The human personality widely covers human traits that manifest in different individuals. In line with the lasting approval of personality theory, the connection between personality and crime investigation becomes evident. These links have been utilized in policy implications relating to crime solving (Sharma et al., 2014). Theorists in the line of human personality explore various spheres of human traits and how they shape the perceptions of individuals in their world. In fact, attributes have been proved to predict the psychological and physical outcomes as demonstrated through designed models of personality.
Notably, the link between crime and personality applies widely in two general approaches. Based on the personality trait psychology, the structured model of personality relays the connection between antisocial behavior and certain personality traits. Of importance are four models of personality theory that apply largely in criminological research since they yield consistent results. These models include the PEN model, Telligent’s three-factor model, the five-factor model, the character model and lastly, the Cloninger's temperament model (Krueger & Markon, 2014). In each of these models, particular personality trait that manifests about crime are analyzed. Notably, an association between depictions of antisocial behavior and the PEN model applies through the proposition that criminals would possess all three personality dimensions as brought out in the Pen model. On the other hand, Cloninger, through his model, showed that particular traits that would be manifest in a criminal include low harm avoidance, high novelty seeking and low reward dependence.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the second approach, personality theorists outline the link between personality and crime through “personality-type psychology.” Alternatively, theorists assert that depiction of particular abnormal, deviant individuals possessing criminal characters, namely, sociopathic, antisocial and psychopathic personalities. To begin with, psychopathy stems from back in the nineteenth century. This behavior directly associates with the psychological representation of persistent criminals possessing certain behavioral, interpersonal, affective and dysfunctional interpersonal qualities. Through various studies, psychopathy was found to occur in at least one percentage of any given population. Notably, psychopaths have particular traits especially dual possession of certain traits where on the one hand, they depict a lack of empathy or remorse for other people, grandiosity, callousness, and self-centeredness. On the other hand, psychopaths depict manipulative superficiality, charismatic and charming characteristics (Sharma et al., 2014). The occurrence of these contrasting characteristics effective allows the psychopath to be consistent make offenses.
However, based on the diagnostic and statistical manual, the term psychopath has been less used. Instead, the term antisocial behavior has been approved to take its place Krueger & Markon, 2014). In fact, antisocial behavior comes forth covering broader aspects as compared to the psychopath terminology. Initially, antisocial behavior exhibits itself as tenacious contempt for and desecration of other people’s rights. Antisocial behavior begins during childhood and gets carried through adulthood. Through detailed outline of antisocial behavior, theorists propose that the plethora of traits that demonstrate in antisocial behavior easily apply regarding engaging in criminal behavior.
Notably, particular theorists such as Eysenck 2003, hypothesized that personality traits arise from biological causes. For instance, certain levels of arousal have a direct association with extraversion trait. On the other hand, high testosterone levels directly link to psychoticism as asserted by Eysenck 2003. However, this deterministic approach received criticism with basis on historical context with accounts of offenses being disputed. Although the fundamentals for understanding criminal behavior stems from the justification of historical contexts, psychobiological perspectives have the final say in the subject matter. In fact, a majority of studies on personality traits took place through collaborations with psychiatrists. In this context, the focus lay in unveiling the psychological, medical and rehabilitation of criminal aberration. Through these medical and psychological settings, criminal behavior undergoes treatment similar to that of mental disorders.
Following this classification of criminal behavior as related to mental illness, interest in underlying forces that influence individuals to engage in criminal behavior received significant interest. As a result, two schools of thought came up based on positivism. One school of thought held that the underlying forces that influence individuals to react in certain ways had individualistic and psychological connections (Krueger & Markon, 2014). On the contrary, the second school of thought held that societal influences formed the basis of criminal behavior. The connection of criminal behavior with urbanization and resulting influences emphasizes that societal forces paly the biggest role in determining criminal behavior. Moreover, the nineteenth-century positivists held that societal forces attribute to the different crime rates in different geographical locations. These findings had a strong reliance on the idea that individuals do not act in their social environment. Instead, the societal forces act upon individuals and thus influence their personality. Moreover, the society has a huge role in preparing an individual positively or inculcating a criminal mindset in the same individual.
Similarly, Cesare Lombroso, a prominent nineteenth-century positivist considered societal influences as playing a role in criminal behavior (Sharma et al., 2014). From his perspective, criminal behavior stems from degenerative functions resulting from degenerative impacts. Not only do degenerative impacts result to lower functioning but also impede natural environment. The connection covers the entire life cycle with significant interest in early childhood. He asserts that growing from a social background with abusive parents or alcoholic parents may directly result to brain damage through the physical manhandling. However, the inclination on childhood periods received significant criticism as he was deemed to have ventured away from the boundaries of experimental observations. Nevertheless, the connection to medical procedures demonstrated effectiveness as labeling individuals as psychopaths or sociopaths had harsh implications on the recipients of the same.
Personality theorists continually focus entirely on individuals depicting certain dysfunctional traits without due connection to the social environment that produces the dysfunctional traits, However, this one-dimensional focus on criminal behavior required incorporation of the social atmosphere that fosters crime. Notably, the interaction of certain personality traits result to different outcomes regarding criminal behavior. Through the Eysenck diathesis-stress model, the predisposition such as mental illness or brain damage may result from inherited traits. Nonetheless, they require due exposure to particular environments for manifestation. This assumption infers that there exists a possibility of having in born traits, but without activation by the environment, criminal behavior does not manifest. In fact, Eysenck, 2003, asserts that “the fact that heredity, mediated through personality plays some part in predisposing some people to act in an antisocial manner. However, the environmental role is equally important with the interaction between the two being perhaps, the most crucial factor” (Eysenck, 2003).
Moffitt, 2007, confirms the connection between the inherent traits and the environment in influencing criminal behavior. In fact, he asserts that “the continuity of criminal behavior of the persistent offenders is neither totally trait driven nor entirely environmentally sustained” (Moffitt, 2006). Rather, the persistence in antisocial behavior arises from a reciprocal progression taking place amid the distinct traits and the environmental reactions to the particular traits. Notably, childhood dysfunctional traits directly attribute to the predisposition to parental violence, child abuse and poor attachment between the child and his or her parent. The resulting childhood vulnerabilities stem from the usage of drugs by the mother, deprivation of affection or poor nutrition. A combination of the three aspects also manifests, yielding devastating outcomes that manifest as childhood dysfunction.
Moreover, Moffitt, 2007 established that high rates of childhood delinquency especially among minority ethnic groups had a direct association with the predisposition to risk markers. These risk markers during childhood mainly encompass poor family relations, exposure to toxins or poor care during the child’s prenatal days. This childhood predisposition, coupled with poverty and institutionalized discrimination that racial minorities experience potentially results to antisocial behavior.
Similarly, a significant connection exists between antisocial behavior and entrapment of adolescents in detrimental snares. These detrimental snares encompass a wide range of experiences that could be devastating to an adolescent and include, drug addiction, teenage pregnancy, incarceration and violence among other snares. Following the establishment of the importance of these teenage entrapment snares, the essentiality of multidimensional interventions in handling antisocial behavior became evident. Therefore, in dealing with antisocial behavior, the environment especially in school, family and community settings play a considerable role.
Apparently, researchers on personality traits recommend the application of vigilance regarding stigmatization of individuals with deviant personality disorders. Such stigmatization includes laws that require indeterminate confinement of individuals thought to be potential offenders or pose a significant threat regarding a given crime. Although clinical tests manage to unveil severe personality disorders, the connection between the disorders and physical violence stirs debate. As Sharma et al., 2014 emphasize, “The most controversial issue has been whether a connection exists between serious mental disorder and violence”. However, the connection between mental disorder and violence cannot be taken for granted and hence the requirement for psychological assessments of criminals.
Following the identification of personality disorders in criminals, a keen interest in the judicial system becomes essential as a means of avoiding leniency. In fact, individuals with personality disorders receive more hefty punishments as compared to individuals without personality disorders. However, provisions remain on insanity pleas where defense at criminal trials has to clarify the existence or non-existence of personality disorders. Therefore, personality theorists go beyond condemning criminals for their criminal propensities and instead, focuses on potential determinants. Although pat research methodologies had flaws regarding validity and reliability, current researchers take every circumstance into consideration.
Past studies had outcomes reported based on the criminal behavior without reporting on the factors influencing the given trait. As Sharma et al., 2014, point out, “the delinquents were deemed to be delinquent because of the delinquency in them.” These loopholes prompted the designing and implementation of California psychological inventory (CPI) and Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI). Through these measurements, the researchers demonstrated the possibility of higher prediction of specific personality traits that influenced delinquency in a combination of environmental factors. These approaches gave more credible measures that ensure that offenders do not receive under-representation especially if they did not get caught perpetrating the crime. Through a meta-analytic review of personality research studies, Krueger & Markon, 2014 inferred that previous weaknesses had been overcome.
Personality theorist also varies sample populations as a means of giving a bigger picture of the relationship between antisocial behavior and personality traits. As per the meta-analysis conducted on the four personality models by Krueger & Markon, 2014, the recurrent effect sizes demonstrated an association with novelty seeking, psychoticism and agreeableness. Moreover, the meta-analysis established interesting variations between gender and antisocial behavior. For instance, neuroticism had a weak association with antisocial behavior while at the same time higher in male participants. Similarly, extra aversion had a high association with self-reported and non-prisoner analysis. While the variation in sample components provide a bigger picture of the manifestation of criminal behavior, a variation of the environment also plays an important role. For instance, environments where racial minorities experienced discrimination yield different results when compared to ethnic minorities in non-discriminatory environments.
Notably, application of the personality trait of impulsivity as per the dimension of low conscientiousness unveils high levels of consistency with antisocial behavior. Given the technological advancements, brain imaging has enabled studies on connectivity and association between the functioning of the frontal lobe executive and impulsivity. Results from such studies show that hyperactivity of the frontal lobe coupled with a poor ability to decipher potential outcomes of a given set of actions directly associate with failure in school Sharma et al., 2014). However, significant levels of discrepancies exist in underlying criminal propensity as postulated in the self-control theory.
The self-control theory connects with personality trait theory in that low self-control stems from the environmental conditions. Notably, a child who undergoes significant attachment with their parent demonstrates high levels of self-control. On the other hand, a child who experiences adverse parent to child attachment has a high likelihood of low self-control later in life. This low self-control predisposes the individual to a higher likelihood of crime propensity as compared to their counterparts. In this regard, individuals who gain early social bonds manage to look into collective interests of their actions and thus less propensity to crime. However, without the parent to child binding process, the individuals display an inability to delay short-term benefits for long-term collective interests. As a result, the propensity to crime significantly increases.
Regarding micro level crimes, Personality theorists have established that an interplay of low self-control, low integrity, and high conscientiousness levels directly influences the propensity of the offense. The combination of these three factors mainly manifests in white collar offenders. Similarly, low levels of empathy strongly relate to violent crimes with similar weak association with sex offenses (Krueger & Markon, 2014). Notably, a relationship between aggression and low empathy was not established in children. However, the same was found conspicuously manifesting in adolescents. Moreover, psychopathic behavior was directly associated with a high propensity to crime. These findings infer that a huge proportion of offenses display as committed by a small percentage of offenders, with psychopaths accounting for forty percent.
In conclusion, the connection between the inherent traits and the environment play a significant role in influencing criminal behavior. In fact, research asserts that “the continuity of criminal behavior of the persistent offenders is neither totally trait driven nor entirely environmentally sustained” (Moffitt, 2007). Therefore, application of personality trait theory can apply in understanding crime propensity.
References;
Eysenck, H. J. (2003). Personality and the problem of criminality. In E. McLaughlin, J. Muncie, & G. Hughes (Eds.), Criminological perspectives: Essential readings (2nd ed., pp. 91-109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477-501.
Moffitt, T. E. (2007). Life-course-persistent vs. adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., pp. 570-598). Hoboken, NJ; Wiley and Sons.
Sharma, L., Markon, K. E., & Clark, L. A. (2014). Toward a theory of distinct types of “impulsive” behaviors: A meta-analysis of self-report and behavioral measures.
