Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The authors argue that the concept of personality has much to offer
the field of criminology. To this end, they used meta-analytic tech-
niques to examine the relations between antisocial behavior defined rel-
atively broadly and four structural models of personality: Eysencks
P E N model, Tellegen 3 three-factor model, Costa and McCraeS five-
factor model (FFM), and Cloningers seven-factor temperament and
character model. A comprehensive review of the literature yielded 59
studies that provided relevant information. Eight of the dimensions
bore moderate relations to antisocial behavior; the dimensions could all
be understood as measures of either Agreeableness or Conscientious-
ness f r o m the FFM. The implications of these findings for future
research are considered.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The recent studies cited above are not the first studies to consider the
role of personality in crime. In 1950, Schuessler and Cressey found that
METHOD
In conducting the meta-analysis, several decisions had to be made.
Studies that reported relevant relations using several different samples
were treated as independent samples, and each was included in the meta-
analysis. In the two studies in which two or more pertinent dependent
variables were used, such as violence, vandalism, and theft, the average
correlation was used. Two studies did not report the actual correlations
between the personality dimensions and the dependent variable of interest
because the correlations were not significant. In this case, the results were
treated as if the correlations reported were .OO.
As mentioned earlier, our dependent variable of antisocial behavior was
defined in a broad manner. Scales or questionnaires that assessed APD,
as well as scales from the MMPI-2 (Pd), MCMI (Antisocial PD), and CPI
(So) were used, along with measures of self-, parent-, and teacher-
reported delinquency, and conduct disorder. Although some of these
(MCMI, MMPI-2) are often called personality scales, we were inter-
ested in examining only the dimensions of personality found within the
structural models. Moreover, because these scales reference ASB explic-
itly, they are appropriate only as dependent variables.
SELECTION OF STUDIES
We conducted a comprehensive search for empirical research regarding
the relations between these models of personality and ASB. In order to
do so, we used PsychINFO and Sociological Abstracts (1963-2000). We
selected the entire databases for this search so that they included the old-
est work-up through the most current references, including dissertations.
The personality-related terms in the search included Psychoticism, Extra-
version, Neuroticism-Eysenck; Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotion-
ality, Constraint-Tellegen; Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,
774 MILLER AND LYNAM
Coded Information
RESULTS
The appendix displays the studies that were included in the meta-analy-
sis along with study characteristics. In regard to the size of the effects, we
adopted Cohens criteria: small = .lo, medium = .30, large = S O . Finally,
moderator analyses using sample size, type of sample (prisoner versus
nonprisoner), year of publication, age, and percentage of the sample that
was female were conducted for both the FFM and Eysencks personality
models. In addition, we examined whether the effect sizes varied depend-
ing on whether the dependent variable was a personality scale from the
MMPI-2 o r MCMI or another rating of ASB, and whether delinquency or
ASB scores were from self-report data or from another source (i.e., par-
ent. teacher). Finally, for Eysencks model, we examined whether the
results differed depending on whether the Eysenck Personality Question-
naire was used (EPQ) or the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
(JEPQ). The results from these analyses are reported only in the cases in
which significance was achieved. As a result of the relatively large number
of analyses conducted, we used a more conservative alpha level of .01.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 775
FIVE-FACTOR MODEL
Table 2 provides the range of effect sizes and other relevant data. The
number of studies in which the five FFM dimensions were used ranged
from 14 to 15. The unweighted mean effect size for the domain of
Neuroticism was r = .09, with a standard deviation of .17. The unweighted
mean effect size for the domain of FFM Extraversion was r = .02, with a
standard deviation of .15. The next domain examined was Openness to
Experience, which had an unweighted mean effect size of r = .02, with a
standard deviation of .15. The next domain examined was Openness to
Experience, which had an unweighted mean effect size of r = -.02, with a
standard deviation of .09. The unweighted mean effect size for the domain
of Agreeableness was r = -.37, with a standard deviation of .11. Finally,
the unweighted mean effect size for the domain of Conscientiousness was
r = -.25, with a standard deviation of .13. Moderator analyses were con-
ducted; however, no significant results were found.
we found that the relation between Eysenck's Extraversion and ASB was
significantly stronger when ASB was determined by self-reports (as
opposed to other reports), r = .42, p 2 .01, and in nonprisoner samples, r =
-.43, p 2 .01.
more strongly related to ASB than to other measures because of the inclu-
sion of items assessing impulsivity (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978). Simi-
larly, in some (Dietsch, 1996) studies, Reward Dependence is positively
correlated with Agreeableness.
Results for dimensions related to Neuroticism were interesting as well.
No significant effect was observed for Cloningers Harm Avoidance, small
effects were observed for FFM and Eysencks Neuroticism, and moderate
effects were found for Tellegens Negative Emotionality and Cloningers
Self-directedness. Interestingly, the two moderate relations are probably
best explained by overlap with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness;
Negative Emotionality has been found t o be moderately to strongly, nega-
tively correlated with Agreeableness, and Self-directedness has been
found to be moderately, positively correlated with Conscientiousness.
Unlike Neuroticism from Eysencks model or the FFM, a considerable
portion of Tellegens Negative Emotionality is made of an Aggression sub-
scale that is the Negative Emotionality subscale most strongly related to
Agreeableness and that may account for the size of the relation. In fact, in
the Krueger et al. (1994) study, the correlations between the Aggression
subscale and self-reported delinquency are almost twice as high as the cor-
relation for either of the other two subscales of Negative Emotionality.
Even more interesting in the case of Neuroticism is the significant heter-
ogeneity in the effect sizes across studies. Despite the overall positive
relation between Neuroticism and AASB, 6 of the 34 studies that
examined Eysencks Neuroticism and 4 of the 14 examinations of FFMs
Neuroticism found negative correlations. This suggests that both high and
low Neuroticism may be related to antisocial behavior. There are several
reasons high Neuroticism may be related to ASB. First, individuals who
are less emotionally stabie may be more prone to impulsive acts: in fact,
Costa and McCrae (1992) list impulsiveness as one of the facets of
Neuroticism in the FFM. Additionally, Caspi et al. (1994) have argued
that individuals with chronically high levels of such negative emotions
perceive interpersonal events differently than other people (p. 187),
which may lead them to act more antisocially. Finally, high scores on
Neuroticism may be preceded by ASB; individuals who act antisocially
reap the negative consequences of this behavior, which may include peer
rejection, social isolation, punishment, and even imprisonment. O n the
other hand, Lykken (1995) has argued that individuals who are extremely
emotionally stable (i.e., low in anxiety) behave antisocially because the
normal anxieties and fears that keep most people from behaving
antisocially are missing.
In addition to these broad results, three specific moderators were found.
Eysencks Neuroticism was more weakly related to antisocial behavior in
MILLER AND LYNAM
The present findings are also consistent with other examinations of the
relations between personality and other problem behaviors. A recent
meta-analysis by Hoyle et al. (2000) examined the relations between sev-
eral personality models and risky sexual behavior. These authors found
that Novelty Seeking (Cloninger), Extraversion (Eysenck), low Agreea-
bleness and low Conscientiousness (FFM), and low Constraint (Tellegen)
were the strongest correlates of risky sexual behavior. Research also sug-
gests that substance use has similar personality correlates. For example,
Trull and Sher (1994) found that individuals who met the diagnostic crite-
ria for any substance use disorder scored significantly higher on the
dimensions of Neuroticism and Openness to Experience, and lower on
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Similarly, Krueger
et al. (1996) found significant relations between Tellegens dimensions of
low Constraint and high Negative Emotionality and substance dependence
disorders. The similarities in personality signatures across different kinds
of behavior problems may help to explain the generality of deviance
(Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Osgood et al., 1988).
select or create social environments that are in line with their existing per-
sonalities. Although Caspi and Bem (1990) discussed the contribution of
these transactions to personality stability, they would seem equally appli-
cable to our understanding of how personality influences behavior. In
terms of reactive transactions, individuals low in Agreeableness may be
expected, similar to aggressive individuals, to make hostile attributions in
ambiguous situations, generate more aggressive responses, and be more
likely to believe that aggressive responses will work (Coie and Dodge,
1998); these responses will increase the likelihood of violence in any given
situation. In terms of evocative transactions, children who are difficult to
manage (i.e., who are low in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) evoke
typical reactions from parents and peers that include harsh and erratic
parental discipline (Lytton, 1990), reduction of parental efforts at sociali-
zation (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1983), increases in permissiveness for later
aggression (Olweus, 1980), and peer rejection (Coie and Dodge, 1998); all
of these predict later antisocial behavior. In terms of proactive transac-
tions, individuals who are low in Conscientiousness will likely have poorer
educational and occupational histories than will those who are high in
Conscientiousness; these kinds of decisions will limit the prosocial oppor-
tunities for advancement of these individuals. Future research can and
should explore some of these possibilities.]
At this point, it is important to mention an important concept that is
often confused with person-environment transaction, that of person x
environment interactions, in which the effect of a psychological trait on
behavior depends on the context in which it occurs. Although there are
surprisingly few well-documented cases of person x environment interac-
tions in personality development, an important exception appears to be
the area of antisocial behavior, where several studies have found that the
effects of person characteristics on juvenile delinquency are potentiated in
certain ecological conditions such as schools (e.g., Caspi et al., 1993) or
neighborhoods (Lynam et al., 2000). For example, Lynam et al. (2000)
recently reported that the effects of impulsivity on offending were stronger
in poorer neighborhoods than in better-off neighborhoods; these results
were taken as indicating the increased importance of internal controls in
contexts in which external controls are lacking. Similar findings are
emerging from behavioral-genetic studies of aggression and crime; several
studies have shown that a genetic liability to crime is potentiated in crimi-
nogenic home environments (e.g., Cadoret et al., 1995). These studies are
important as they provide more specific identification of at-risk youth
(e.g., impulsive youth in poor neighborhoods), suggest potential environ-
mental interventions (e.g., increase external controls), and suggest poten-
tial mechanisms through which personality may exert its effects. Future
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 783
We believe, and the present results suggest, that the construct of person-
ality deserves broader application in the field of criminology. We also
believe that the construct of personality is complementary, not antitheti-
cal, to many theories of crime. For example, personality traits that relate
to interpersonal relatedness (i.e., Agreeableness) or to unconvcntionality
(i.e., Constraint) are relevant to control theories that posit that delin-
quency is the result of a lack of connectedness to others and a lack of
commitment to convention. Moreover, the construct of personality may
help to resolve some issues in the field. For example, personality may help
explain the relative stability of antisocial behavior (i.e., Sampson and
Laub, 1990). Longitudinal studies of the stability of personality also reveal
a great deal of continuity (e.g., Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000). For exam-
ple, McCrae and Costa (1990) examined 25 studies in which a self-report
measure of personality was given twice, at times varying from 3 to 30
years. They found that the median retest correlation for these studies was
.6S. McGue et al. (1993) found that the three factors of Tellegens Mul-
tidimensional Personality Questionnaire had a mean stability coefficient of
.59 over a 10-year period. Thus, antisocial behavior may be stable partly
because personality, a contributor to antisocial behavior, is relatively sta-
ble. Interestingly, there are changes in the absolute levels of certain traits
across time; McGue et al. (1993) found developmental changes in Con-
straint (increase) and Negative Emotionality (decrease) that correspond
roughly to developmental changes in offending. Additionally, to the
extent that some proportion of the variation in crime is heritable (Carey
and Goldman, 1997), personality may help to explain it, because upward
of 40% of the variation in the major dimensions of personality is heritable
(Tellegen et al., 1988). As noted by Carey and Goldman (1997). it defies
credulity to imagine that millions of years of primate and the hominid
evolution produced a sequence of DNA whose raison detre is to forge
checks or cheat on income taxes (p. 249). Rather than a specific tendency
to crime per se, what may be inherited is a broad disposition to think, feel,
and act in certain characteristic ways (i.e.. personality).
Finally,[personality, particularly an understanding of which dimensions
of personality are most strongly related to antisocial behavior, may con-
tribute to the preventionhntervention of antisocial behavior. First, the sta-
bility of personality and its early manifestation may help to identify
children at risk for later antisocial behavior. Second, personality informa-
tion may suggest not only who to target, but also how to target these inter-
ventions. For example, researchers have designed public service
announcements explicitly to appeal to individuals who are high in sensa-
tion seeking and therefore at risk for substance use (Palmgreen et al.,
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 785
1994). Third, knowing which personality traits are most strongly related to
antisocial behavior suggests what to target. If Constraint, a dimension
concerned with self-control, is strongly related to crime, it may be impor-
tant to develop interventions that teach at-risk children specific techniques
for increasing their self-control. On the other hand, if low Agreeableness
is involved, approaches for modifying interpersonal strategies may be
employed.
Finally, understanding that these personality dimensions are important
correlates of ASB, that personality is relatively stable, and that personality
transacts with the environment allows training of parents and teachers to
avoid the common evocative transactions that these types of individuals
provoke. That is, it may be important to teach parents and teachers of
these types of children and adolescents the importance of avoiding the use
of discipline that stems from anger or frustration. Similarly, intervention
may include teaching these primary adult figures that the common reac-
tion to these types of personalities is to withdraw but to emphasize the
importance of remaining active and engaged.]
LIMITATIONS
REFERENCES
Studies preceded by an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis.
786 MILLER AND LYNAM
*Brooner. Robert, Jeffrey Herbst, Chester W. Schmidt. George E. Bigelow, and Paul T.
Costa
1993 Antisocial personality disorder among drug abusers. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease 181:313-319.
*Byravan, Anupama
1996 Structure of personality disorders from a Five Factor model perspective, and
the relative superiority of the MMPI-2 PSY-5, NEO-PI-R, and the 16 PF
Fifth Edition scales for predicting personality disorders. Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Illinois University.
Cadoret, Remi, William Yates, Edward Troughton, George Woodworth. and Mark
Stewart
1995 Genetic-environmental interaction in the genesis of aggressivity and con-
duct disorders. Archives of General psychiatry 52:914-924.
Carey, Gregory and David Goldman
1997 The genetics of antisocial behavior. In David Stoff, James Breiling, and Jack
D. Maser (eds.), Handbook of Antisocial Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Caspi, Avshalom and Daryl Bem
1990 Personality continuity and change across the life course. In Lawrence
Pervin (ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York:
Guilford Press.
Caspi. Avshalom, Donald R. Lynam, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil Silva
1993 Unraveling girls delinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual con-
tributions to adolescent misbehavior. Developmental Psychology 29:19-30.
*Caspi, Avshalom, Terrie E. Moffitt, Phil A. Silva, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber. Robert
F. Krueger, and Pamela S. Schmutte
1994 Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime rela-
tionship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology
32:163-195.
Church, A. Timothy
1994 Relating the Tellegen and five factor models of personality structure. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:898-909.
Cloninger, C. Robert
1987 A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality
variants. Archives of General Psychiatry 44:573-588.
Cloninger. C. Robert, Dragan M. Svrakic, and Thomas R. Przybeck
1993 A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of Gen-
eral Psychiatry 50:975-990.
Coie. John D. and Kenneth A. Dodge
1998 Aggression and antisocial behaviour. In William Damon (Series Editor)
and Nancy Eisenberg (Volume Editor), Handbook of Child Psychology.
Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. New York: Wiley.
Conley, James J.
1985 Longitudinal consistency of adult personality: Self-reported psychological
characteristics across 45 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
47~1325-1333.
*Coolidge, Frederick, Lee Becker. David DiRito, Robert Durham, Melanie Kinlaw,
and Peter Philbrick
788 MILLER AND LYNAM
1994 On the relationship of the Five Factor personality model to personality dis-
orders: Four reservations. Psychological Reports 75:ll-21.
*Corbitt, Elizabeth M.
1993 Exploring sex differences in personality disorders using the five factor
model of personality. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Ken-
tucky, Lexington.
Costa, Paul T. and Robert R. McCrae
1988 Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and
spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 542453463.
*1990 Personality disorders and the five-factor modcl of personality. Journal of
Personality Disorders 4:362-371.
1992 Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment
Resources. Inc.
1994 Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In Todd
Heatherton and Joel L. Weinberger (eds.), Can personality change? (pp.
2140). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
199Sa Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised
NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 64:2 1-SO.
199% Primary traits of Eysenck's P-E-N model: Three- and five-factor solutions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:308-317.
Dahlstrom, W. Grant, George Welsh, and Leona Dahlstrom
1972 An MMPI Handbook. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
*Deary, Ian J.. Alistair Peter, Elizabeth Austin, and Gavin Gibson
1998 Personality traits and personality disorders. British Journal of Psychology
891647-661.
De Fruyt. Filip, L. Van De Wiele, and C. Van Heeringen
2000 Cloninger's psychobiological model of temperament and character and the
five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences
29441-452.
Deitsch. Sarah
1996 Structure of personality: An evaluation of alternative models. Ph.D. disser-
tation. University of Kentucky. Lexington.
*De la Rie, Simone, Inge J. Duijsens, and C. Robert Cloninger
1998 Temperament. character, and personality disorders. Journal of Personality
Disorders 12:362-372.
DeNeve, Kristina M. and Harris Cooper
1998 The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjec-
tive well-being. Psychological Bulletin 124:197-229.
Depue, Richard A.
1996 A neurobiological framework for the structure of personality and emotion:
Implications for personality disorders. In J. F. Clarkin and M. F.
Lenzenweger (eds.). Major Theories of Personality Disorder. New York:
Guilford Press.
De Raad. Boele. Marco Perugini. Martina Hrebickova. and Piotr Szarota
1998 Lingua franca of personality: Taxonomies and structures based on the
psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29:212-232.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 789
Digman, John
1990 Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review
of Psychology 41:417-440.
* D y e , Jamie A.
1996 Structure and correlates of personality disorders. M.S. thesis, University of
Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Eaves, Lindon J., Hans J. Eysenck, and N. G. Martin
1989 Genes, Culture, and Personality: An Empirical Approach. London, U.K.:
Academic Press.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne Ageton
1985 Explaining Delinquency and Drug-Use. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Eysenck, Hans J.
1967 The Biological Bases of Personality. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas.
1977 Crime and Personality. London, U.K.: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1990 Biological dimensions of personality. In Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver P.
John (eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 2d ed. New
York: Guilford Press.
*Eysenck, Sybil B. G. and Hans J. Eysenck
1970 Crime and personality: An empirical study of the three-factor theory. Brit-
ish Journal of Criminology 10225-239.
1977 Personality differences between prisoners and controls. Personality and
Individual Differences 40:1023-1028.
1978 Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system
of personality description. Psychological Reports 43:1247-1255.
Farrington, David P.
1992 Criminal career research in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Crimi-
nology 32521-536.
Feist, Gregory J.
1998 A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Review 2:290-309.
*Fonseca, Antonio C. and William Yule
1995 Personality and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: An enquiry
into Eysencks and Grays theories. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
23:767-781.
*Furnham, Adrian
1984 Personality, social skills, anomie, and delinquency: A self-report study of a
group of normal non-delinquent adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 25:409-420.
*Furnham, Adrian and Julia Thompson
1991 Personality and self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences 12585-593.
*Gabrys, John B.
1983 Contrasts in social behavior and personality of children. Psychological
Reports 52:171-178.
790 MILLER AND LYNAM
John, Oliver P.
1990 The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In Lawrence Pervin (ed.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press.
John, Oliver P. and Sanjay Srivastava
1999 The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical per-
spectives. In Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver P. John (eds.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research. 2d ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Krueger, Robert F., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Phil A. Silva, and Rob 0.
McGee
1996 Personality traits are differentially linked to mental disorders: A multitrait-
multidiagnosis study of an adolescent birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 105:299-312.
*Krueger, Robert, Pamela Schmutte, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Kathleen
Campbell, and Phil A. Silva
1994 Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence
from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103:328-338.
*Lane, David A.
1987 Personality and antisocial behavior: A long-term study. Personality and
Individual Differences 8799-806.
Lilienfeld, Scott O., James Wood, and Howard Garb
2000 The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest 1:27-59.
Lykken, David T.
1995 The Antisocial Personalities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Lynam, Donald R. and Joshua D. Miller
2001 The five factor model and antisocial behavior: An empirical examination.
In press.
Lynam, Donald R., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Per-Olof Wikstrom, Rolf
Loeber, and Scott P. Novak
2000 The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offend-
ing: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology 109563-574.
Lytton, Hugh
1990 Child and parent effects in boys conduct disorder. Developmental Psychol-
ogy 26:683-697.
*Ma, Hing K., Daniel T. K. Shek, Ping C. Cheung, and Royce Y. Lee
1996 The relation of prosocial and antisocial behavior to personality and peer
relationships of Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology 157:255-266.
Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Carol N. Jacklin
1983 The person characteristics of children and the family as environment. In
David Magnusson and Vernon L. Allen (eds.), Human Development: An
Interactional Perspective. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa
1990 Personality in Adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.
MILLER AND LYNAM
Appendix.
Study N Model Domain Outcomes
Addad and Leslau (1990) 285 Eysenck E.N Criminals versus controls
Axelrod et al. (1997) 89 Five-Factor N.E.0,A.C MMPI scales and PDQ-
Revised (Symptom count)
Ball et al. (1997) 363 Five-Factor N.E.0,A.C DSM-IV APD (Symptom
count)
(355) Cloninger NS,HA,RD. DSM-IV APD (Symptom
P,SD,C,ST count)
Bartol and Holanchock 585 Eysenck P,E,N Criminals versus controls
(1979)
Bayon et al. (1996) 103 Cloninger NS.HA,RD, MCMI-I1 APD (Self-
P,SD.C,ST report)
Berman and Paisey (1984) 60 Eysenck P,E.N Violent versus nonviolent
criminals
Blais (1997) 100 Five-Factor N,E,O,A,C DSM-IV APD (Clinicians
ratings)
Bogaert (1993)
Study 1 211 Eysenck P,E,N Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 2 73 Eysenck P.E,N Delinquency (Self-report)
Brooner et al. (1993) 155 Five-Factor N.E.0.A.C DSM-111-R APD
diagnoses versus control
Byravan (1996) 258 Five-Factor N.E,O.A,C PACL-Aggressive PD
(Symptom count)
Caspi et al. (1994) 37X Tellegen PE, NE. C Delinquency (Self.
teacher, parent report)
Coolidge et al. (1994) 180 Five-Factor N.E.0.A.C DSM-111-R APD
(Symptom count)
Corbitt (1993) 50 Five-Factor N.E.0.A.C DSM-111-R APD
(Symptom count)
Costa and McCrae (1990) 297 Fivc-Factor N.E.0.A.C MMPI-2 APD (Self.
spouse. peer ratings)
Deary et al. (1998) 400 Eysenck P,E,N DSM-111-R APD
De la Rie et al. (1998) 148 Cloninger NS.HA,RD. DSM-111-R APD
P,SD.C,ST (Symptom count)
Dyce (1996) 659 Five-Factor N,E,O.A,C MCMI-APD (Self-report)
Eysenck and Eysenck 1745 Eysenck P,E.N Prisoners versus controls
(1970)
Eysenck and Eysenck 4512 Eysenck P,E.N Prisoners versus controls
(1977)
Fonseca and Yule (1995)
Study 1 64 Eysenck P,E.N Delinquents versus
controls
Study 2 50 Eysenck P,E,N Conduct disordered versus
controls
Furnham ( 1984) 210 Eysenck P,E.N Delinquency (Self-report)
Furnham and Thompson 1OU Eysenck P.E.N Delinquency (Self-report)
(1991)
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 797
Ahhrcviation guide:
Cloninger's model Eysenck's model Five-Factor Model Tellegen's model
NS - Novelty Seeking P - Psychoticism N ~ Neuroticism PE - Positive Emotionality
HA - Harm Avoidance E - Extraversion E - Extraversion NE - Negative Emotionalily
R D Reward Dependence
~ N Neuroticism
~ 0 - Opennebs C - Constraint
P - Persistcnce A - Agreeahleness
SD Self-Directedness
~ C - Conscientiousness
C - Cooperativeness
ST - Self-Transcendence