Eysenck's Personality Theory and Individualistic Theories of Criminality - Easy Notes

Cognitive Theories and Criminal Personality

This page explores cognitive theories in criminology, focusing on how mental processes shape behavior and contribute to criminal tendencies.

Definition: Cognitive theories argue that mental processes such as beliefs, reasoning, problem-solving, decision-making, self-concept, and interpretation of the world around us shape our behavior.

The section introduces Yochelson and Samenow's criminal personality theory:

Highlight: Criminals are prone to faulty thinking patterns that make them more likely to commit crimes.

Their study of 240 long-term offenders revealed various errors and biases in thinking and decision-making, including:

• Lying
• Secretiveness
• Need for power and control
• Super optimism
• Failure to understand others' positions
• Lack of trust
• Belief in their uniqueness
• Self-victimization
• Blaming others

The concept of morals is also introduced:

Definition: Morals are rules that govern our behavior, shaped by our beliefs and values about right and wrong.

Kohlberg's Moral Development Theory and Criminality

This section focuses on Kohlberg's moral development theory and its application to explaining criminal behavior.

Kohlberg's theory posits that moral development progresses through stages from childhood to adulthood:

Example: Pre-conventional moral reasoning in young children defines right and wrong simply in terms of punishment or reward.

In relation to criminality, Kohlberg's theory suggests:

Highlight: Criminals don't fully develop their moral thinking, remaining stuck at a less mature level. They think in terms of reward or punishment rather than considering the impact of their actions on others.

The strengths and limitations of Kohlberg's theory in explaining criminality are discussed:

• Studies show delinquents are more likely to have immature moral development.
• The theory applies better to crimes like theft and robbery than to violent crimes.
• It focuses on moral thinking rather than moral behavior, which may not always align.

Example: Someone may be capable of moral thinking while still acting immorally.

This section provides valuable insights into how moral development, or lack thereof, may contribute to criminal behavior, offering another perspective within the framework of individualistic theories of criminal behavior in criminology.

Eysenck's Personality Theory and Extraversion-Introversion

This section delves into Eysenck's personality theory, focusing on the dimensions of extraversion-introversion and neuroticism-emotional stability.

Eysenck's theory of extraversion-introversion distinguishes between extroverts and introverts:

Definition: Extroverts are outgoing individuals who prefer company, get bored easily, and experience positive emotions. Introverts, conversely, prefer solitude, are more cautious, and less sociable.

The neuroticism-emotional stability dimension is also explored:

Definition: Neuroticism is a tendency to experience negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, and depression. Emotional stability, at the opposite end of the scale, is characterized by calmness and even-temperedness.

Eysenck's Personality Test was designed to measure these personality dimensions.

In applying his theory to criminology, Eysenck found that criminals often score highly on both extraversion and neuroticism. He explains this through a combination of conditioning and genetics:

Highlight: Extroverts have a nervous system that requires high levels of environmental stimulation, leading to excitement-seeking and potentially rule-breaking behavior. Neurotics are difficult to condition into following societal rules due to their high anxiety levels.

Eysenck later identified a third dimension, Psychoticism, which is also associated with criminal behavior:

Definition: Psychoticism is characterized by traits such as egocentricity, aggressiveness, impulsivity, lack of empathy, and disregard for others' welfare.

The strengths and limitations of Eysenck's theory in explaining criminality are discussed, including its usefulness in describing measurable tendencies that could increase offending risk, but also noting that correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.