evaluating personality

• SUPPORTING RE - for E's theory

  Dunlop et al (2012) - sample - students + friends

  ext, psych + lie scales = good predictors of delinquency

  support + val to E's claims of link between personality traits and cb

  EXT / Counter

  f - treated with caution > sample - limited to students + minor offences

  restricts how far r can support p as exp of all cb
• CONTRADICTORY RE

  Coleta van Dam et al (07) - small no. of male offenders in juvenile detention centres scored highly on E's 3 traits

  sug - p - not only factor in explaining criminality > other factors must contribute to offending b in study (e.g)
• PERSONALITY MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT

  some p changes depending on situation > e.g. may - consistent when faced with similar situations, but not in every situation

  recent R - p changes over lifespan > contradicts bio nature of E theory

  criminal p exp - flawed > don't just have one personality > behave differently in diff situations
• PERSONALITY MAY NOT BE CONSISTENT

  OR EXTENSION :

  Mischel + Peake = asked family, friends + strangers to rate 63 students p in variety of situations

  p - consistent in similar situations > not across diff
• E'S CPT = INTERACTIONIST - complex, multiple factors play role

  argued - p + c > result of interaction between innate personality (bio det - 67%) and socialisation = 33%

  accounts for both nature + nurture > less reductionist
• CONCLUSION

  • stronger exp than other bio exp > interactionist
  • research - p not consistent
  • may be contributing factor but not sole cause
  • CB - complex > more appropriate exp > holistic (multi-dimensional) > considers different factors