Personality- evaluation- individual differences- criminal behaviour

Question 1

2 strengths

Answer 1

1- Dunlop et al 2012
2- reductionist

Question 2

2 weaknesses

Answer 2

• dunlop- 2012- criticsm
• reductionist

Question 3

Dulop 2012 et al

Answer 3

• used Eysenck’s personality questionnaire to measure the three traits in students aged 15- 75 years old.
• the results displayed that both extraversion and neuroticism were strong signs of delinquency

Question 4

Reductionist- strength

Answer 4

• compared to other theories used to explain criminal behaviour
• it has an interactionist approach, considering several factors which contribute to this personality type, such as both social, environmental, and genetic factors
• unlike other theories, it considers the effects of both nature and nurture
• it argues that biological pre- dispositions towards certain personality traits combined with conditioning and socialisation during childhood in order to create our personality
• more valid and complete compared to a biological or environmental theory alone

Question 5

dunlop et al 2012/ EPQ - criticsm

Answer 5

• lack of internal validity- EPQ used self- report methods of gathering data
• may be influenced by social desirability bias- confounding variable
• no way of controlling the honesty of the responses

Question 6

reductionist- weakness

Answer 6

• oversimplifies human personality and the three dimensions
• extraversion, neuroticism and psychotics cannot be the only dimension used to explain criminal behaviour
• the notion of criminality is flawed since people don’t simply have one personality
• whilst an individual may be neurotic at work, they could be calm and relaxed in the home
• therefore, it may not be consistent, although this theory assumes it is