THE ROLE OF PERSONALITY, CRIMINAL FRIENDS AND RECIDIVISM

Background: Previous research suggests that those who enter prison with a low level of criminal attitudes, tend to acquire more deviant attitudes during their sentence due to persistent contact with criminal others, and moreover, presence of criminal personality may be sufficient to develop criminal attitudes. Aim: To determine which of the independent variables: age, education level, marital status, number of children, location, recidivism, association with criminal friends, and personality traits could be used to explain why ex-prisoners hold criminal attitudes. Method: The Measure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates together with Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and Recidivism Scale were distributed to the opportunistic sample of sixty four ex-prisoners (N = 64). Results: Multiple regression analysis reported that personality, association with criminal friends, and recidivism explained 71% of the variance in criminal attitudes, indicating psychoticism as the best predictor of criminal attitudes. Conclusion: This study constitutes the first piece of empirical evidence demonstrating a predictive relationship between antisocial personality traits and criminal attitudes. These results lead to a better understanding of the underlying psycho-sociological mechanisms of criminal attitudes and indicate that future research regarding the nature of criminal attitudes should consider the role of personality, associations with criminal friends, and recidivistic behaviour. 1 Daniel Boduszek & Philip E. Hyland School of Psychology, University of Ulster, Londonderry and DBS School of Arts, Dublin Business School, Dublin, Ireland and Christopher G. McLaughlin, School of Psychology, University of Ulster, Londonderry, Ireland Internet Journal of Criminology © 2011 ISSN 2045-6743 (Online) www.internetjournalofcriminology. com 2 Introduction Social and criminal psychology research, when examining what influences criminal behaviour, consistently indicates that attitudes (thinking style) are important. The significant link between criminal attitudes and criminal behaviour has been well established in previous studies, (Nesdale, Maass, Kiesner, Durkin, Griffiths, and James, 2009; Mills, Kroner, and Forth, 2002; Stevenson, Hall, and Innes, 2003; Simourd, 1999; Andrews and Kandel, 1979; Bagozzi and Burnkrant, 1979), indicating that individuals who are orientated towards criminal behaviour and have internalized criminal concept of behaviour are at a greater risk of engaging in that particular behaviour. Criminal thinking has been defined as thought content and process conductive to the initiation and maintenance of habitual law-breaking behaviour (Walters, 2006). One of the first theoretical concepts that looked at criminal thinking was Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory which views criminal attitudes that result from associations with delinquents as the root cause of delinquent behavior (Sutherland, Cressey and Luckenbill, 1992). Akers (1985) in his Differential Reinforcement Theory suggested that people are first initiated into delinquent conduct by differential associations with antisocial companions. Then, through differential reinforcement, they gain knowledge of how to reap rewards and avoid punishment as the actual or anticipated consequences of particular conduct. This theory tends to fit well into criminology because it provides an explanation of the decision-making process involved in development of the cognitive (criminal attitudes), behavioural and motivational techniques essential to commit a criminal act (Akers, Krohn, Lanze-Kaduce and Radosevich, 1979). Holsinger (1999) suggested that people who have been socialized in criminal settings and have acquired antisocial attitudes toward criminal behaviour are more likely to commit a crime in the future. Further findings reported by Losel (2003) suggested that through interactions with group influences, delinquent adolescents develop attitudes, values and selfrelated cognitions which encourage criminal behaviour. A meta-analysis conducted by Gendreau, Little, and Goggin (1996) examined a broad range of predictors related to adult recidivism (repeated or habitual criminal behaviour; a measurement of the rate at which offenders commit other crimes, either by arrest or conviction baselines, after being released from incarceration) of which the four best predictors were criminal friends, criminal attitudes, antisocial personality, and adult criminal history. These findings suggest that antisocial attitudes, criminal associates, recidivism, and antisocial personality are closely tied both theoretically and empirically. Andrews and Kandel (1979) and Mills et al (2002) reported that normative influence of criminal friends interacts with criminal attitudes, and furthermore, when these variables are strongly associated, the relationship to criminality is particularly strong. Additionally, Rhodes (1979) in his research found that those offenders who enter prison with a low level of criminal attitudes, tend to acquire more deviant attitudes while serving their sentence given persistent contact with criminal others. Yochelson and Samenow’s (1976) criminal personality approach was another precursor of views on criminal thinking style. They identified 52 thinking errors that they believed characterized the thinking of the criminal personality. As there was no control group of non-offenders in the Yochelson and Samenow study and the 255 offenders they interviewed were not randomly sampled from a larger criminal population, questions have been raised about the validity and generalizability of their results (see Conklin, 2003). Nonetheless, Yochelson and Samenow introduced idea that personality could possibly play a role in criminal thinking style. Development of the criminal personality has been largely investigated over the last decade, particularly the relationship between personality traits and delinquency. Eysenck Internet Journal of Criminology © 2011 ISSN 2045-6743 (Online) www.internetjournalofcriminology. com 3 (1977) who constructed theory on a link between personality and crime (see also Eysenck and Gudjonsson, 1989) suggested that there are three fundamental dimensions of personality: Psychoticism (P), Extraversion (E), and Neuroticism (E). Eysenck hypothesized that criminal offenders tend to score significantly higher on all three factors of personality. Recent research strongly supports Eysenck’s position that people likely to commit a crime will score high on the P scale (Cale, 2006; Center, Jackson and Kemp, 2005; Heaven, Newbury, and Wilson, 2004; Kemp and Center, 2003; Levine and Jackson, 2004; Van Dam, Janssen, and De Bruyn, 2005; Walker and Gudjonsson, 2006). Heaven, et al. (2004) reported that the P-scale was effective in identifying those individuals likely to commit delinquent offenses of all kinds, but it appears to be effective in identifying only serious offending in young adults. Neuroticism has generally shown a significant relationship with offending, although not as strong as the P scale (Cale, 2006). The N scale does well in predicting serious crimes (Kemp and Center; 2003) and is somewhat successful in predicting recidivism (Van Dam et al., 2005). It might be expected that the N scale does better at predicting recidivism since Eysenck hypothesized that high N scorers tend to be driven to continue their habitual behaviours and be unusually impulsive. The power of the E scale is more in question, as several studies have found only a weak association with offending (Cale, 2006; Center et al, 2005; Kemp and Center, 2003). The ability of attitudes to change distinguishes them from characteristics such as traits and personality (Mills, Kroner, and Hemmati, 2004), and Mills (2000) also suggested that antisocial personality, criminal attitudes, and antisocial friends, although related, are not identical constructs. Criminal friends are entirely external to the individual and may serve various purposes such as reinforcing existing attitudes, providing a conforming environment for the expression of antisocial behaviour or providing modelling for antisocial behaviour. Mills and colleagues (2004) hypothetically stated that the presence of antisocial personality may be sufficient to indicate the presence of criminal attitudes, but the absence of antisocial personality would not necessarily mean the absence of criminal attitudes. However, there is little research to suggest that personality traits are reflected in criminal attitudes and beliefs. More recently in a Dutch prison study conducted by Bulten, Nijman, and van der Staak (2009) criminal lifestyles were supported by criminal belief systems which incorporated criminal thinking styles, and were also supported by specific personality traits such as “Impulsivity”. In the complex interactions among thinking styles (attitudes), personality traits, and influence of antisocial friends, offenders develop and maintain their criminal lifestyle. Therefore, if criminal attitudes, personality traits, and antisocial associates influence criminal behaviour, the question arises, what are the associations among these variables and which variables have the most significance in predicting the presence of criminal attitudes? Therefore, the main objective of the study was to determine which of the independent variables: age, education level, marital status, number of children, location, recidivism, association with criminal friends, and personality traits can be used in the prediction of criminal attitudes among ex-prisoners, and which of these variables have a significant influence on criminal thinking styles.