Evaluation of Eysenck’s Personality Theory
Supporting Evidence
McGurk & McDougal (1981) compared 100 delinquent and 100 non-delinquent college students and found
that the delinquents group had higher P, E and N scores. These results are consistent with Eysenck’s
prediction.
Eysenck (1977) compared the Eysenck Personality Inventory of prisoners with non-criminals scores and
found that criminals achieve highly on the scoreboard of PEN.
This means that the theoretical ideas proposed by Eysenck can be seen in human behaviour.
However, these studies measure correlations, not cause and effect: it is not possible to state that
PEN characteristics cause criminality, it is only possible to assert that there seems to be a
relationship between these two variables.
However, the data is flawed because it relies heavily on the self-report measures of personality
devised by Eysenck and colleagues. These measure are subject to response bias (e.g. demand
characteristics and social desirability bias). Perhaps the PS did not answer truthfully; which would
reduce the validity of the findings.
However, the research has made heavy use of comparisons between convicted offenders and the
general population. Such research inevitably excludes those who commit crimes and are not caught
and convicted. Consequently, many of these studies my only be telling us about the personality
characteristics of ‘unsuccessful’ offenders.
However, there is a risk of culture bias. Bartol & Holanchock (1979) looked into cultural
differences. They studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a maximum security prison in
New York. They found that the Hispanic and African-American offenders had lower levels of E
(Extroversion) than a non-criminal control group. This criticises evidence obtained from white
western criminals (e.g. McGurk & McDougal, 1981), that criminals have high levels of E.
Criticising Evidence
Farrington et al. (1982) reviewed 16 studies of the relationship P, E & N measures with criminal
convictions. They found that in the majority of cases offenders scored higher on P & N but not on E.
Hollin (1989) notes a similar pattern of findings: offenders generally show higher P & N scores but not
necessarily higher E scores.
It is not clear why the relationship between E and offending is so inconsistent. One possibility is that E
scales actually measure two things, sociability and impulsiveness and that criminality is associated with
impulsiveness but not sociability (Putwain & Sammons, 2002).
Practical Applications
Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (which is based on EPT) could be used to identify individuals that
might be at risk of committing crime so preventative steps/particular areas or individuals could be
targeted/put in place, especially if potential criminal behaviour could be detected in childhood. This could
lead to interventions based on parenting or early treatment for delinquency.
This means that this theory is useful in real life, it may have practical benefits beyond academia in reducing
the amount of criminal behaviour.
However, Howitt (2009) argues that EPT is not very useful to forensic psychologists.
Psychologists want to know why rapists and abusers rape or abuse children, not that they have P, E
& N personality traits. Eysenck’s personality theory describes, rather than explains, criminal
behaviour. Given that science requires explanations; this is a problem for the science of psychology.
Deterministic
According to EPT, criminal behaviour is predetermined by the personality characteristics that a person has,
and that there is no way that a person can change their personality traits. Given that Eysenck’s personality
theory is rooted in biology, means that their criminal behaviour is determined by their biology.
This implies that criminals do not choose to break the law, which means that they are not responsible for
their behaviour. If this were the case, it would have big implications to crime prevention and punishment
strategies.
Supporting Evidence
McGurk & McDougal (1981) compared 100 delinquent and 100 non-delinquent college students and found
that the delinquents group had higher P, E and N scores. These results are consistent with Eysenck’s
prediction.
Eysenck (1977) compared the Eysenck Personality Inventory of prisoners with non-criminals scores and
found that criminals achieve highly on the scoreboard of PEN.
This means that the theoretical ideas proposed by Eysenck can be seen in human behaviour.
However, these studies measure correlations, not cause and effect: it is not possible to state that
PEN characteristics cause criminality, it is only possible to assert that there seems to be a
relationship between these two variables.
However, the data is flawed because it relies heavily on the self-report measures of personality
devised by Eysenck and colleagues. These measure are subject to response bias (e.g. demand
characteristics and social desirability bias). Perhaps the PS did not answer truthfully; which would
reduce the validity of the findings.
However, the research has made heavy use of comparisons between convicted offenders and the
general population. Such research inevitably excludes those who commit crimes and are not caught
and convicted. Consequently, many of these studies my only be telling us about the personality
characteristics of ‘unsuccessful’ offenders.
However, there is a risk of culture bias. Bartol & Holanchock (1979) looked into cultural
differences. They studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a maximum security prison in
New York. They found that the Hispanic and African-American offenders had lower levels of E
(Extroversion) than a non-criminal control group. This criticises evidence obtained from white
western criminals (e.g. McGurk & McDougal, 1981), that criminals have high levels of E.
Criticising Evidence
Farrington et al. (1982) reviewed 16 studies of the relationship P, E & N measures with criminal
convictions. They found that in the majority of cases offenders scored higher on P & N but not on E.
Hollin (1989) notes a similar pattern of findings: offenders generally show higher P & N scores but not
necessarily higher E scores.
It is not clear why the relationship between E and offending is so inconsistent. One possibility is that E
scales actually measure two things, sociability and impulsiveness and that criminality is associated with
impulsiveness but not sociability (Putwain & Sammons, 2002).
Practical Applications
Eysenck’s Personality Questionnaire (which is based on EPT) could be used to identify individuals that
might be at risk of committing crime so preventative steps/particular areas or individuals could be
targeted/put in place, especially if potential criminal behaviour could be detected in childhood. This could
lead to interventions based on parenting or early treatment for delinquency.
This means that this theory is useful in real life, it may have practical benefits beyond academia in reducing
the amount of criminal behaviour.
However, Howitt (2009) argues that EPT is not very useful to forensic psychologists.
Psychologists want to know why rapists and abusers rape or abuse children, not that they have P, E
& N personality traits. Eysenck’s personality theory describes, rather than explains, criminal
behaviour. Given that science requires explanations; this is a problem for the science of psychology.
Deterministic
According to EPT, criminal behaviour is predetermined by the personality characteristics that a person has,
and that there is no way that a person can change their personality traits. Given that Eysenck’s personality
theory is rooted in biology, means that their criminal behaviour is determined by their biology.
This implies that criminals do not choose to break the law, which means that they are not responsible for
their behaviour. If this were the case, it would have big implications to crime prevention and punishment
strategies.
