE VARY ENORMOUSLY WITHIN ANY GROUP YOU CARE TO DEFINE, and that is the criticism your specification names for this theory: individual differences. So the shape of the criticism is not an accident either. ⭐ A THEORY THAT CLAIMED LESS WOULD BE HARDER TO TEST AND HARDER TO CRITICISE. THIS ONE CLAIMED A GREAT DEAL, WHICH IS WHY IT CAN BE BOTH. ⚠️ ONE THING TO HOLD ON TO THROUGHOUT. This is a theory about why some people might be more likely to offend. It is reported here, not endorsed, and the whole point of the last part of this module is that it cannot tell you anything about any particular person.

Three dimensions, three proposed mechanisms

The traits Eysenck proposed, with the biology he suggested lay under each. Read each column downwards: trait, then machinery, then what the theory predicts follows.

Tap what the theory actually claims

Tap the TWO statements that describe what Eysenck proposed.

• That particular systems in the brain and nervous system produce the personality differences he described
• That those differences affect how readily a person learns from consequences, rather than causing offending directly
• That a person with a particular personality will inevitably commit crimes
• That a single trait, acting alone, accounts for criminal behaviour

The chain from arousal to offending

On Eysenck's account, why would an under-aroused cortex make a person harder to socialise?

• Because they seek stimulation to reach a comfortable level of arousal, and the theory proposes that such a brain forms conditioned associations less readily, so learning from consequences works less well
• Because low arousal directly causes aggressive behaviour
• Because under-aroused people understand rules less well
• Because they deliberately choose to ignore socialisation

Five words the theory runs on

Five terms, each defined by what it is. What Eysenck proposed each one does comes next, and is not given here.

Match each part to the job the theory gives it

Two that follow from naming a mechanism

Select the TWO statements that follow from a theory that proposes biological machinery.

• It can be tested, because a claim about a specific system is something evidence can check
• It predicts tendencies across groups, which is why it cannot tell you what any particular person will do
• Because the theory names brain systems, it has been proved correct
• It allows you to identify in advance which individuals will offend

Writing about a theory you are not asked to believe

You already know that this specification treats evaluation as named content, and that a theory arrives with the debate it is criticised through attached. This one arrives with individual differences, and there is a way of using that which scores and a way that does not. ⚠️ ATTRIBUTE EVERYTHING. Not "extraverts are harder to socialise", which states a contested claim as fact. "Eysenck proposed that extraverts are harder to socialise" reports it accurately, and an examiner can see you know the difference between describing a theory and holding it. ⚠️ AND NEVER WRITE THAT THE THEORY SAYS SOMEONE WILL OFFEND. It proposes a tendency, and tendencies are about groups. "More likely, on this account" is the register the whole topic lives in. ⭐ NOW THE CRITICISM, AND USING IT WELL MEANS SAYING WHY IT BITES RATHER THAN JUST NAMING IT. "It ignores individual differences" on its own is a label. ⚠️ THE ARGUMENT UNDERNEATH IT IS THAT A BIOLOGICAL ACCOUNT PREDICTS AVERAGES, AND PEOPLE INSIDE ANY GROUP DIFFER SO MUCH THAT THE AVERAGE MAY DESCRIBE ALMOST NOBODY IN IT. Say that, and you have explained a criticism rather than dropped its name. ⭐ AND GIVE THE THEORY ITS STRONGEST FORM BEFORE YOU CRITICISE IT. It is easy to state it so crudely that anything knocks it over, and an evaluation that defeats a weak version has argued against nothing. The strong version is careful: biology affects how readily conditioning takes, conditioning is how socialisation works, and so biology affects socialisation indirectly. Meet that, not a caricature. One last thing specific to this topic. ⚠️ A THEORY BEING TESTABLE IS A STRENGTH EVEN WHEN THE TESTS GO AGAINST IT, and saying so is a genuinely evaluative move rather than a hedge.

What a study like this can settle

Your specification names one study for this theory: Heaven, 1996, on delinquency, extraversion, psychoticism and self-esteem. It followed people over time and asked whether the traits Eysenck described went along with self-reported delinquency. ⭐ NOTICE FIRST WHY SUCH A STUDY IS POSSIBLE AT ALL. IT IS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE THEORY WAS SPECIFIC. A theory that said only "personality matters" would give you nothing to measure. This one named dimensions and claimed they were connected to offending, which is a statement you can go and check against people. Now the part that decides the marks, because it is about what a result of this kind can and cannot establish. Suppose a study of this design finds that people scoring high on a trait also report more delinquency. ⚠️ THAT IS A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TWO MEASUREMENTS. IT IS NOT A DEMONSTRATION THAT ONE PRODUCED THE OTHER. The same pattern would appear if something else were driving both, and it would appear if the relationship ran the other way round. And the measurement itself is worth a sentence. Delinquency here is self-reported, which means it depends on what people are willing to say about themselves. ⚠️ THAT IS NOT A REASON TO DISMISS THE STUDY, AND SAYING SO IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING IT IS WORTHLESS - it is a reason to be careful about how firmly the conclusion is stated. ⭐ SO THE HONEST SUMMARY IS THIS: EVIDENCE OF THIS KIND CAN SHOW THAT A PREDICTED PATTERN IS THERE OR IS NOT THERE, AND IT CANNOT ON ITS OWN SHOW WHY. ⚠️ AND IT TELLS YOU NOTHING WHATEVER ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, because a pattern across a group and a prediction about an individual are different things, which is where the named criticism comes back in.

Assemble an evaluation that explains itself

Build a sentence criticising the theory through the debate this specification names for it.

Order the chain the theory proposes

Put the stages in order, as Eysenck's account runs them, from the nervous system to a raised likelihood of offending.

• A person's nervous system produces a characteristic level of arousal
• That level shapes how much stimulation they seek and how strongly they react
• Those tendencies are what the personality dimensions describe
• The theory proposes that they affect how readily conditioning takes hold
• Socialisation in childhood works through conditioning, so it does its job less effectively
• On this account the likelihood of offending is raised, though never made certain

The criminal personality run

Five questions on what the theory proposes and how it is judged. Three lives.

Complete the personality theory facts

The dimension running from outgoing and sensation-seeking to quiet and reserved is _____. The dimension running from anxious and reactive to calm and stable is _____. Learning to associate a behaviour with the consequence that follows it is _____. The variation between people within any group being described is known as _____.

Three answers to put right

Three pieces of student writing about this theory. In each case the mark is in the reasoning, not the verdict.

• An answer reads: "Extraverts are harder to socialise, so they are more likely to become criminals." The content matches the theory. Why does it score poorly?
• An answer criticises the theory by writing only "it ignores individual differences" and moves on. What is missing?
• A student asks whether the theory could be used to identify which young people are likely to offend. How would you answer?

Explain the theory and why it can be tested

Explain Eysenck's account of criminal personality, and evaluate it using the debate this specification names for it.

• Explain why this part of the specification names work on personality and work on biology together
• Describe the three dimensions Eysenck proposed, attributing them rather than stating them as fact
• Explain the chain the theory proposes from a level of arousal through to a raised likelihood of offending
• Explain what the named study was able to establish, and what evidence of that kind cannot establish
• Criticise the theory through individual differences, explaining the argument underneath the label rather than naming it
• Finish by explaining why naming a mechanism counts as a strength even where evidence has gone against the theory