forensics: eysencks theory ao3

Question 1

Research support

Answer 1

One strength of the theory is there is evidence to support the criminal personality.
• Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) compared 2017 male prisoners scores on the EPI with 2422 male controls.
• Across all the age groups that were sampled prisoners recorded higher average scores in terms of E, N, and P than the controls.
This agrees with the prediction that offenders rate higher than average across the three dimensions identified by
the theory.

Question 2

Counter to research support

Answer 2

However, a meta-analysis of relevant studies conducted by Harrington et al. (1982) reported that offenders tended to score high on measures of P but not for E and N
- Furthermore EEGs have provided inconsistent evidence of differences between extroverts and introverts, which casts doubt on the physiological basis of the dimensions identified by the theory.
- This means that some of the central assumptions of the theory have been challenged

Question 3

Too simplistic

Answer 3

The idea that all offending behaviour can be explained by a single personality type is too simplistic.
• Moffitt (1993) proposed several distinct types of adult male offender based on the timing of the first offence and how long the offending persists.
• Personality traits alone were a poor predictor of how long offending would continue for.
• Theory is outdated - Digman’s (1990) five factor model of personality suggests that alongside E and N there are additional dimensions of openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness.
• Many possible combinations and high levels of E and N do not mean offending is inevitable.
This presents a more complex picture of offending and suggests that Eysenck’s theory is both out of step with modern theories, and overly simplistic.

Question 4

Cultural factors not taken into account

Answer 4

A further limitation is that cultural factors were not taken into account.
• Bartol and Holanchock (1979) studied Hispanic and African-American offenders.
• 6 groups based on offences and offending history.
• All 6 groups scored lower on E then non-offender controls.
• Suggested to be due to the fact the sample was culturally different to Eysenck’s sample.
This questions how far the criminal personality can be generalised and suggests that it maybe a culturally
relative concept.