Describe and evaluate the Eysenck’s Theory of Criminal Personality. (16 Marks)
Eysenck’s (1977) personality theory of criminal behaviour suggests that it is the interaction of personality
(which is biologically based) and the environment that produces anti-social behaviour. Eysenck argues that
personality is determined by an individuals biological constitution which is, in turn, determined by the
genes. Each personality type is likely to respond to environmental stimuli differently. He devised three
personality traits: psychoticism (hostile attitude to others and consists of a lack of empathy), extroversion
(focusing outward and looking for stimulation) and neuroticism (tend to be emotionally unstable and find it
hard to stop their behaviour).
A weakness of Eysenck’s Personality Theory (EPT) is that it is 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.
A strength of the theory is that it has 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 and abuse children, not that they have a psychotic, extroverted or
neurotic 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.
Another strength of the theory is that there is supporting evidence. McGurk and McDougal (1981) compared
100 delinquent and non-delinquent college students and found that the delinquents group had higher
psychotic, extroverted and neurotic scores. These results re consistent with Eysenck’s prediction. 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, there is a risk of culture bias. Bartol and Holanchock (1979) looked into cultural
differences. They studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a maximum security prison in New
York. They found that Hispanic and African-American offenders had lower levels of extroversion than a
non-criminal control group. This criticises evidence obtained from white western criminals (McGurk and
McDougal, 1981), that criminals have high levels of extroversion.
Eysenck’s (1977) personality theory of criminal behaviour suggests that it is the interaction of personality
(which is biologically based) and the environment that produces anti-social behaviour. Eysenck argues that
personality is determined by an individuals biological constitution which is, in turn, determined by the
genes. Each personality type is likely to respond to environmental stimuli differently. He devised three
personality traits: psychoticism (hostile attitude to others and consists of a lack of empathy), extroversion
(focusing outward and looking for stimulation) and neuroticism (tend to be emotionally unstable and find it
hard to stop their behaviour).
A weakness of Eysenck’s Personality Theory (EPT) is that it is 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.
A strength of the theory is that it has 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 and abuse children, not that they have a psychotic, extroverted or
neurotic 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.
Another strength of the theory is that there is supporting evidence. McGurk and McDougal (1981) compared
100 delinquent and non-delinquent college students and found that the delinquents group had higher
psychotic, extroverted and neurotic scores. These results re consistent with Eysenck’s prediction. 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, there is a risk of culture bias. Bartol and Holanchock (1979) looked into cultural
differences. They studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a maximum security prison in New
York. They found that Hispanic and African-American offenders had lower levels of extroversion than a
non-criminal control group. This criticises evidence obtained from white western criminals (McGurk and
McDougal, 1981), that criminals have high levels of extroversion.
