eysenck's theory EVALUATION Flashcards
1
Q
mismeasurement of personality
A
- Critics argue we cannot reduce personality type to a ‘score’
- there is no such thing as personality as a stable entity, and that we adopt different personalities in different contexts
2
Q
culture bias
A
- Bartol et al studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a New York prison
- They were divided into groups, and they were less extravert than a non-criminal control group
- Bartol suggested this was because the sample was a different cultural group from that investigated by Eysenck
- The criminal personality may not be able to be generalised
3
Q
the theory fits other biological approaches
A
- It recognises that personality may have a genetic basis
- There is some overlap with research into Antisocial personality disorder (APD) and the suggestion that offenders are cold,
uncaring and incapable of empathy - HOWEVER
- This means Eysenck’s theory could be criticised as being biologically reductionist and determinist
4
Q
supporting evidence
A
- Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) compared EPI scores of 2017 male prisoners with a control group of non-prisoner males
- prisoners scored higher on P, E and N than the controls
- this agrees with the prediction that offenders rate higher than average across the three dimensions identified by the theory
- HOWEVER
- Harrington et al’s review of studies showed that offenders scored high on P but not on E or N
5
Q
Eysenck suggested that there is only one criminal type
A
- Moffitt (1933) proposed several different types of adult male offender based on the timing and first offence, and how long offending persists
- Digman’s Five Factor Model of personality suggests that alongside E and N, there are additional dimensions of openness,
agreeableness and conscientiousness
