Eysenck's theory

• Hans Eysenck (1947) proposed that criminal behaviour can be explained by an individual’s personality traits, which are biologically determined and come about through the type of nervous system we inherit.
• Eysenck proposed Three Personality Dimensions, which are Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N) and Psychoticism (P).
• Extraverts (E) are outgoing, impulsive, and thrill-seeking.

  • Linked to an underactive nervous system, meaning they seek excitement and stimulation and are more likely to engage in risky behaviour.
• Neurotic individuals are anxious, emotional, and unstable.

  • Their high reactivity to stress means they overreact to situations, making them more prone to aggression.
  • Their instability means their behaviour is often difficult to predict.
• Psychotics (P) are cold, aggressive, antisocial.

  Higher levels of testosterone are thought to make them emotionally detached and more prone to crime.
• The criminal personality is neurotic-extravert. An individual who scores highly on measures of extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism and cannot be easily conditioned is cold and unfeeling and is likely to engage in offending behaviour.
• The Role of Socialisation

  • Eysneck saw criminal behaviour as developmentally immature in that it is selfish and concerned with immediate gratification.
  • Criminals have difficulty learning from punishment, meaning they do not develop a strong conscience.
  • Children with high E and N scores find it harder to be conditioned into following society’s norms, making them more likely to offend.
• Measuring Personality

  • Eysenck developed the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI) to assess individuals on E, N, and P dimensions to determine their personality type.
  • He argued that criminals would score high in all three dimensions.
• A strength of Eysenck’s theory is the research supporting the criminal personality. Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) compared 2070 male prisoners to 2422 non-criminal males and found that prisoners scored higher on extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism. This suggests that certain personality traits may be linked to criminal behaviour. However, Farrington et al. (1982) reviewed several studies and found that offenders scored high on P but not for E and N, contradicting Eysenck’s predictions. This suggests the theory may not fully explain all aspects of criminal behaviour.
• Another strength is that Eysenck’s theory considers both biological factors (e.g., nervous system functioning) and environmental influences (e.g., socialisation) in criminal behaviour. Unlike purely genetic explanations, Eysenck acknowledged that criminals struggle to learn from conditioning due to their nervous systems, making the theory more interactionist. This means it provides a more comprehensive explanation of offending than purely genetic or environmental theories alone.
• A major limitation of Eysenck’s theory is that it assumes personality is stable and biologically determined. However, modern research suggests that personality is not fixed and can change depending on situations and experiences. Moffitt (1993) argued that criminal behaviour is better explained by different types of offenders, such as adolescence-limited offenders (who grow out of crime) and life-course persistent offenders (who continue criminal behaviour). This suggests that Eysenck’s theory is too simplistic and does not account for changes in personality over time.
• A limitation of Eysenck’s theory is that it may be culturally biased, as it was developed using Western samples and assumes that the same personality traits are linked to criminality across all cultures. Bartol and Holanchock (1979) studied Hispanic and African-American offenders in a New York prison and found that they were less extraverted than Eysenck’s theory predicts. This contradicts his claim that criminals have a high extraversion score, suggesting that the theory does not apply universally and may reflect a Western perspective on personality.