Personality Disorders and Criminal Behavior Due Today 2 to 3 Pages
Learning Objectives After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:
• Summarize personality and its role in behavior over the life course.
• Identify the various forms of personality disorder and how they are related to crime.
• Explain the linkages between personality disorders and crime.
• Outline the roles of impulsivity/gratification delay and aggression in crime.
• Analyze how risk taking and self-centeredness are associated with problem behaviors. 4 Personality and Trait Psychology © Laughing Stock/Corbis deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 99 11/14/12 2:17 PM Introduction Introduction I n some ways, personality features are difficult to separate from temperamental features.
For instance, extraversion is a construct used to understand both the temperamental and personality bases of behavior. Moreover, the same construct might have different names or labels depending on the academic disciplinary background of the researcher or depending on the age of the subjects whom the researcher studies. Thus, surgency and extraversion are basically the same, but surgency has a temperament connotation and extraversion is related to both temperament and personality (but more commonly to the latter).
Temperament and personality are so interrelated because both constructs attempt to explain antisocial behavior from an individual-level, person-specific, trait perspective. In this sense, the developmental course of antisocial behavior from early childhood (e.g., difficultness), through childhood (e.g., self-regulation deficits and conduct problems), adolescence (e.g., delinquency), and adulthood (e.g., crime), ultima\ tely reflects the age- graded unfolding of distinct antisocial traits (see Figure 4.1). The consistency and stability of antisocial behavior in the lives of serious criminal offenders—from childhood through adulthood—provides evidence that, while anecdotal, points to the role of personality traits as drivers of behavior.
Figure 4.1: The unfolding of antisocial traits Personality psychology suggests a developmental process in which negativ\ e personality features and self-regulation deficits culminate in delinquency and cri\ me.
Personality was defined in Chapter 1 as the relatively consistent and stable ways in which an individual behaves, thinks, and feels. Personality features are importantly related to a host of life outcomes, and two recent large-scale studies are illustrative. Goodman, Joyce, Difficultness Self-Regulation Deficits Conduct Pro blems Delinquency Crime deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 100 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.1 What Is Personality? and Smith (2011) examined the longitudinal consequences of early-life psychological functioning, drawing on data from the National Child Development Study (a continuing study of nearly 18,000 children born in England during March 1958). Children with more negative personality features and generally lower psychological functioning suffered from these conditions throughout their lives. The implications were wide-ranging, and they included greater employment problems, less wealth, and reduced social mobility.
Childhood personality/psychological deficits resulted in nearly 30% reduced earnings by age 50 and a host of other problems, including marital instability, lower agreeableness, lower conscientiousness, more emotional instability, and reduced self-efficacy.Criminological epidemiologists recently exam- ined the social welfare burden of personality dis - orders in the United States, using data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a nationally representative sample of more than 43,000 adults (Vaughn et al., 2010). They found that diagnoses for any per - sonality disorder significantly predicted receipt of Medicaid, Supplementary Security Income, and food stamps. Moreover, persons who were diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder— the personality disorder that most directly cor - responds to a criminal personality—were sig - nificantly more likely to receive Medicaid, food stamps, and Women, Infants and Children (WIC) assistance. These costs add to already large mon - etary costs that serious criminal offenders, partic - ularly those with personality disorders, impose on society. In this sense, personality is not only central for understanding crime, but also for understanding human development and its implications for society. The next section summa - rizes research that describes the essential points about personality and the way it develops over the life course. Special attention is given to per - haps the most famous and widely studied struc - tural model of personality, one that has proven useful for understanding the ways that personal - ity features are associated with crime.
4.1 What Is Personality? A lthough psychologists have defined personality in subtly different ways, for our pur - poses, personality is the relatively consistent and stable ways in which an individ - ual behaves, thinks, and feels. As opposed to temperament, which can be thought of as the “trait biology” of an individual, personality is a person’s “trait psychology,” largely responsible for the stability and consistency of behavioral patterns in t\ hat person’s life. Although not as unchanging as fingerprints, personality features are relatively stable across life, and negative personality features in childhood are a harbinger for behavioral problems in adulthood. © iStockphoto/Thinkstock deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 101 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.1 What Is Personality? For example, when observers suggest that something is “out of charact\ er” when describ- ing a person’s behavior, what they mean is that the conduct differs from the usual conduct the person displays. If one understands the personality of another indiv\ idual, one has a general template of behaviors that are consistent and inconsistent with that personality.
Personality Over the Life Course Recently, McAdams and Olson (2010) summarized personality development over the\ life course, with special attention to evidence suggesting personality is mostly stable and sus - ceptible to change. Their summary points include the following:
• Personality is a constellation of dispositional traits, characteristic adaptations, and integrative life stories situated in time and culture.
• Early temperamental dimensions gradually develop into the dispositional \ traits observed in adulthood through complex, dynamic, and multilevel interactions between genes and environments over time.
• Temporal stability for individual differences in traits increases over the life course and reaches impressively high levels in middle adulthood. For example, high conscientiousness and high neuroticism at midlife are significantly corre - lated with high conscientiousness and high neuroticism in childhood (Matthews, Deary, & Whiteman, 2009).
• Cross-sectional and longitudinal studies show that average scores for conscien - tiousness and agreeableness increase and neuroticism decreases from adoles - cence through late middle age.
• Motives, goals, and other adaptations emerge as important features of personal - ity development in middle adulthood, and the content, structure, organization, and pursuit of goals may change according to the needs of daily life.
• In late adolescence and early adulthood, people begin to reconstruct their autobi - ographical past and imagine the future to develop a life story that provides their life with meaning and purpose. In terms of personality development, the \ life stories are layered over goals and motives that are in turn layered over disposi - tional traits.
• As dispositional traits mature from adolescence to middle adulthood, goals and narratives show increasing concern with commitments to family, civic involve - ment, and productive activities aimed at promoting the next generation.
• From late midlife through old age, personality development plateaus and even - tually descends as trait scores show some negative reversals, goals shift to main - tenance of the self and coping with loss, and life narratives show an in\ exorable decline in the power of self-authorship. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 102 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.1 What Is Personality? Models of Personality There are many conceptual models of personality, ranging from Freud’s ego-superego-id model of the self, to Carl Jung’s extravert-introvert typological approach, to Hans Eysenck’s psychoticism-extraversion- neuroticism (PEN) model. Some of these approaches, such as Freud’s, were designed primar - ily to understand personality and its maladaptive patterns in a general sense, not necessarily among criminal or clinical sub- groups. Others, like Eysenck’s work or the theory of psychopa - thy, are more expressly devoted to understanding psychopathol- ogy and antisocial behavior.
Still other conceptual models of personality, often referred to as “structural models of personal- ity,” strive to be universal and thus able to encompass personal - ity and personality disorders.
One of the most influential and empirically examined structural models of personality is the Five Factor Model of Personality. The Five Factor Model proposes five dimensions that underlie personality: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extra - version, agreeableness, and neuroticism (the acronym “OCEAN” is commonly used to recall the five dimensions). Beginning in the 1930s with research that examined adjectives used to describe personality traits, many psychologists contributed to t\ he development of the Five Factor Model. It became a more formal structural model in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Costa & McRae, 1985, 1992; Digman, 2002): 1. Neuroticism refers to a chronic level of emotional adjustment and instability. It includes facets for these traits: anxiety, angry hostility, depression, self-conscious - ness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability. Persons who are high scoring on neuroti - cism are prone to psychological distress. 2. Extraversion refers to the quantity and intensity of preferred interpersonal inter - actions, activity level, need for stimulation, and capacity for joy. High scorers are known as extraverts, and low scorers are known as introverts (recall Chapter 3).
It includes facets for these traits: warmth, gregariousness, assertiveness, activ - ity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions. Generally, extraversion relates to getting along with others and an overall exuberance for life. Two components of extraversion are associated with crime, however. Persons who are low on warmth (and thus are emotionally cold and detached) and high on sensation seeking are more likely to commit antisocial behavior. O. J. Simpson’s (left) personality is characterized by a mixture of positive and negative features, including charm, extraversion, narcissism, impulsivity, entitlement, jealousy, and rage. How do the crimes for which Simpson has been arrested or convicted reflect his personality traits? © ASSOCIATED PRESS/AP Images deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 103 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.2 Personality Disorders 3. Openness to experience involves the appreciation and seeking of experiences.
Open individuals are characterized as curious, imaginative, willing to have novel experiences, and open to varied emotional experiences. Closed individuals are characterized as conventional, conservative, dogmatic, rigid, and behaviorally set in their ways. It includes facet scales for fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and values. 4. Agreeableness refers to the kinds of interactions a person has along a con- tinuum from compassion to antagonism. High scorers on agreeableness are good natured, trusting, soft-hearted, helping, and altruistic. Low scorers tend to be cynical, rude, uncooperative, irritable, and manipulative. It includes facets for these traits: trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. 5. Conscientiousness captures the degree of organization, persistence, control, and motivation in goal-directed behavior. High scorers are organized, reliable, hardworking, self-directed, ambitious, and persevering. Low scorers are aimless, unreliable, lazy, careless, negligent, and hedonistic. It includes facets for these traits: competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation.
One of the fascinating things about personality is that each individual’\ s personality is distinct and reflects a unique combination of traits. Some aspects of our personality \ are viewed favorably by ourselves and others, whereas other aspects of our personality are considered more negatively. At times, those negative features of one’s personality rise to the level of being problematic in a clinical sense. This is known as a personality disorder. 4.2 Personality Disorders A ccording to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psy- chiatric Association, 2000), a personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individu - al’s culture. The pattern manifests in two or more areas, including cognition, affectivity, interpersonal functioning, and impulse control. There are five additional guidelines that inform the diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder. First, the enduring pattern of the personality is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations. Second, the enduring pattern leads to clinically significant\ distress or impair - ment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. In other words, the personality creates problems in the family, at school, at work, among peers, and among other people in general social interactions. Third, the pattern is stable and of long dura - tion, and its onset can be traced to earlier life stages. Fourth, the enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation of consequences of another menta\ l disorder. Fifth, the enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance, such as medication, or a general medical condition, such as head trauma. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 104 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.2 Personality Disorders Traditionally, personality disorders and other psychiatric conditions were conceptualized as discrete categories. But a paradigm shift has occurred in the past decade or so, and behavioral scientists now view clinical conditions as dimensional instead of categorical.
Thus, instead of diagnosing a person with antisocial personality disorder (ASPD), the new approach is to show where an individual scores on a distribution of ASPD symptoms.
These changes will become official in May 2013 with the publication of the fifth edition of the DSM. More information about the forthcoming DSM-V changes is currently available online (http://www.dsm5.org/Pages/Default.aspx ).
Odd or Eccentric Personality Disorders A 32-year-old man tells his primary care physician he has been feeling increasingly stressed out since a job transfer three months ago. He had been working as a computer programmer before being moved into a quality assurance position, which requires him to spend more of his time interacting with his coworkers. He tells his physician he doesn’t like working with “so many different people.” During their conversation, the physician discovers that the man has been\ living at home with his mother for the past 4 years. He had been living in his own apartment, bu\ t he moved back home when his father passed away. He has never had a long-term relationship. He went on a few dates in college, but, he tells the physician, the “rejection got to be too painful.” He spends most of his free time at home surfing the Internet or going to the library. He doesn’t have any close friends. During his conversation with the physician, the patient appears calm and detach\ ed. He talks about how stressed out he is, but his emotional range is flat.
The man in the preceding clinical vignette presents with the symptomatology, or set of symptoms, of schizoid personality disorder. In fact there are ten personality disorders listed in the DSM-IV-TR, and they fall into three separate clusters. Cluster A personality disorders are characterized as “odd or eccentric” (see Figure 4.2) and include the follow - ing three disorders: 1. Paranoid personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of dis- trust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent 2. Schizoid personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of detach- ment from social relationships and restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings 3. Schizotypal personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with and reduced capacity for close relationships, cognitive or perceptual distortions, and eccentricities in behavior deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 105 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.2 Personality Disorders Figure 4.2: Cluster A personality disorders Paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal personality disorders are characteri\ zed by odd, eccentric behavior and asocial traits that impair social functioning.
Dramatic Personality Disorders A 44-year-old woman arrested and booked for domestic violence-related charges is being inter- viewed by jail intake officers. The victim in the case, a man the defendant met online and has known for only four days, was also arrested for domestic violence. The woman tells deputies that her life has spiraled out of control in the past year due to a recent divorce, three job changes, and a worsen- ing dependence on prescription painkillers. The defendant pleads with jail staff to be house\ d in an isolation cell to avoid interacting with other female prisoners because she “draws a lot of attention and does not have time to deal with other people at the moment.” Give\ n her emotional instability and the availability of isolation cells, the staff are complying with her request.
The woman in this clinical vignette lives a dramatic and often chaotic l\ ife that is character - istic of Cluster B personality disorders. Cluster B personality disorders are characterized as “dramatic or emotional” (see Figure 4.3) and include the following: 1. Antisocial personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of disre- gard for and violation of the rights of others 2. Borderline personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of instabil- ity of interpersonal relationships, self-image, affect, and marked impulsivity 3. Histrionic personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of exces- sive emotionality and attention seeking 4. Narcissistic personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of grandi- osity in fantasy and behavior, need for admiration, and lack of empathy Pa ranoid PD Schizotypal PD SchizoidPD Cluster A(Odd- Eccentric ) deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 106 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.2 Personality Disorders Figure 4.3: Cluster B personality disorders Cluster B personality disorders are characterized by dramatic and emotio\ nal features that impair social functioning. Antisocial personality disorder is the one mo\ st explicitly associated with criminal conduct.
Anxious or Fearful Personality Disorders A 19-year old college freshman meets with his academic advisor due to low grades. After the exci\ te- ment of the first few weeks of the school year waned, he tells his advisor, he found going to class to be too stressful because he felt that he did not fit in with the college crowd. He also had trouble with his roommate, who teased him “for being a shut-in, depressed, and lonely” and requested that he transfer to a solo room on another floor. The student is annoyed that he has to meet with his advisor to monitor his academic performance, but he will do it if it is required.
The young man in this example displays the anxiousness and fear of avoid\ ant personal - ity disorder that in a larger context suggests a Cluster C personality disorder. Cluster C personality disorders are characterized as “anxious or fearful” personality disorders (see Figure 4.4) and include the following: 1. Avoidant personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pattern of social inhibition, feelings of inadequacy, and hypersensitivity to negative evaluation 2. Dependent personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation 3. Obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, characterized by a pervasive pat- tern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and mental and interper - sonal control at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency Antisocial PD Narcissitic PD HistrionicPD Borderline PD Cluster B ( Dramatic- Emotional ) deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 107 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.2 Personality Disorders Figure 4.4: Cluster C personality disorders Cluster C personality disorders are characterized by feelings of fear a\ nd anxiety. These personality features create liability for internalizing disorders. Each personality disorder has a distinct symp- tom pattern that makes it unique and its own voluminous literature that demonstrates linkages between the personality disorder and various out - comes relating to health factors and overall func - tioning. Of all the personality disorders, however, one stands far above the others in terms of its rela - tion to antisocial and criminal behavior: antisocial personality disorder.
DSM Criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder The seven diagnostic criteria for antisocial per - sonality disorder can be understood as a veritable recipe for antisocial conduct (three or more crite - ria must be present for an extended period of time to qualify an individual for a diagnosis):
• Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors, as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest Avoidant PD Obsessive- Compulsive PD DependentPD Cluster C ( Anxious- Fearful ) Sexual homicide offenders often exhibit several personality disorders, sometimes displaying symptoms of Cluster A, B, and C disorders. Robert Hansen is believed to have murdered 10–20 victims and is noteworthy for his cold, detached, isolated personality features. © ASSOCIATED PRESS/AP Images deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 108 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.3 Empirical Links Between Personality and Crime • Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for profit or pleasure • Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead • Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults • Reckless disregard for safety of self or others • Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations • Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) The diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality disorder present an individual whose very personality comprises traits that match the nature of crime—impulsive, uncaring acts of self-gratification at the expense of others. Persons with antisocial personality disor - der are significantly involved in an extensive array of deviant acts, and the prevalence of the disorder among prisoner/inmate samples is several orders of magnitude higher than in the general population (DeLisi, 2009; Hare, 1996). Antisocial personality disorder and its robust association with diverse forms of antisocial behavior are examined at length in Chapter 10 in a typological approach to crime. 4.3 Empirical Links Between Personality and Crime T he association between personality and crime has a somewhat strange hist\ ory in crimi - nology. For many decades, criminology in the United States was dominated by sc\ hol - ars trained in the sociological tradition, where cultural, societal, and aggregate factors were viewed as the most important determinants of behavior, including criminal behavior. This meant that psychological constructs such as personality were de-emphasized, ignored, or even treated in a scientifically hostile way. Strangely, this occurred despite clear evidence of the importance of personality factors in the understanding of crime.
Making 113 study comparisons of criminals and non-criminals on personality featu\ res, Schuessler and Cressey (1950) found that 42% of the studies they looked at found signif\ i - cant differences, whereas 58% did not. However, in the abstract of their study, Schuessler and Cressey doubted the validity of that 42% of studies for several reasons. They sug - gested that interest in personality differences is a popular (that is, non-scientific) issue, that it is practically impossible to predict delinquency from personality scores, that per - sonality is at best a correlate of crime, that affirmative research was overly reliant on prisoner samples, that the research is not generalizable, and that there are methodologi - cal problems with the research.
Many years later, Waldo and Dinitz (1967) reviewed 94 studies and found that 81% pro - duced significant personality differences between criminals and non-criminals, whereas 19% of studies did not. Despite the promising evidence that personality in fact does dif- ferentiate between the two, Waldo and Dinitz wrote, “Although the results are an improve - ment over those reported in the Schuessler-Cressey study, the same types of problems and criticisms generally prevailed” (1967, p. 185). The authors also noted that their findings\ were “far from conclusive,” and that the “conflict over the role of personality in criminality has deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 109 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.3 Empirical Links Between Personality and Crime not been resolved” (1967, p. 202). Similarly, Tennen- baum (1977) examined studies conducted from 1966 to 1975 and found that approximately 80% of them demonstrated significant personality differences between criminals and non-criminals. Evidence of a personality-crime link was again met with a disbe - lief that contradicted the findings of his study. Ten - nenbaum’s conclusion was, “Essentially, the data do not reveal any significant differences between criminal and noncriminal psychology because most results are based on tautological argument. The conclusion remains that cursory personality testing has not differentiated criminals from noncriminals” (1977, p. 228).
Fortunately, criminology has matured and become more interdisciplinary in terms of embracing psy- chological constructs such as personality. Even among theories that are not touted as personality theories of crime, there is explicit focus on personal - ity features. For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control construct from their general the - ory subsumes other important constructs, including temper, self-centeredness, and impulsivity, that are explored in this chapter. Moffitt’s (1993) develop - mental taxonomy describes the importance of neu- ropsychological deficits in predicting pathological or life-course-persistent offending. The neuropsy - chological deficits relate to executive functioning processes that are correlated and often used interchangeably with personality features, such as impulsivity. Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory articulates the role of anger as an emotional state that immediately precipitates many crimes, and one of the most influential tests of Agnew’s general strain theory expressly linked its conceptual ideas to personality traits (Agnew, Brezina, Wright, & Cullen, 2002). The next sections of this chapter explore the copious empirical evidence for the association between personality f\ eatures and crime.
Two of the most methodologically impressive types of research are longitudinal studies and meta-analyses.
Longitudinal Studies There is widespread evidence that the most violent and recurrently antisocial offenders in adulthood were almost without exception serious delinquents during their adolescence and problematically behaved during childhood. Retrospectively, the behaviors, interper - sonal style, and personality features of career criminals can be distinctively traced back through time (DeLisi, 2005). Of course, things are much clearer in hindsight. It is more challenging to predict the ways that personality traits will manifest in lifelong antisoc\ ial behavior as individuals age. One way this can be accomplished is via the longitudinal Decades of criminological research have shown significant personality differences between criminals and non-criminals. Most prisoners in the United States display signs of personality disorder. © Clinton Hussey/Corbis deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 110 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.3 Empirical Links Between Personality and Crime study, in which research participants are interviewed or studied multiple times across ages to assess their development. Due to multiple points of data collection, researchers can measure how personality changes and remains stable, and how specific traits predict later events in life.
Some of the most compelling evidence of the effects of personality on subsequent antiso- cial conduct originates from a Canadian longitudinal study of kindergarten boys. Richard Tremblay and his colleagues (1994) followed a sample of boys to examine \ the develop- mental course of personality and antisocial behavior into adolescence. T\ hey found that high impulsivity rated by kindergarten teachers best predicted which boys would be most delinquent between ages 10 to 13. In addition, boys with low anxiety dur\ ing kindergarten were also prone to problematic delinquency years later. Similarly, boys who in kinder - garten exhibited high levels of nov - elty seeking, which is comparable to extraversion, and low levels of harm avoidance, which is comparable to disinhibition, were significantly likely to smoke cigarettes, drink alco - hol, and use other drugs between ages 10 and 15 (Mâsse & Tremblay, 1997).
In a series of studies, Avshalom Caspi, Phil Silva, and their colleagues (Caspi, 2000; Caspi & Silva, 1995) tracked a birth cohort from Dunedin, New Zealand and explored their per - sonality and temperamental paths from ages 3 to 21. They found three types that were consistent with those developed by temperament research- ers Thomas and Chess (discussed in Chapter 3). The well-adjusted type included children who were capable of self-control, were adequately self-confident, and were generally fine when faced with new situations or upon meeting new people. The inhibited type included children who were fearful, socially reticent, and easily upset by strangers. The undercontrolled type—10% of the sample—included children who were impulsive, restless, negativistic or disagree - able, and emotionally labile. These were their characteristics at age 3.
Between ages 5 and 11, the undercontrolled children were consistently and significantly rated by parents and teachers to have externalizing problems. By ages 13 to 15, the under - controlled at age 3 group continued to be noteworthy for their externalizing behaviors in addition to internalizing problems. By 18, undercontrolled children had low constraint, were admittedly reckless and careless, enjoyed dangerous and exciting activities, scored high on negative emotionality, were aggressive, and felt alienated and mistreated by oth - ers. At 21, formerly undercontrolled children reported employment difficulties and fights with family and romantic partners. They were described as conflict-prone, unreliable, and untrustworthy. They had problems with alcohol and often had extensive criminal records.
Longitudinal research has shown that negative personality features in childhood contribute to maladaptive behaviors in adolescence and lower social functioning during adulthood. © Bernard Bisson/Sygma/Corbis deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 111 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.3 Empirical Links Between Personality and Crime Many believe that identifying those at risk for lifelong conduct problems based on early- childhood indicators is improbable. It is, however, routine. For instance, Jennifer White and her colleagues (1990) conducted analyses of data from the Dunedin, New Zealand birth cohort and found that preschool behavior problems at age 3 were the single best predictor of conduct problems at age 11. And the five best preschool predictors, which included externalizing behaviors and neurocognitive abilities, correctly classified 81% of subjects as antisocial at age 11 and 66% at age 15.
Damon Jones and his colleagues in the Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group (a multi-university research team that is dedicated to the study of conduct problems in chil- dren) examined parent and teacher reports of child behaviors among 463 kindergarteners selected from four impoverished communities in the United States (2002). Teachers, and to a lesser extent parents, are able to predict which children will require mental health and juvenile justice services up to 6 years later. The strongest predictors—again measured at the end of kindergarten—were police contacts, overnight stay in a facility for emotional/ behavioral problems, school services for said problems, repeated grade, and medication for psychiatric problems. Early-emerging personality traits are importantly related to the onset and developmental course of problem behavior extending into adulthood.
Meta-Analyses and Quantitative Links Another effective way to examine the relation between personality and antisocial behav - ior empirically is to explore results from meta-analyses, or quantitative studies of research findings. Basically, a meta-analysis statistically examines the research findings of prior studies to provide an overall snapshot of what those findings mean. In statistics, th\ at overall finding is known as an effect size. Several meta-analyses on the personality-crime link have been published, and all provide considerable evidence for the significance of personality. Miller and Lynam (2001) examined four structural models of personality (the Five Factor Model, Eysenck’s PEN model, Tellegen’s three-factor model, and Cloninger ’s temperament model) among 59 studies and found the strongest evidence linking low agreeableness and low conscientiousness to crime. In their meta-analysis, Samuel and Widiger (2008) investigated the Five Factor Model and its facets among \ the personality disorders using data from 16 samples. Although there were many significant effects, the most pertinent were for antisocial personality disorder. It is characterized most strongly by low levels of agreeableness and low levels of conscientiousness.
Recently, Jones, Miller, and Lynam (2011) reviewed 53 studies to explore the association between the Five Factor Model and outcome measures for antisocial behavior and aggres - sion. Overall, effect sizes for three of the five factors were significantly associated with antisocial behavior. There was a positive link between neuroticism and antisocial behav - ior, indicating that people who experience greater levels of negative emotionality, such as anger and hostility, are more likely to commit crime. Larger effect sizes were found for agreeableness and conscientiousness, with more antagonistic and less conscientious domains associated with antisocial behavior. All five factors were significantly associated with aggression. The direction for neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness was the same for aggression. In addition, extraversion and openness to experience were nega - tively correlated with aggression. Meta-analyses make clear that personality features are significantly related to crime, aggression, and delinquency. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 112 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.3 Empirical Links Between Personality and Crime Other researchers have explored the Five Factor Model and its association with anti- social behavior in other ways. Across these studies emerges a very negative set of personality traits found among individuals who commit diverse forms of c\ riminal behavior. These include high activity level, high excitement-seeking, and low co\ mpli- ance (Le Corff & Toupin, 2010) among young adults with a history of severe criminal behavior, and low conscientiousness and high neuroticism among drug users selected from the Epidemiologic Catchment Area program in Baltimore (Terracciano, Lock - enhoff, Crum, Bienvenu, & Costa, Jr., 2008). More severe drug users, such as those dependent on heroin and cocaine, score very high on neuroticism (especially the vul- nerability facet) and very low on conscientiousness (especially on the\ facets of compe - tence, achievement-striving, and deliberation).
The roles of low conscientiousness and low agreeableness are also important for under - standing what attracts young offenders to delinquent gangs. For example, Egan and Bead - man (2011) examined the personality correlates of youth who were embedded in a gang and thus active in gang activities, and those who demonstrated resilience by leaving the gang. The personality features of gang embeddedness included high impulsiveness, low agreeableness, low self-control, high commitment to negative peers, low commitment to positive peers, low conscientiousness, and high neuroticism and extraversion (although these latter two findings were not statistically significant). The salience of personality fea - tures to gang involvement and continuity in gang activity are important because social, peer-pressure factors are often cited as the reasons youths join gangs. That may be true, but the peer pressure dynamic is also being driven by personality features of individual gang members.
Recently, researchers have developed new measures to study psychopathy from the per - spective of the Five Factor Model. Donald Lynam and a host of colleagues (2011) created the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment , which is a 178-item self-report measure designed to assess extreme personality variants from the Five Factor Model that relate to psychopathy.
The Elemental Psychopathy Assessment uses four of the five factors from the Five Factor Model (openness to experience is not used). Antagonism (the negative pole of agreeable - ness) is assessed with six scales: distrust, manipulation, self-centeredness, oppositional - ity, arrogance, and callousness. Conscientiousness is assessed with three scales: rashness, impersistence, and disobliged. Extraversion is assessed through three scales: coldness, dominance, and thrill-seeking. Neuroticism is assessed with six scales: unconcern, anger, self-contentment, self-assurance, urgency, and vulnerability. Recent research found that overall scores on the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment were significantly correlated with reactive aggression, proactive aggression, antisocial behavior, alcohol use, and substance use (Wilson, Miller, Zeichner, Lynam, & Widiger, 2011). In addition, the Elemental Psychop - athy Assessment was significantly correlated with extant measures of psychopathy. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 113 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.4 Major Constructs: Impulsivity/Gratification Delay and Aggression 4.4 Major Constructs: Impulsivity/Gratification Delay and Aggression T he next two sections examine some of the major constructs in the personality-based study of antisocial and criminal behavior: impulsivity/gratification del\ ay, aggression, risk-taking, and self-centeredness/narcissism. The major personality-based approach in the psychology of crime—psychopathy—is covered in Chapter 9. Impulsivity/Gratification Delay Acting without thinking or doing things on the spur of the moment are behaviors that indicate impulsivity. Impulsivity is a core personality trait characterized by behavioral disinhibition and sudden, unplanned behavior. It reflects a here-and-now orientation and Highlight: The Dark Triad Everyone manifests one or more personality traits that, if taken to the extreme, would be associated with antisocial behavior. For instance, extraversion is a gen - erally positive attribute, but an excessively approach- oriented personality creates greater opportunities for offending and victimization due to the role of excite - ment/sensation seeking. Paulhus and Williams (2002) advanced the concept of “the dark triad,” a cluster of three traits comprising subclinical narcissism (excessive love of self), Machiavellianism (calculating manipula - tion), and subclinical psychopathy. The constructs can be understood within a Five Factor Model framework.
Narcissism is high extraversion, high openness to expe - rience, and low agreeableness. Machiavellianism is low agreeableness and low conscientiousness. Subclinical psychopathy is high extraversion, low agreeableness, low conscientiousness, low neuroticism, and moderate openness to experience. The elements of the dark triad are under considerable genetic influence, with between 31% and 72% of variance in dark triad features attribut - able to genetic factors (Vernon et al., 2008).
Although the dark triad is associated with aggressive - ness, disagreeableness, and sexual promiscuity, not all manifestations of these traits are necessarily negative. For example, individuals who are assertive and have high self-esteem are often successful in the workplace and have enviable careers. From one perspective, the characteristics of high-achieving individuals like this are positive; from another perspective, they are narcissistic and overly calculating. The dark triad presents a cluster of traits that, although directly related to generally negative personality features, can be positive as well. The Dark Triad is a mixture of narcissism, manipulation, and subclinical psychopathy that is seen among non-offenders in the general population. Persons who have the Dark Triad are sometimes successful because of the cunning aspects of their personality. Michael Douglas’s character in the 1987 film Wall Street exhibits a number of qualities associated with the Dark Triad. © SuperStock/SuperStock deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 114 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.4 Major Constructs: Impulsivity/Gratification Delay and Aggression a discounting of the long-term effects or consequences of immediate behavior. Like all per- sonality traits, impulsivity is continuously distributed from low to high (just like height and weight are continuously distributed measures). Those who score low on impulsiv - ity measures could be characterized as methodical, thoughtful, disciplined, and ca\ utious.
Those who score high on impulsivity measures could be characterized as glib, quick-to- act, impetuous, and hasty. A related construct is “delay aversion,” defined as an intoler - ance for waiting that results in a tendency to select immediate as opposed to delayed rewards. Notwithstanding the negative consequences it can produce, impulsive action is easy to commit. More difficult is being able to delay gratification, and the ability to delay gratification stems from cognitive maturity or competence by which one can internalize one’s focus away from an immediate situation and control one’s desire to act.
Impulsivity is a costly and powerful personality correlate that has widespread negative implications for those who are prone to it. Robert Krueger and his colleagues observed the following:
Society is predicated on the notion that its members can delay gratification in the service of cooperative living. Yet it is for precisely this reason that all societies are precarious. There are always some persons so driven by the prospect of immediate rewards that they pursue these with little regard for the collective consequences of their actions. What sets these antiso\ cial persons apart from the rest of society? How do they differ from others who manage to wait? (1996, p. 108) An individual’s ability to delay gratification emerges early in life and has long-term pre - dictive effects. The pioneering research of Walter Mischel and his colleagues (Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988; Mischel, Peake, & Rodriguez, 1989) addresses the effects of grati - fication delay over time. They evaluated 653 children in a series of experiments at the Bing Nursery School at Stanford University between 1968 and 1974. Some children were re-evaluated 10 years later. They found that children who at ages 4 or 5 could better delay gratification (for example, waiting 20 minutes before eating a cookie on the promise that they would receive another, versus eating the cookie immediately) were more cognitively and socially competent as adolescents and were better able to handle frustration and stress. The greater time of delayed gratification displayed during the preschool years was associated with improved SAT scores a decade later (r = 0.42 for verbal and r = 0.57 for quantitative scores). Mischel and his colleagues observed that during gratification delay, successful children self-generated diversions to help them cope with the waiting. Some talked quietly to themselves or sang, others created games with their hands and feet, and still others attempted to sleep. In all of these scenarios, they wor\ ked to direct their thoughts and attention away from the cookies or other treats.
An individual’s ability to delay gratification has also been found to be associated with an array of behavioral outcomes. In a study of 428 boys ages 12 or 13, Robe\ rt Krueger and his colleagues found that boys who were able to delay gratification were described as agreeable, conscientious, open to experience, self-controlled, and resilient. On the other hand, boys who sought immediate gratification showed signs of externaliz\ ing disorders, such as aggressiveness and delinquency (Krueger et al., 1996). Indeed, impulsivity is strongly associated with a broad spectrum of antisocial behaviors. In a study of narcotics users, elevated impulsivity was associated with heavier drug use, heavier weekly alcohol use, more lifetime substance use disorders, and greater levels of self-reported depression deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 115 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.4 Major Constructs: Impulsivity/Gratification Delay and Aggression compared to drug users with lower levels of impulsivity (Hanson et al., 2008). Impulsivity is strongly associated with symptoms of conduct disorder, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and overall poor self-regulation (Anokhin, Golosheykin, Grant, & Heath, 2011).
As Love and colleagues observed,Trait impulsivity has received substantial attention because of its associa - tion with risky behaviors (e.g., experimentation with drugs, sex, problem gambling, and reckless driving), personality disorders, or even the mortal - ity associated with the mood disorders. Impulsivity, although frequently referred to as a single trait, is better conceptualized as a heterogeneous characteristic consisting of multiple dimensions that include sensation \ seeking, lack of planning, lack of persistence, and urgency. (Love, Stohler, & Zubieta, 2009, p. 1124; Whiteside & Lynam, 2001) The effects of impulsivity persist over time. For instance, Leve, Kim, and Pears (2005) at the Oregon Social Learning Center reported that girls who were assessed as highly impulsive at age 5 were prone to externaliz- ing behaviors at age 17. Highly impulsive girls were also sub - jected to harsher parental dis - cipline, and this moderation effect further increased prob - lem behaviors. In an even larger study using data from a birth cohort in New Zealand, Moffitt and her colleagues (2011) found that childhood self-control largely relating to impulsivity/ gratification delay was predic- tive of a range of outcomes in adulthood, such as physical health, drug addiction, wealth, and criminal activity. These studies make clear that impulsivity is a cornerstone of the antisocial p\ ersonality.
Aggression Aggression is the use of physical or verbal force against another person with the intent to cause harm to that person. In many respects, aggression is the construct that is the purest raw material of the antisocial personality. For instance, aggression serves as the motivat - ing force that, when coupled with impulsivity, results in various forms of crime, such as assault. Aggression (or aggressiveness) is a criterion for several behavioral disorders, such as antisocial personality disorder. There are important categories of aggression:
• Reactive aggression is impulsive, thoughtless, or unplanned; driven by anger; and a reaction to some perceived provocation. Reactive aggression is also sometimes called hot-blooded, affective, angry, defensive, impulsive, or hostile aggression.
Impulsive, sensation-seeking behaviors increase the likelihood of social risk taking and are personality-based correlates of antisocial behavior. © Change to Mike Powell/Thinkstock deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 116 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.4 Major Constructs: Impulsivity/Gratification Delay and Aggression Reactive aggression is the “normal” type of aggression because it illustrates the use of force in response to a real or perceived wrong. It is generally defensive in nature.
• Proactive aggression is a premeditated means of obtaining some instrumental goal in addition to harming the victim. The most extreme example of proac - tive aggression is found among serial sexual murderers who stalk and kill their victims to satisfy deviant sexual interests. Proactive aggression is also sometimes called “instrumental” or, most commonly, “cold-blooded” aggression. Recent research has shown that youths who score high on proactive aggression during childhood are significantly likely to later be diagnosed with a behavioral disorder and be involved in serious delinquency (Vitaro et al., 1999, 2006).
• Indirect aggression is usually verbal and covert and includes actions such as gossiping and ostracism. Generally, females are more likely than males to use indirect aggression.
• Direct aggression is typically physical and overt and includes behaviors such as hitting, kicking, punching, and biting. In general, males are more likely than females to use direct aggression.
A meta-analysis of 148 studies of child and adolescent direct and indirect aggression found that direct aggression is more strongly associated with externalizing behaviors, poor peer relations, and low prosocial behavior. On the other hand, indirect aggression (more common among females) was more strongly associated with internalizing prob - lems but higher prosocial behavior—or less delinquency. Across the 148 studies, the correlation between direct and indirect aggression was strong (r = .76). This means that children and adolescents who are prone to use one form of aggression are also likely to use the other; however, there are important distinctions between them (Card, Stucky, Sawlani, & Little, 2008).
Given its important role in explaining antisocial conduct, psychologists have focused on early childhood aggression as a potential precursor of the subsequent delinquent career. Indeed, Raine and his colleagues observed, “Because aggression in early child- hood is capable of predicting aggression in adulthood, some of the foundations for later aggressive and violent behavior are probably set in the first few years of life” (1998, p. 745). That aggression is central to antisocial behavior and has been observed across data sources. In a classic study, Caspi, Elder, and Bem (1987) examined longitudinal data spanning 30 years on boys and girls ages 8 to 10 who had frequent temper tantrums.
Were temper tantrums merely a passing phase of late childhood or did they have endur - ing meaning? The results were alarming. Caspi and colleagues found that the explo - sive, poorly tempered outbursts of childhood similarly emerged in adult contexts when people had to subordinate themselves, such as in work and school settings. Having a bad temper as a child predicted middle adulthood occupational mobility (i.e., frequent job changes due to quitting or firing), lower educational attainment, and d\ ivorce, and these effects were similar for males and females.
Pediatric psychology researchers have found that infant persistence, or how often an infant seeks parental attention and then continues to fuss when his or her mother is unr\ esponsive, has been linked to aggression at age 2 and conduct problems during the preschool years (Shaw et al., 2000). Moreover, fussiness during infancy coupled with maternal unrespon - siveness often leads to aversive mother-child interactions. In their longitudinal research, for example, Benjamin Lahey and his colleagues found that infant fussine\ ss during the first year of life predicted conduct problems through age 13 (Lahey et al., 2008). deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 117 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.5 Major Constructs: Risk Taking and Self-Centeredness/Narcissism Aggression appears early in life and often co-occurs with other antisocial t\ raits. Daniel Nagin and Richard Tremblay (2001) found that kindergarten boys who are oppositional and hyperactive are about three-fold more likely than other children to be highly aggres- sive in high school . Using data from a high-risk Montreal, Canada sample, they also found that persistently aggressive kindergarteners often came from homes characterized by teenage mothers, family dissolution, and poverty. These boys also had low IQs, few pro - social skills, and attention difficulties—risk factors that would be enduringly predictive of aggression nearly a decade later. Based on data from a sample of low-income boys and their families, Daniel Shaw and his colleagues found a small group comprising less than 7% of the sample of 284 boys demonstrated high levels of overt conduct p\ roblems, such as aggressive acts, between ages 2 and 10. During this span, their use of aggression was several times that of other trajectories of children. Moreover, about 20% of the sample displayed chronic hyperactivity and attention problems between ages 2 and 10 (Shaw, Lacourse, & Nagin, 2004). And in a study of 10 Canadian cohorts including nearly 11,000 children followed over 6 years, Sylvana Côté and her associates (2006) found that about 17% of children demonstrated high levels of aggression between the ages of 2 and 11.
These youths were mostly males from impoverished families. Unlike their peers, they were unable to inhibit the use of force against others.
Kate Kennan and Lauren Wakschlag (2000) reported that preschoolers as young as 30 months present symptoms that are consistent with serious behavioral disorders, such as ADHD, ODD, and CD. In their study of 79 clinic-referred preschool children ages 2.5 to 5.5 years, nearly 50% met the criteria for conduct disorder and 75% met the criteria for ODD.
Nearly 27% met the diagnostic criteria for all three disorders. Some of these children were so aggressive and uncontrollable that they were expelled from preschool. Susan Campbell and Linda Ewing (1990) found that 67% of children who were rated as hard-to-manage at age 3 met diagnostic criteria for externalizing disorders at age 9, and the diagnostic data were vali - dated by maternal and teacher reports. Hard-to-manage preschoolers display a troubling set of characteristics that lend themselves to prolonged antisocial conduct and compromised prosocial development. Mothers, fathers, and teachers report that hard-to-manage children as young as age 3 are noteworthy for their poor impulse control, oppositional tendencies, poorly developed social skills, inattention, and school problems (Campbell, 1994).
4.5 Major Constructs: Risk Taking and Self-Centeredness/ Narcissism O f course, antisocial personality includes much more than impulsivity and aggression.
Two of the most important constructs relate to risk taking and self-centeredness, or narcissism. In and of themselves, these traits are not necessarily antisocial, but when they interact and are acute, they are frequently seen in the personalities of offenders. Theory and research on these constructs are examined next. Risk Taking An important personality feature that differentiates criminal offenders from non-offenders is the willingness to engage in risky or dangerous behaviors, or place oneself in harm’s way. This general tendency is often referred to as risk taking. Risk taking is helpful for deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 118 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.5 Major Constructs: Risk Taking and Self-Centeredness/Narcissism understanding not only criminal behavior but also some of the lifestyle \ features that seem to correlate with criminal offending. For example, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) general theory of crime asserts that low self-control is the incomparable predictor of not only crime but also imprudent behaviors. In terms of risk taking, this means that criminal offenders are willing to break into a person’s home, drive a car while intoxicated, provoke a stranger in a crowded bar, or ingest an unknown substance in a drug-abusing context. Conversely, law-abiding citizens often cannot imagine engaging in these behaviors be\ cause they would create such discomfort and fear of the potential consequences. Moreover, risk taking also contributes to decisions to smoke (despite the risks), to live an unhealthy lifestyle of poor diet and little exercise (despite the risks), and to cheat on tests, taxes, and significan\ t oth- ers (despite the risks). In other words, risk taking encapsulates a tendency toward short- sighted, hedonistic pursuits.
The relationship between risk taking and antisociality is well-established in\ the case of alcoholism. In his seminal conceptualization of alcoholism, Robert Cl\ oninger (1987) described pathological alcoholics (Type 2 alcoholics) as persons with high levels of sensa - tion seeking and low levels of harm avoidance. This type of alcoholic is\ exploratory, excit - able, and impulsive (Devor & Cloninger, 1989). With this personality repertoire, it is easy to see how Type 2 alcoholics, with their preference for going out and taking risks in bars, have increased opportunities for engaging in antisocial conduct.
Thrill seeking is also prevalent among children with comorbid behavioral disorders, such as ADHD, ODD, and CD. Paul Frick and his colleagues (2000) compared four groups of chil - dren: those with ADHD only, those with ADHD/ODD/CD and low callous-unemotional traits, those with all disorders and high callous-unemotional traits, and an unaffected con - trol group. Nearly 60% of children ages 6 to 13 with all disorders and psychopathic traits had elevated scores on thrill or adventure seeking, which was significantly higher than all other groups. Adrian Raine and his colleagues (1998) prospectively examined the inter - relationships between fearlessness/risk taking, stimulation-seeking, and \ large body size among a sample of 1,130 male and female Indian and Creole children from the island of Mauritius. Children characterized as highly risk taking at age 3 were significantly likely to be highly aggressive at age 11, suggesting that toddler risk taking is an important precursor of childhood aggression.
Due to the implications of risk taking, criminological neuroscientists have examined the neural processes that contribute to it. For instance, B. J. Casey and Todd Hare (2008) sug - gest that risk taking is the outcome of the unequal development of the prefrontal cor - tex vis-à-vis the limbic system. According to their model, impulsivity wanes over time because the prefrontal cortex develops in a linear fashion. The limbic system, specifical\ ly the accumbens and amygdala, are developed by adolescence. This results in a prefrontal cortical brain that is not sufficiently developed to override the risky impulses emanating from subcortical regions. The result—and the reason that adolescence is characterized as a period of risky choices and behaviors—is that the mature limbic system overrides its immature prefrontal region.
The unequal development of these brain regions is useful for understanding developmen - tal patterns of risk-taking behavior. According to Casey and her colleagues:
During adolescence, relative to childhood or adulthood, an immature ventral prefrontal cortex may not provide sufficient top-down control of deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 119 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.5 Major Constructs: Risk Taking and Self-Centeredness/Narcissism robustly activated reward and affect processing regions (e.g., accumbens and amygdala). This imbalance in development of these regions and rela- tive top-down control results in less influences of reward valuation and emotional reactivity. (2008, p. 118) Highlight: The DRD4 Gene and Antisocial Personality Features Personality traits are so stable and enduring, in part, because they have a substantial genetic basis, or are heritable. Yoon-Mi Hur and Thomas Bouchard (1997) found that between 40% and 55% of assorted facets of sensation seeking was heritable. Moreover, 55% of the variation between sensation seeking and impulsivity had a shared genetic etiol - ogy. A gene that has received attention for its relation to sensation seeking is the dopamine D4 receptor gene, or DRD4. DRD4 has an expressed polymorphism in the third exon caused by a 16 amino acid segment that can be repeated from 2 to 10 times (Van Tol et al., 1992).
This means that there are several variants in the DRD4 gene, and these variants are differentially related to personality traits. Indeed, novelty/ sensation seeking was the first to be linked to a specific gene—the 7-repeat allele of DRD4 has been shown to be associated with novelty/ sensation seeking personality traits (Benjamin et al., 1996; Ebstein et al., 1996; Cloninger et al., 1996). In their review of the first decade of research on DRD4, Hubert Van Tol—whose research was instrumental in discovering the gene—and his colleagues advised that “numerous reports of linkage or a weak association between the 7-repeat long alleles of DRD4 and novelty seeking, drug and alcohol abuse, ADHD, and Tourette syndrome may indicate that the dopamine D4 receptor polymorphism is one of several genetic contributions to these traits or disorders” (2000, p. 316). In a more recent review, Ebstein said, “We deduce with some measure of certainty that DRD4 indeed contributes to personality and behavioral traits related to the Novelty Seeking phenotype” (2006, p. 435).
Molecular genetics researchers have found that the 7-repeat allele of the DRD4 exon III polymorphism is indeed associated with high levels of the personality trait of novelty seeking, which characterizes those who are impulsive, exploratory, fickle, excitable, and quick-tempered, as opposed to reflective, rigid, loyal, stoic, slow-tempered, and frugal. For instance, Manfred Laucht and his colleagues (2007) used data from 303 children selected from the Mannheim (Germany) Study of Risk Children, which is a prospective longitudinal study of the effects of early risk factors on subsequent adolescent development. They found that males with the 7R allele drank more alcohol per occasion of drinking and had greater lifetime rates of heavy drinking. Moreover, those with personalities characterized by high levels of novelty seeking mediated the linkage between the DRD4 7R allele and problem drinking. The DRD4 7R allele has even been linked to sensation seeking-oriented forms of alcohol use, such as binge drinking. Michael Vaughn and his colleagues (2009) found that the 7R allele was predictive of binge drinking among respondents from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. The relationship held despite controls for demographic characteristics and low self-control.
These findings are so promising that a relatively new subfield in psychology known as “personality neuroscience” has been established. Its main goal is to locate the genetic and neural bases of person - ality traits, and thus create a fuller understanding of human behavior. With advances in neuroscience, criminologists now understand the genetic and neurological bases of personality and can identify brain pathways that contribute to personality disorder. © Jupiter Images/Thinkstock deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 120 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.5 Major Constructs: Risk Taking and Self-Centeredness/Narcissism Self-Centeredness/Narcissism At the most basic level, crime can be understood as a selfish act. To steal from a store, to steal a car, to fraudulently use another person’s credit card, or to rob a person at gunpoint represents an extraordinary willingness to take what one wants—irrespective of its effects on another person. Narcissism is a personality feature characterized by excessive self- admiration and self-centeredness. The overwhelming focus on the self comes at the expense of others; thus, narcissistic or self-centered individuals are noteworthy for the pursuit of their own wants and needs despite the negative effects on others. In this sense, given the selfish motivation for crime, and the lack of compassion for t\ he crime victim, narcissism is an important part of the antisocial personality.Self-centeredness/narcissism has been explored in a variety of contexts and among a variety of samples to explore its asso- ciation for antisocial conduct.
In a general population study, Sander Thomaes and his col - leagues (2008) conducted an experiment with 163 pre-teens and adolescents to examine the interrelationships between nar - cissism, self-esteem, shame, and aggression. In the experiment, subjects lost to an opponent on a competitive task. In the shame condition, they were told that their opponent was bad, and subjects saw their own name at the bottom of a ranking list.
Neither of these occurred in the control condition. Aggression was measured by allowing participants to blast their opponent with noise if desired. They found that narcissistic children were indeed more aggressive, but only after they were shamed. However, narcissistic children who also had high self-esteem were exceedingly aggressive whether shamed or not.
Recent brain imaging research has shown that antisocial people are not simply character - ized by self-centeredness; they at times show an inability to cooperate with others. James \ Rilling and his colleagues (2007) explored the neural correlates of social cooperation and defection as a function of psychopathic personality. They imaged 30 subjects with fMRI while playing a Prisoner ’s Dilemma game (a game of social decision-making that relates to the ability of an individual to cooperate with others) and found tha\ t psychopathic males were more likely to defect, less likely to continue cooperating after establishi\ ng mutual cooperation with a partner, and more likely to be rebuffed during the game. They also showed less amygdala activation, suggesting weak aversive conditioning. While non- psychopathic people were biased toward cooperation, psychopathic persons were biased toward defection.
Individuals who are narcissistic are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviors in part because their own needs and desires are put ahead of the rights and property of others. © iStockphoto/Thinkstock deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 121 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.5 Major Constructs: Risk Taking and Self-Centeredness/Narcissism Self-centeredness is a prominent criterion in Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control construct from their general theory of crime. Recent research, however, indicates that it might be even more important than they realized. Drawing on data from a sample of insti- tutionalized delinquents, Michael Vaughn and his colleagues (2007) found that narcis - sistic traits accounted for much of the variance in low self-control, so much so that it was suggested that low self-control was likely subsumed by narcissism. In this sense, the famous general theory of crime might be slightly incorrect in pointing to the importance of self- control, particularly if the explanatory power of narcissistic traits is greater.
The brute insensitivity to others that narcissistic individuals display also manifests in meanness. Extremely antisocial persons are generally described as being mean in their interactions with others, and when extreme antisociality is understood from a personality framework, it is easy to see why. Donald Lynam and Thomas Widiger (2007) “translated” psychopathy as measured by Robert Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) into a structural model of personality, the Five Factor Model. Their analysis produced the fol - lowing general personality profile of a psychopathic person: extremely high interpersonal antagonism (or extremely low agreeableness), impulsivity in most areas of life, absence of negative self-directed affect, angry hostility, and interpersonal assertiveness.
A tangential but related issue to self-centeredness is the development of conscience.
According to Grazyna Kochanska and her colleagues, “children’s conscience, a complex system encompassing moral emotions, conduct, cognition, and self, is cri\ tical for mental health in that it is perhaps the most powerful factor that prevents disruptive, callous, and antisocial conduct” (2008, p. 1220). In their longitudinal studies,\ maternal responsiveness to the child during the first year of life engenders a reciprocal responsive stance in the child, which is observable by age 2. This responsiveness to others becomes enduring and generalized by age 52 months or so and constitutes the intact beginnings of the child’s conscience. Disruptive behaviors at age 6 are more likely among children with deficits in their conscience. Importantly, conscience development occurs among children with diverse temperaments. For instance, fearless children—a correlate of externalizing behav - ioral risk—develop conscience in part due to secure attachment and maternal responsive - ness (Kochanska, 1997; Kochanska & Murray, 2000; Kochanska et al., 2004).
Kochanska and her colleagues reported that by age 3, conscience becomes more nuanced and includes affective discomfort, which encompasses feelings of guilt, apology, empathy, and concern with “making good” with parents after wrongdoing. Another facet of con - science is active moral regulation or vigilance, which includes confession and reparation following acts of wrongdoing, concern about others’ wrongdoing, and internalization of codes of conduct—or self-regulation (Kochanska, 1994). The conscience comprises a set of personality features that serve to guard against antisocial conduct in preference for prosocial behavior.
Personality embodies the trait psychology of an individual and provides clues about the customary ways in which a person thinks, feels, and behaves. Although personality is not set in stone, it is importantly stable and enduring, and there is strong evidence for continuity in personality features from childhood through adulthood. When personality features are extreme, their enduring nature is stronger, and the evidence for personality correlates of antisocial conduct bears on this point. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 122 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Section 4.5 Major Constructs: Risk Taking and Self-Centeredness/Narcissism Case Study: Ted Bundy and Malignant Narcissism The infamous sexual homicide offender Ted Bundy was so brazen that during his undergraduate career, he developed a rape awareness pamphlet to be used by social service agencies. Meanwhile, Bundy was already engaging in non-contact sexual offenses, and less than 2 years after his college graduation would abduct, rape, and murder his first (of approximately 35) victims. Bundy is an exam- ple of what happens when narcissism, aggression, and personality disturbance manifest at pathologi - cally high levels. Research on serial sexual homicide offenders provides insight into a pernicious form of narcissism known as “malignant narcissism,” in which the infliction of sadistic sexual violence is perhaps the highest form of a self-centered pursuit of personal pleasure at the expense of another person. For example, Park Dietz and his colleagues (1990) conducted a descriptive study of 30 sexually sadistic criminals. All of these men intentionally tortured their victims for sexual arousal. Their crimes often involved careful planning, the selection of strangers as victims, approaching the victim under a pretext, participation of a partner, beating victims, restraining victims and holding them captive, sexual bondage, anal rape, forced fellatio, vaginal rape, foreign object penetration, telling victims to speak particular words in a degrading manner, murder or serial killings (most often by strangulation), concealing victims’ corpses, recording offenses, and keeping personal items belonging to victims. In other words, the offense-behavior of sexual homicide can be understood as the narcissistic desires of sadistic, usually psychopathic offenders.
This particular personality style can be inferred from research. A study of 125 murderers found that more than 93% of homicides committed by psychopaths were “cold-blooded,” in that they were instrumental, completely premeditated, and were not preceded by an explosive emotional interac- tion, such as an argument. Stephen Porter and his colleagues (2003) compared sexual homicides com - mitted by psychopathic and non-psychopathic offenders in Canadian prisons. They found that nearly 85% of psychopathic murderers engaged in some degree of sadistic behavior during the course of their murder. Moreover, homicides committed by psychopaths contained significantly greater levels of gratuitous and sadistic violence. More recent research found that psychopathic murderers are far more likely than non-psychopathic murderers to kill for instrumental or proactive reasons, as opposed to reactive reasons such as responding to an argument. Nevertheless, psychopathic murderers are also significantly likely to inflate the reactivity of their murderers, suggesting that they place blame on the victims for “causing” them to kill them. In recounting the details of their homicide events, psychopaths were also more likely to omit major details of their crimes (Porter & Woodworth, 2007).
When asked about his murderous criminal career, Ted Bundy once commented that there are “so many people,” suggesting that the sheer size of the human population in some way justified his desire to murder. Bundy’s comment provides insight into how deeply self-centered the most violent criminal offenders are in the pursuit of their self-interests. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 123 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Chapter Summary • Personality is the relatively stable ways in which an individual thinks, feels, and behaves, and it represents the trait psychology of a person.
• Personality is commonly viewed as the psychological manifestation of temperament.
• There is strong evidence for continuity in personality traits across the life course, such that antisocial traits have predictive validity for antisocial behaviors occurring later in life.
• The Five Factor Model of Personality includes five dimensions (openne\ ss to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) that are useful for studying normal personality development and maladaptive personality development.
• A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture.
• Cluster A personality disorders are odd-eccentric in nature.
• Cluster B personality disorders are dramatic-emotional in nature.
• Cluster C personality disorders are anxious-fearful in nature.
• Antisocial personality disorder directly maps onto the behavioral and personality style of the average criminal offender.
• Longitudinal studies and meta-analyses confirm the association between\ personality traits and conduct problems over the life course.
• High impulsivity, low gratification delay, high aggression, high risk taking, and high narcissism are associated with serious antisocial behavior in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Review Questions 1. Is personality the same as temperament? 2. Is personality set in stone because its origins are partially genetic? 3. How does Eysenck’s PEN Model relate to the Five Factor Model of Personality? 4. What features make a personality disorder? 5. What distinguishes the clusters of personality disorders? Answers to Review Questions 1. Is personality the same as temperament?
Personality and temperament are related concepts that share some of the same constructs.
Personality is a psychological trait perspective, whereas temperament is a biological trait perspective. 2. Is personality set in stone because its origins are partially genetic?
Personality is a stable, relatively coherent set of traits that fluctuate across life. Extreme personality features are more stable and less susceptible to environmental influences. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 124 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Answers to Review Questions 3. How does Eysenck’s PEN Model relate to the Five Factor Model of Personality?
Both models contain factors for extraversion and neuroticism, which suggests those are core features of personality. Eysenck’s psychoticism factor is related to antisocial personality, and according to Eysenck, it subsumes the remaining factors in the Five Factor Model. 4. What features make a personality disorder?
A personality disorder is an enduring pattern that deviates from the norm in terms of cognition, affectivity, interpersonal functioning, and impulse control. In short, a personality disorder fundamentally impairs the individual’s functioning in conventional life domains, such as school and work. 5. What distinguishes the clusters of personality disorders?
The three personality disorders clusters typify the overall tone of the disorde\ rs. Cluster A disorders are odd or eccentric, Cluster B disorders are dramatic, and Cluster C disorders are anxious or fearful. Of these types, Cluster B disorders have the strongest association with antisocial behavior and crime. Critical Thinking Questions 1. For many years, criminologists were reticent about the linkages between personality and crime. Why? In what ways might readers interpret personality differences between offenders and non-offenders as potentially dangerous? 2. The stability of personality traits is usually stronger at the tails of the distribution of that trait. This means that persons scoring very low or very high on \ any particular trait are most likely to consistently display the trait over time. What are the implications of this when thinking about the criminal personality?\ 3. Which personality trait is most central to understanding antisocial behavior?
How do longitudinal studies and meta-analyses support your answer? 4. Critics of personality psychology suggest that aggression, impulsivity, risk taking, and self-centeredness are normal traits that all persons display, albeit at low levels. How does this reduce or support the use of personality to understand crime? 5. Although they advanced a sociological general theory of crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control construct is very compatible with personality approaches to crime. How did the criminology community respond to their theory when it was advanced? What is the theory’s empirical reputation? 6. Personality disorders are differentially related to externalizing, delinquent, and criminal forms of behavior. How do Cluster A, Cluster B, and Cluster C personality disorders link to crime? Which cluster of personality disorders is most directly related to crime? deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 125 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Critical Thinking Questions aggression The use of physical or ver- bal force against another person with the intent to cause harm to that person. agreeableness Personality dimension that refers to the kinds of interactions a person has along a continuum from compassion to antagonism. antisocial personality disorder A person- ality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. avoidant personality disorder A person- ality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of social inhibition, feelings of inadequacy, and hypersensitivity to nega- tive evaluation. borderline personality disorder A per - sonality disorder that is characterized by a pervasive pattern of instability of interper - sonal relationships, self-image, affect, and marked impulsivity. Cluster A personality disorders Person- ality disorders that are viewed as odd or eccentric. Making Connections 1. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5 Development (ht t p://w w w.dsm5.org/Pages/ Default.aspx ) In 2013, the new version of the DSM—DSM-V—will be released. This homepage contains information on important changes for all psychiatric conditions\ , including personality disorders. 2. Personality Disorders (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/ PMH0001935/ ) This is the page of United States National Library of Medicine, which is\ the world’s largest medical library, devoted to personality disorders. 3. Mayo Clinic Personality Disorders Home (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ personality-disorders/DS00562 ) To provide a practitioner-clinical perspective, this page is also devoted to personality disorders and their treatment. 4. Personality and Individual Differences (http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ personality-and-individual-differences/ ) This academic journal is devoted to research on personality, and often includes criminological research. 5. Big 5 Personality Self-Test (http://www.outofservice.com/bigfive/ ) This fun page provides insight about one’s personality. Key Terms deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 126 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Key Terms Cluster B personality disorders Personal- ity disorders that are viewed as dramatic or emotional. Cluster C personality disorders Personal- ity disorders that are viewed as anxious or fearful. conscientiousness Personality dimension that captures the degree of organization, persistence, control, and motivation in goal-directed behavior. dependent personality disorder A per - sonality disorder characterized by a per - vasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation. direct aggression Typically physical and overt aggression that includes behaviors such as hitting, kicking, punching, and biting. Elemental Psychopathy Assessment A 178-item self-report measure designed to assess extreme personality variants from the Five Factor Model that relate to psychopathy. extraversion A personality dimension that, according to the Five Factor Model of Personality, refers to the quantity and intensity of preferred interpersonal inter - actions, activity level, need for stimulation, and capacity for joy. histrionic personality disorder A person- ality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking. impulsivity A core personality trait char - acterized by behavioral disinhibition and sudden, unplanned behavior. indirect aggression Usually verbal and covert aggression that includes actions such as gossiping and ostracism. longitudinal study Study in which research participants are interviewed or studied multiple times across ages to assess their development. narcissism A personality feature charac- terized by excessive self-admiration and self-centeredness. narcissistic personality disorder A per - sonality disorder characterized by a perva- sive pattern of grandiosity in fantasy and behavior, need for admiration, and lack of empathy. neuroticism According to the Five Factor Model, this is the personality dimension that refers to the chronic level of emotional adjustment and instability.
obsessive-compulsive personality disor - der A personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and men- tal and interpersonal control at the expense of flexibility, openness, and efficiency. openness to experience Personality dimension that involves the appreciation and seeking of experiences. paranoid personality disorder A disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of dis- trust and suspiciousness of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent. personality disorder An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that devi- ates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. proactive aggression A premeditated means of obtaining some instrumental goal in addition to harming the victim. reactive aggression Impulsive, thought- less, or unplanned aggression driven by anger and occurring as a reaction to some perceived provocation. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 127 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Key Terms risk taking The willingness to engage in risky or dangerous behaviors or place oneself in harm’s way. schizoid personality disorder A disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings. schizotypal personality disorder A per - sonality disorder characterized by a per - vasive pattern of social and interpersonal deficits marked by acute discomfort with and reduced capacity for close relation- ships, cognitive or perceptual distortions, and eccentricities in behavior. deL80458_04_c04_099-128.indd 128 11/14/12 2:18 PM CHAPTER 4 Key Terms