Eysenck’s Theory of the Criminal Personality | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision

For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025

AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 65 to 80 minutes

Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality A-Level Psychology revision examines whether people who offend possess a distinctive combination of biologically based personality traits. Eysenck proposed that offending is more likely among people who score highly on extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism, particularly because these traits may interfere with effective socialisation.

You will learn how each personality dimension may increase vulnerability to offending, how antisocial behaviour may develop through poor conditioning and why the theory should be treated as a probabilistic explanation rather than a method of identifying a guaranteed “criminal type”.

The AQA specification names Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality as a required psychological explanation of offending behaviour.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

• Define personality and the criminal personality.

• Explain extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism.

• Explain the proposed biological basis of the personality dimensions.

• Explain how conditioning and socialisation connect personality with offending.

• Apply Eysenck’s theory to unfamiliar examples of offending behaviour.

• Evaluate the theory using evidence, methodological issues and psychological debates.

• Distinguish Eysenck’s explanation from genetic, neural and cognitive explanations.

Revision Notes 📚

Eysenck’s Theory of the Criminal Personality A-Level Psychology Revision Focus

Personality refers to relatively enduring patterns of thought, emotion and behaviour that distinguish one person from another.

Eysenck proposed that personality could be described using broad dimensions. People fall somewhere along each dimension rather than belonging to completely separate personality categories.

The three dimensions relevant to the criminal personality are:

• Extraversion

• Neuroticism

• Psychoticism

According to the theory, people who offend are more likely to score highly on all three dimensions.

AQA’s June 2024 mark scheme identifies the criminal personality as involving inherited traits of high extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism.

A Biosocial Explanation

Eysenck’s theory is best described as biosocial.

It combines:

• A biological account of personality.

• A learning account of socialisation.

The biological part proposes that personality dimensions have an inherited physiological basis.

The social part proposes that children learn acceptable behaviour through conditioning.

The explanation can therefore be summarised as:

Biologically based personality traits → differences in conditioning and socialisation → increased vulnerability to offending

This is important because Eysenck did not simply argue that genes directly cause crime.

Dimensions Rather Than Categories

Eysenck viewed personality traits as dimensions.

For example, a person may be:

• Highly extraverted.

• Moderately extraverted.

• Near the middle.

• Moderately introverted.

• Highly introverted.

The same applies to neuroticism and psychoticism.

The theory predicts that offending risk increases when a person scores towards the high end of the relevant dimensions.

It does not mean that everyone can be divided neatly into:

• Criminal personality.

• Non-criminal personality.

Eysenck’s Original Theory

Eysenck’s earlier theory focused mainly on:

• Extraversion.

• Neuroticism.

Psychoticism was added later.

The June 2024 examiner report noted that some students described only the two dimensions from Eysenck’s original work, while most identified all three elements of the later criminal personality.

For current examination preparation, the safest approach is to explain:

• Extraversion.

• Neuroticism.

• Psychoticism.

• How each may increase offending vulnerability.

Extraversion

What Is Extraversion?

Extraversion is a personality dimension ranging from extraversion to introversion.

A person scoring highly on extraversion may be described as:

• Sociable.

• Active.

• Impulsive.

• Excitement seeking.

• Sensation seeking.

• Willing to take risks.

• Easily bored.

• Drawn to stimulating experiences.

A person scoring towards the introverted end may be:

• Quieter.

• More reserved.

• Less sensation seeking.

• More cautious.

• More comfortable with lower levels of stimulation.

The Biological Basis of Extraversion

Eysenck proposed that extraversion has a biological basis involving cortical arousal.

Extraverts are thought to have a relatively low resting level of cortical arousal.

They may therefore seek additional external stimulation to reach a comfortable level of arousal.

Possible sources of stimulation include:

• Social activity.

• Risk taking.

• Novel experiences.

• Speed.

• Competition.

• Exciting or dangerous behaviour.

Extraversion and Offending

High extraversion may increase offending vulnerability because the person:

• Seeks excitement.

• Becomes bored easily.

• Acts impulsively.

• Takes risks.

• Focuses on immediate rewards.

• Underestimates possible punishment.

• Is attracted to the thrill of offending.

The June 2024 mark scheme explicitly identifies impulsivity and sensation seeking as reasons why a highly extraverted person may be drawn to the excitement of criminal behaviour.

Applying Extraversion

Consider this scenario:

Cal enjoys taking risks and becomes bored by ordinary activities. He steals vehicles at night because he enjoys the speed, excitement and attention from his friends.

Eysenck’s theory might explain Cal’s offending because:

• Risk taking is associated with high extraversion.

• He seeks stimulation and excitement.

• The theft provides immediate arousal.

• Peer attention adds further stimulation.

• His impulsivity may reduce consideration of legal consequences.

A weak application would state only:

Cal is an extravert.

A stronger answer links the personality trait to the specific motivation and behaviour.

Extraversion and Conditioning

Extraverts are also predicted to condition less effectively than introverts.

If antisocial behaviour is followed by punishment, a child should gradually associate that behaviour with unpleasant feelings such as:

• Anxiety.

• Fear.

• Guilt.

• Anticipation of punishment.

If this association is weak, the person may not develop a strong conditioned restraint against antisocial behaviour.

This contributes to poor socialisation.

Neuroticism

What Is Neuroticism?

Neuroticism is a personality dimension ranging from emotional stability to emotional instability.

A person scoring highly on neuroticism may be:

• Anxious.

• Emotionally unstable.

• Moody.

• Easily upset.

• Highly reactive.

• Quick to experience anger or fear.

• Slow to return to a calm emotional state.

A person scoring low on neuroticism is more likely to be:

• Emotionally stable.

• Calm.

• Less reactive.

• Better able to recover after stress.

The Biological Basis of Neuroticism

Eysenck linked neuroticism with the reactivity of the autonomic nervous system.

A highly neurotic person may respond strongly to:

• Stress.

• Threat.

• Frustration.

• Criticism.

• Conflict.

• Punishment.

The emotional response may also continue after the triggering event has ended.

Neuroticism and Offending

High neuroticism may increase offending vulnerability because the person:

• Reacts intensely to provocation.

• Becomes emotionally unstable under stress.

• Responds unpredictably.

• Finds it difficult to regulate anger or anxiety.

• May act before calming down.

• May struggle to learn consistently from punishment.

The June 2024 mark scheme states that highly neurotic people are unstable and unpredictable and may not condition easily or learn effectively from mistakes.

Applying Neuroticism

Consider this scenario:

Rowan becomes extremely angry when criticised. During arguments, he reacts immediately and later regrets his actions. He has several convictions for assault following minor disagreements.

The theory might explain Rowan’s offending because:

• He appears emotionally reactive.

• His response is unstable and difficult to control.

• Minor provocation produces an intense reaction.

• The assault is reactive rather than carefully planned.

• Previous punishment has not prevented similar behaviour.

Neuroticism and Conditioning

High anxiety might appear as though it should improve conditioning because punishment produces a strong emotional response.

However, Eysenck argued that highly neurotic people may condition inconsistently because their emotional instability interferes with learning.

They may:

• Respond differently on different occasions.

• Become overwhelmed by emotion.

• Focus on immediate distress rather than the lesson.

• Fail to form a stable association between antisocial behaviour and punishment.

The result may be ineffective socialisation.

Psychoticism

What Is Psychoticism?

Psychoticism is a personality dimension associated with characteristics such as:

• Aggression.

• Coldness.

• Egocentricity.

• Lack of empathy.

• Tough-mindedness.

• Hostility.

• Insensitivity.

• Disregard for social rules.

Psychoticism is not the same as psychosis.

A high psychoticism score does not mean that a person:

• Has hallucinations.

• Has delusions.

• Has a psychotic disorder.

The term refers to a personality dimension within Eysenck’s theory.

Psychoticism and Offending

High psychoticism may increase offending vulnerability because the person may be:

• Less concerned about other people’s suffering.

• More willing to behave aggressively.

• Less affected by guilt.

• Less sensitive to social approval.

• More hostile.

• More focused on personal needs.

AQA’s June 2024 mark scheme describes people high in psychoticism as cold, lacking empathy and prone to aggression.

Applying Psychoticism

Consider this scenario:

Amira repeatedly threatens vulnerable people to obtain money. She shows little concern when victims become frightened and says that their feelings do not matter.

Eysenck’s theory might explain Amira’s behaviour because:

• Lack of concern suggests low empathy.

• Her behaviour appears cold and insensitive.

• Threatening others is consistent with aggression.

• Personal gain is prioritised over the victim’s wellbeing.

• These characteristics are associated with high psychoticism.

Psychoticism and Socialisation

A child normally learns to avoid harming others partly because they:

• Experience guilt.

• Care about approval.

• Develop empathy.

• Recognise distress.

• Value social relationships.

A person high in psychoticism may be less responsive to these social influences.

Even where rules are understood, the emotional or interpersonal restraint against breaking them may be weaker.

The Criminal Personality Profile

Eysenck’s criminal personality is the combination:

High extraversion + high neuroticism + high psychoticism

Each trait makes a different contribution.

Personality dimension	Relevant characteristics	Possible link with offending
Extraversion	Impulsivity, risk taking, sensation seeking	Crime may provide excitement and immediate reward
Neuroticism	Emotional instability, anxiety, strong reactions	Provocation may produce unpredictable or impulsive behaviour
Psychoticism	Aggression, coldness, low empathy	Concern for victims and social rules may be weak

The June 2025 AQA question identified the criminal personality as high in neuroticism and extraversion, accompanied by impulsivity and instability.

For a fuller outline, psychoticism should also be included.

The Combined Effect of the Traits

The theory does not treat the dimensions as three unrelated facts.

Their combination is important.

A person who is:

• Extraverted may seek excitement.

• Neurotic may respond emotionally and unpredictably.

• Psychotic may show limited empathy and greater aggression.

The combined profile could produce someone who:

• Seeks immediate stimulation.

• Reacts strongly to provocation.

• Gives limited consideration to victims.

• Conditions poorly.

• Fails to acquire strong restraints against antisocial behaviour.

Applying the Combined Profile

Consider this scenario:

Jay enjoys dangerous activities and takes risks for excitement. He becomes extremely angry when challenged and has little sympathy for people he harms. Despite several punishments, he continues to offend.

The three dimensions can be applied separately:

• His risk taking and excitement seeking suggest high extraversion.

• His intense anger suggests high neuroticism.

• His lack of sympathy suggests high psychoticism.

• Repeated offending despite punishment suggests poor conditioning or ineffective socialisation.

A high-quality application labels each trait and links it directly to the scenario.

Socialisation

What Is Socialisation?

Socialisation is the process through which a child learns:

• Social rules.

• Moral standards.

• Acceptable behaviour.

• The likely consequences of actions.

• How to control antisocial impulses.

Parents, schools, peers and other social groups contribute to socialisation.

Eysenck proposed that conditioning plays an important role in developing a conscience.

Classical Conditioning and Conscience

The theory can be explained using classical conditioning.

Suppose a child behaves antisocially and is punished.

Initially:

• The antisocial act does not automatically cause anxiety.

• The punishment naturally produces anxiety or discomfort.

Through repeated pairing:

Antisocial act + punishment → anxiety

Eventually:

Antisocial act → conditioned anxiety

The person begins to experience anxiety when considering the antisocial behaviour, even before punishment occurs.

This conditioned anxiety helps form a conscience.

Conscience as a Conditioned Response

Within Eysenck’s theory, conscience is not simply an abstract moral belief.

It partly involves conditioned emotional responses such as:

• Guilt.

• Anxiety.

• Fear of disapproval.

• Anticipation of punishment.

A well-socialised person may avoid offending because thinking about the behaviour produces these unpleasant conditioned responses.

A poorly conditioned person may understand that the act is wrong but experience weaker emotional restraint.

Poor Conditioning and Offending

The proposed chain is:

1. A child performs antisocial behaviour.

2. Adults attempt to punish or discourage it.

3. The child should associate the behaviour with anxiety.

4. A highly extraverted and neurotic child conditions less effectively.

5. Strong conditioned anxiety fails to develop.

6. The child acquires a weaker conscience.

7. Antisocial behaviour is less effectively inhibited.

8. Offending becomes more likely when an opportunity appears.

This is the central link between personality and offending.

Punishment Does Not Automatically Prevent Offending

The theory helps explain why the same punishment may affect people differently.

One person may:

• Form a strong association.

• Experience guilt.

• Avoid repeating the behaviour.

Another may:

• Condition poorly.

• Focus on the immediate reward.

• Experience little anticipatory anxiety.

• Repeat the behaviour.

The effectiveness of punishment therefore depends partly on personality and learning.

Applying Conditioning

Niamh has repeatedly been punished for shoplifting. She describes stealing as exciting and says that possible punishment does not enter her mind while she is in the shop.

Eysenck’s theory might explain that:

• Excitement seeking suggests extraversion.

• The thrill of the offence provides immediate stimulation.

• Punishment has not become strongly associated with the stealing.

• Anticipatory anxiety is weak.

• A conditioned conscience has not effectively inhibited the behaviour.

Socialisation Is Still Environmental

Although Eysenck gave personality a biological basis, the process of socialisation occurs through experience.

The theory therefore includes:

• Nature: inherited personality tendencies.

• Nurture: conditioning and social learning within the environment.

This makes the theory interactionist to some extent.

A child with difficult-to-condition traits may still develop effective behavioural control in a consistent and supportive environment.

Measuring Personality

The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

Personality dimensions can be assessed through a questionnaire containing statements or questions about behaviour and preferences.

The respondent’s answers produce scores for dimensions such as:

• Extraversion.

• Neuroticism.

• Psychoticism.

The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire, often shortened to EPQ, allows researchers to:

• Compare offenders and non-offenders.

• Examine relationships between personality and offence type.

• Investigate whether personality scores predict later behaviour.

• Test the theory’s hypotheses.

A Dimensional Score

The EPQ produces a score rather than simply assigning a person to one personality type.

For example:

Dimension	Lower score	Higher score
Extraversion	Reserved and less stimulation seeking	Sociable, impulsive and sensation seeking
Neuroticism	Emotionally stable	Emotionally reactive and unstable
Psychoticism	Empathic and socially sensitive	Cold, aggressive and tough-minded

The theory predicts that offender groups should, on average, score higher on the relevant dimensions.

The Lie Scale

Personality questionnaires may include a lie scale designed to detect socially desirable or unusually idealised responses.

For example, a respondent who claims never to have:

• Lost their temper.

• Told a lie.

• Broken a rule.

• Had an unkind thought.

may be presenting themselves unrealistically positively.

A lie scale can identify possible response bias, but it cannot guarantee honesty.

Linking Personality to Different Offences

Impulsive Offending

Eysenck’s theory may be particularly useful for explaining:

• Assault following provocation.

• Vandalism.

• Impulsive theft.

• Risky offending.

• Antisocial behaviour motivated by excitement.

Extraversion and neuroticism provide plausible links with impulsive, reactive behaviour.

Aggressive Offending

Psychoticism may be relevant where the offence involves:

• Hostility.

• Limited empathy.

• Aggression.

• Disregard for victims.

• Cold or insensitive behaviour.

Neuroticism may be more relevant where aggression is emotionally reactive.

Repeated Offending

Poor conditioning may help explain why punishment does not prevent repeated offending.

The person may:

• Learn weakly from consequences.

• Focus on immediate reward.

• Experience little anticipatory anxiety.

• Continue to offend despite earlier punishment.

Planned Offending

The theory may be less successful when explaining carefully planned offences.

A planned offence might require:

• Patience.

• Long-term decision-making.

• Control.

• Careful preparation.

• Delayed reward.

These qualities do not fit neatly with an impulsive, unstable personality.

Psychoticism might still help explain limited empathy, but the full criminal personality may be less applicable.

White-Collar and Financial Offending

A carefully organised financial offence may be committed by someone who is:

• Patient.

• Socially skilled.

• Emotionally controlled.

• Capable of delayed gratification.

• Highly organised.

This challenges the assumption that offenders generally share one personality profile.

Applying the Theory to an Unfamiliar Person

Consider this example:

Sam repeatedly steals motorbikes and drives them at high speed. He says ordinary life is boring and enjoys the admiration he receives from friends. When challenged, he becomes extremely angry. He shows no concern for people whose property is damaged.

A complete application would state:

• Boredom and stimulation seeking suggest high extraversion.

• High-speed driving and theft indicate risk taking.

• Extreme anger suggests high neuroticism.

• Lack of concern for victims suggests high psychoticism.

• Social rewards may strengthen the offending.

• Repetition despite consequences could indicate ineffective conditioning.

• The theory increases the predicted risk but does not prove that Sam has a fixed criminal personality.

Distinguishing Eysenck from Other Explanations

Eysenck and Genetic Explanations

Inherited vulnerability to offending [Lesson 4: Genetic explanations of offending] focuses on genes and biological predispositions.

Eysenck’s theory focuses on personality dimensions that are proposed to have a biological basis.

Genetic explanation	Eysenck’s theory
Focuses on inherited genes	Focuses on inherited personality dimensions
May examine MAOA	Examines extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism
Explains biological vulnerability	Explains how vulnerability affects socialisation
Does not necessarily specify personality	Connects personality with conditioning
Mainly biological	Biosocial

Eysenck and Neural Explanations

Brain functioning and offending behaviour [Lesson 5: Neural explanations of offending] focuses on structures, activity and neurochemistry.

Eysenck focuses on:

• Broad personality dimensions.

• Their proposed biological basis.

• Their effect on conditioning.

A neural explanation might identify reduced prefrontal control.

Eysenck’s theory might describe the person as impulsive and high in extraversion.

The two explanations can overlap, but they operate at different levels.

Eysenck and Moral Reasoning

The next lesson examines levels of moral reasoning and offending behaviour [Lesson 7: Moral reasoning].

The distinction is:

• Eysenck explains why a person may acquire weak emotional restraints through poor conditioning.

• Moral reasoning explains how the person thinks about right, wrong, punishment and reward.

A person might know that an act breaks social rules but still have weak conditioned anxiety about committing it.

Eysenck and Differential Association

Learning offending values and techniques from other people [Lesson 9: Differential association theory] explains crime through social interaction.

Eysenck explains why some people may condition poorly.

Differential association explains:

• Which offence is learned.

• Which techniques are used.

• Which attitudes justify the behaviour.

• Why a group approves of offending.

The explanations may work together.

For example:

An impulsive, sensation-seeking person may be especially likely to adopt offending behaviour when their peer group teaches and rewards it.

Evaluating Eysenck’s Theory

Strength: The Theory Is Testable

Eysenck’s explanation produces clear predictions.

It predicts that offender groups should score higher than non-offender groups on:

• Extraversion.

• Neuroticism.

• Psychoticism.

These predictions can be tested using:

• Personality questionnaires.

• Longitudinal research.

• Comparisons between groups.

• Measures of conditioning.

This gives the theory scientific value because it is potentially falsifiable.

Research could contradict the theory by finding:

• No personality differences.

• Differences in only one dimension.

• Stronger environmental explanations.

• No connection between personality and conditioning.

Strength: Personality Can Be Measured Systematically

The EPQ provides a standardised way of measuring personality.

Advantages include:

• The same questions can be used with different groups.

• Scores can be compared quantitatively.

• Procedures can be replicated.

• Relationships with offending can be analysed.

• Large samples can be tested relatively efficiently.

This is more systematic than relying on informal descriptions of an offender’s personality.

Limitation: Self-Report Bias

Personality questionnaires rely on self-report.

Respondents may:

• Lie.

• Minimise antisocial traits.

• Give socially desirable answers.

• Misunderstand questions.

• Lack insight into their behaviour.

• Answer differently depending on mood.

• Present themselves as tougher than they are.

Offenders may have particular reasons to distort their responses, especially if they believe the results could affect:

• Sentencing.

• Parole.

• Treatment.

• Prison conditions.

A lie scale may help identify some bias but cannot remove it completely.

Limitation: Evidence Is Not Consistent Across All Traits

Research comparing offenders with non-offenders does not always find the complete high-extraversion, high-neuroticism and high-psychoticism profile.

Possible patterns include:

• Support for psychoticism but not the other dimensions.

• Differences between offence types.

• Different results across age groups.

• Similar personality scores among offenders and non-offenders.

This weakens the idea of one universal criminal personality.

The theory may identify some risk-related traits without showing that all offenders share the same profile.

Limitation: Offenders Are Highly Diverse

Offending behaviour includes:

• Impulsive violence.

• Carefully planned fraud.

• Burglary.

• Group offending.

• Cybercrime.

• Drug-related offences.

• Financial offending.

• Repeated antisocial behaviour.

It is unlikely that one personality profile explains all these forms.

For example:

• An impulsive assault may fit high extraversion and neuroticism.

• A carefully planned fraud may require emotional stability and self-control.

• A group offence may be better explained by peers and reinforcement.

The diversity of offending challenges the idea of a single criminal personality.

Limitation: Personality Is Not Unique to Offenders

Many non-offenders are:

• Extraverted.

• Sensation seeking.

• Emotionally reactive.

• Low in empathy.

They may express these characteristics through lawful activities such as:

• Sport.

• Adventure.

• Competitive employment.

• Emergency work.

• High-risk hobbies.

Possessing the traits does not automatically produce offending.

This reduces the theory’s ability to predict individual criminal behaviour.

Correlation Does Not Establish Causation

A relationship between personality scores and offending does not establish that personality caused the offence.

Several possibilities exist:

1. Personality traits increase offending vulnerability.

2. Offending experiences alter personality or questionnaire responses.

3. Imprisonment changes emotional stability or social behaviour.

4. A third factor influences both personality and offending.

Possible third variables include:

• Childhood adversity.

• Peer groups.

• Substance misuse.

• Education.

• Family environment.

• Poverty.

• Biological vulnerability.

The evidence therefore supports association more readily than causation.

Prisonisation

A personality questionnaire completed by prisoners may measure the effects of imprisonment as well as pre-existing personality.

Prison life may increase:

• Anxiety.

• Emotional instability.

• Hostility.

• Social withdrawal.

• Tough-mindedness.

If prisoners score highly on neuroticism or psychoticism, this could partly result from their current environment.

A study would need personality measurements taken before offending or imprisonment to establish temporal order more confidently.

Limitation: Cultural Differences

Eysenck proposed broad personality dimensions that were expected to apply widely.

However, the relationship between personality and offending may depend on culture.

Cultures differ in:

• Definitions of acceptable risk.

• Socialisation practices.

• Responses to impulsivity.

• Laws.

• Opportunities for offending.

• Punishment.

• Expectations about emotional expression.

The same personality trait may lead to different behaviour in different social environments.

This limits a universal account of criminal personality.

Limitation: Historical and Social Definitions of Crime

Offending is defined by laws that change across societies and historical periods.

A behaviour may be:

• Illegal in one society.

• Legal in another.

• Criminalised at one point in history.

• Decriminalised later.

Personality may influence behaviour, but it cannot by itself explain why that behaviour is legally classified as an offence.

The theory may therefore be better at explaining antisocial tendencies than crime as a legal category.

Limitation: Biological Determinism

The theory may be criticised as biologically deterministic because it gives personality an inherited physiological basis.

A strongly deterministic interpretation suggests that a person high in the three dimensions is destined to offend.

This is problematic because:

• Many people with these traits do not offend.

• Conditioning and socialisation matter.

• Personality scores do not perfectly predict behaviour.

• People can learn self-control.

• Situations affect how traits are expressed.

A more defensible interpretation is that the personality profile creates a vulnerability rather than certainty.

Limitation: Dispositional Determinism

The explanation is also dispositionally deterministic because it locates offending primarily within the person.

This may underestimate:

• Peer pressure.

• Social learning.

• Poverty.

• Opportunity.

• Family relationships.

• Cultural expectations.

• Immediate situations.

A person may behave differently across settings despite having relatively stable traits.

This connects with personal characteristics and environmental causation [Lesson 3: Free will and determinism].

Limitation: Reductionism

Eysenck’s theory may be criticised as reductionist because it reduces complex offending to:

• Three personality scores.

• Biological arousal.

• Conditioning ability.

This has advantages because it:

• Creates measurable variables.

• Produces testable predictions.

• Allows comparison between groups.

However, it may overlook:

• The meaning of the offence.

• Cognitive justifications.

• Social relationships.

• Learned criminal values.

• Situational opportunities.

• Differences between offence types.

This issue connects with the strengths and limits of reductionist explanations [Lesson 5: Holism and reductionism].

Strength: An Interaction Between Biology and Learning

The theory is more balanced than a completely biological explanation.

It proposes that:

• Personality has a biological basis.

• Antisocial restraint is learned through conditioning.

• Socialisation depends on interaction with the environment.

This means the environment still matters.

For example:

A highly extraverted child may be harder to condition, but consistent socialisation and strong prosocial reinforcement may reduce offending risk.

The theory therefore contains an interactionist element.

Limitation: The Conditioning Account May Be Too Simple

Socialisation is unlikely to depend only on pairing antisocial behaviour with punishment.

Children also learn through:

• Observing parents.

• Imitating peers.

• Receiving praise.

• Identifying with role models.

• Discussing moral rules.

• Developing empathy.

• Understanding consequences.

A child may avoid offending because they value other people, not merely because an antisocial act produces conditioned anxiety.

The conditioning account may therefore oversimplify the development of morality.

Comparison with Differential Association Theory

Differential association theory may explain aspects that Eysenck’s theory does not.

Eysenck explains:

• Why someone may be difficult to socialise.

• Why excitement and impulsivity may increase risk.

• Why guilt or empathy may be weaker.

Differential association explains:

• How criminal values are learned.

• Which techniques are acquired.

• Why a specific peer group approves of offending.

• How offending is reinforced.

An interactionist conclusion may be stronger than choosing one explanation exclusively.

Practical Value

The theory suggests that offending might be reduced through early socialisation and behavioural intervention.

Possible applications include:

• Consistent responses to antisocial behaviour.

• Reinforcement of prosocial conduct.

• Teaching emotional control.

• Providing safe stimulation for sensation seekers.

• Developing empathy.

• Helping impulsive individuals anticipate consequences.

The theory may therefore encourage intervention before offending becomes established.

Problems with Screening and Labelling

Using personality questionnaires to identify possible future offenders would be socially sensitive.

Possible risks include:

• Labelling children as criminal.

• Lower expectations.

• Discrimination.

• Increased surveillance.

• Self-fulfilling prophecy.

• False positives.

• Ignoring environmental causes.

A person may score highly on extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism without ever offending.

Personality scores should not be treated as proof of dangerousness.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

A label such as “criminal personality” could influence how others treat a person.

For example:

1. A young person receives a high-risk label.

2. Teachers or authorities expect antisocial behaviour.

3. The person receives less trust and fewer opportunities.

4. They become alienated.

5. Offending becomes more likely.

The label could contribute to the outcome it was intended to predict.

Implications for Responsibility

If offending is explained through inherited personality and poor conditioning, questions arise about responsibility.

However:

• A predisposition is not compulsion.

• Many high-scoring individuals do not offend.

• Learning and environment affect outcomes.

• Personality can be managed.

• People retain some capacity for choice.

The theory should not be used to remove responsibility automatically.

Overall Evaluation

Eysenck’s theory offers a clear, testable explanation linking personality with offending. High extraversion may produce impulsivity and sensation seeking, high neuroticism may create emotional instability, and high psychoticism may be associated with aggression and limited empathy. These biologically influenced traits may also make effective conditioning and socialisation more difficult.

The explanation is valuable because personality can be measured systematically and the theory combines biological and learning processes. It is particularly plausible for impulsive, risky or aggressive offending.

However, evidence does not consistently support one complete criminal personality, offender populations are highly diverse and personality scores do not establish causation. Self-report measures are vulnerable to bias, and situational or social factors may explain why the same traits lead to offending in one person but lawful behaviour in another.

The most balanced conclusion is that Eysenck’s dimensions may identify personality-related risk factors. They do not form a reliable test for criminality and should be combined with social, cognitive and environmental explanations.

Key Words 🔑

Key word	Student-friendly definition	How it may be used in an exam
Personality	Relatively enduring patterns of thought, emotion and behaviour	Introduce the basis of Eysenck’s explanation
Criminal personality	The proposed combination of traits associated with increased offending risk	Explain the overall theory
Personality dimension	A continuum along which individuals can receive different scores	Avoid treating personality as two fixed categories
Extraversion	A dimension associated with sociability, impulsivity and sensation seeking	Explain excitement-seeking offending
Introversion	The lower-stimulation, more reserved end of the extraversion dimension	Compare conditioning with extraversion
Neuroticism	A dimension associated with emotional instability and strong reactions	Explain reactive or unpredictable offending
Emotional stability	The low-neuroticism end of the dimension	Contrast with emotional reactivity
Psychoticism	A dimension associated with aggression, coldness and limited empathy	Explain disregard for victims
Sensation seeking	Seeking novel, exciting or intense experiences	Link extraversion with risky offending
Impulsivity	Acting quickly without fully considering consequences	Link personality with immediate offending
Cortical arousal	The brain’s general level of alertness and activation	Explain why extraverts seek stimulation
Autonomic nervous system	The system controlling involuntary physiological arousal	Explain the biological basis of neuroticism
Biosocial explanation	An explanation combining biological predisposition and social experience	Describe Eysenck’s overall approach
Socialisation	Learning the rules, standards and behaviours accepted by society	Explain the development of behavioural restraint
Conditioning	Learning through forming associations	Explain how conscience may develop
Conscience	Internalised restraint involving guilt or anxiety about antisocial behaviour	Explain why poor conditioning may increase offending
Conditioned anxiety	Learned anxiety associated with considering an antisocial act	Explain how offending is normally inhibited
Eysenck Personality Questionnaire	A self-report measure of Eysenck’s personality dimensions	Explain how the theory may be tested
Lie scale	Questionnaire items intended to identify socially desirable responding	Evaluate personality measurement
Self-report	Data provided by a person about their own characteristics	Evaluate reliability and validity
Dispositional explanation	An explanation locating the cause within personal characteristics	Classify Eysenck’s theory
Biological determinism	The view that inherited biological factors govern behaviour	Evaluate personal responsibility
Reductionism	Explaining complex behaviour through a small number of basic variables	Evaluate the three-trait model
Interactionism	The view that biological and environmental influences operate together	Reach a balanced conclusion
Social sensitivity	The possibility that findings have consequences for people or groups	Discuss labelling and screening

Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡

Name All Three Dimensions

Examiner hint: The clearest outline identifies extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism.

The June 2024 examiner report noted that most students identified all three dimensions, although some relied on Eysenck’s earlier two-dimension account.

For current revision, learn:

High extraversion + high neuroticism + high psychoticism

Explain Why the Traits Increase Offending

Examiner hint: Listing the dimensions is not the same as explaining the theory.

The June 2024 examiner report noted that many students did not make clear why high scores would increase offending risk.

Use one link for each trait:

• Extraversion → impulsivity and sensation seeking.

• Neuroticism → emotional instability and poor conditioning.

• Psychoticism → aggression and limited empathy.

Include the Biological Basis Carefully

The examiner report found that reference to the biological basis of personality was frequently creditworthy.

A concise explanation is:

Eysenck argued that personality traits have an inherited physiological basis, which affects arousal and conditioning.

Do not replace the personality theory with a general essay about genes or brain structures.

Link Personality with Socialisation

A complete answer should explain:

1. Personality affects conditioning.

2. Antisocial behaviour is normally paired with punishment.

3. Anxiety becomes conditioned to thoughts of antisocial behaviour.

4. This forms part of a conscience.

5. Poor conditioning produces weaker restraint.

6. Offending becomes more likely.

Distinguish Psychoticism from Psychosis

Psychoticism is a personality dimension involving traits such as:

• Coldness.

• Aggression.

• Limited empathy.

It is not a diagnosis of hallucinations or delusions.

Apply Each Trait Separately

For an application question, identify the detail from the stem before naming the trait.

For example:

• Enjoys danger → extraversion.

• Reacts emotionally to criticism → neuroticism.

• Shows no concern for victims → psychoticism.

• Repeats behaviour despite punishment → poor conditioning.

Use Cautious Language

Write:

• “May increase vulnerability.”

• “Is consistent with.”

• “Could indicate.”

• “Makes offending more likely.”

Avoid:

• “Proves the person is criminal.”

• “Anyone with these traits will offend.”

• “The questionnaire can identify criminals.”

Evaluate the Entire Explanation

A well-developed evaluation should address:

• Whether all three dimensions are supported.

• The use of self-report measures.

• Diversity among offenders.

• Cause and effect.

• Social and cultural factors.

• Determinism and reductionism.

• Interaction with learning and environment.

Explain Methodological Consequences

Do not state only:

The EPQ is self-report.

Develop the implication:

Offenders may present themselves dishonestly or respond in a socially desirable way. Their scores may therefore fail to represent their actual personality, weakening comparisons between offenders and non-offenders.

Do Not Confuse Eysenck with Other Explanations

Eysenck’s theory should remain distinct from:

• Genetic explanations.

• Neural explanations.

• Moral reasoning.

• Cognitive distortions.

• Differential association theory.

The theory can be compared with these approaches, but its central concepts must remain personality and conditioning.

Common Mistakes ⚠️

Mistake 1

Mistake: Describing only extraversion and neuroticism.

Why this is incomplete:

The later criminal personality includes psychoticism.

How to improve:

Use the mnemonic PEN:

• Psychoticism.

• Extraversion.

• Neuroticism.

Mistake 2

Mistake: Saying offenders are introverted.

Why this is inconsistent with Eysenck’s prediction:

The criminal personality is predicted to score highly on extraversion.

How to improve:

Link offending with stimulation seeking and impulsivity.

Mistake 3

Mistake: Saying high neuroticism means the person is mentally ill.

Why this is inaccurate:

Neuroticism is a dimension of emotional instability, not a diagnosis.

How to improve:

Refer to anxiety, moodiness and emotional reactivity.

Mistake 4

Mistake: Treating psychoticism as psychosis.

Why this is incorrect:

Psychoticism refers to traits such as aggression, coldness and limited empathy.

How to improve:

Do not refer to hallucinations or delusions.

Mistake 5

Mistake: Listing traits without linking them to crime.

Why this is incomplete:

The explanation must show why the personality increases vulnerability.

How to improve:

Use:

Trait → psychological characteristic → possible offending behaviour

Mistake 6

Mistake: Saying extraverts offend simply because they are sociable.

Why this is too vague:

The important links are impulsivity, risk taking and sensation seeking.

How to improve:

Explain how offending may provide stimulation or immediate reward.

Mistake 7

Mistake: Saying neurotic people always learn punishment more quickly.

Why this does not represent Eysenck’s criminal explanation:

Emotional instability is proposed to interfere with consistent conditioning.

How to improve:

Explain the combined effects of extraversion and neuroticism on socialisation.

Mistake 8

Mistake: Saying conscience is inherited fully formed.

Why this is incorrect:

Personality may be biologically influenced, but conscience develops through conditioning and socialisation.

How to improve:

Separate inherited traits from learned restraint.

Mistake 9

Mistake: Treating a personality score as proof of offending.

Why this is incorrect:

Many non-offenders have similar traits, and offending depends on opportunity and environment.

How to improve:

Describe the profile as a risk factor.

Mistake 10

Mistake: Assuming every offence is impulsive.

Why this is incorrect:

Some offences are carefully planned and may not fit Eysenck’s criminal personality.

How to improve:

Match the theory to the form of offending.

Mistake 11

Mistake: Saying the EPQ is an objective biological test.

Why this is incorrect:

It is a self-report questionnaire.

How to improve:

Evaluate honesty, insight and social desirability.

Mistake 12

Mistake: Claiming correlation proves personality caused offending.

Why this is incorrect:

Imprisonment or another variable may affect both personality scores and offending.

How to improve:

Discuss direction of effect and third variables.

Mistake 13

Mistake: Saying biological influence means treatment cannot work.

Why this is too deterministic:

Eysenck’s theory includes learning and socialisation, so behaviour may still change.

How to improve:

Discuss personality as vulnerability rather than destiny.

Mistake 14

Mistake: Using “reductionist” or “deterministic” without explanation.

Why this is incomplete:

AQA rewards developed reasoning.

How to improve:

Explain which influences are overlooked and why this affects the theory’s validity or implications.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Question 1

Which three personality dimensions form Eysenck’s proposed criminal personality? [3 marks]

Question 2

Explain how high extraversion may increase the likelihood of offending. [3 marks]

Question 3

Explain the role of conditioning in Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. [4 marks]

Question 4

Zac enjoys dangerous activities and becomes bored easily. He reacts intensely when criticised and shows little concern about the people affected by his repeated thefts.

Use Eysenck’s theory to explain Zac’s offending behaviour. [6 marks]

Question 5

A researcher gives the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire to a group of people with convictions and a matched control group.

Personality dimension	Mean offender score	Mean control score
Extraversion	18	14
Neuroticism	21	15
Psychoticism	16	9

Describe two differences in the results and explain how they relate to Eysenck’s theory. [6 marks]

Question 6

Explain one difference between Eysenck’s theory and a neural explanation of offending. [4 marks]

Question 7

Explain one limitation of using personality questionnaires to investigate offending behaviour. [3 marks]

Question 8

Explain why Eysenck’s theory is described as a biosocial explanation. [4 marks]

Question 9

Briefly evaluate Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. [4 marks]

Question 10

Discuss Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality as an explanation of offending behaviour. [16 marks]

Answers and Mark Scheme

Question 1

Award one mark for each of the following:

• Extraversion.

• Neuroticism.

• Psychoticism.

Maximum: 3 marks

Question 2

Award one mark for each linked point:

• Highly extraverted people are impulsive or sensation seeking.

• Offending may provide stimulation, risk or excitement.

• They may focus on immediate rewards rather than delayed punishment.

• Extraverts may condition less effectively, weakening socialisation.

Maximum: 3 marks

Question 3

Award one mark for each relevant point, up to four marks:

• Children normally learn social rules through conditioning.

• Antisocial acts are paired with punishment.

• Punishment produces anxiety or discomfort.

• The antisocial act eventually produces conditioned anxiety.

• This contributes to the development of conscience.

• People high in extraversion and neuroticism condition less effectively.

• Weaker conditioning produces weaker restraint against antisocial behaviour.

• Offending therefore becomes more likely.

A full-mark response should explain the process as a connected sequence.

Question 4

Award up to six marks for effective application:

• Zac’s boredom suggests a need for stimulation.

• Enjoying danger is consistent with high extraversion or sensation seeking.

• His strong reaction to criticism suggests high neuroticism.

• Emotional instability may contribute to impulsive responses.

• Lack of concern for victims suggests high psychoticism.

• His repeated offending may indicate ineffective conditioning.

• Weak conditioned anxiety may mean punishment does not strongly inhibit theft.

• The combination resembles Eysenck’s proposed criminal personality.

• The traits increase vulnerability rather than proving that offending was inevitable.

Question 5

Award up to two marks for describing differences:

• The offender group scores higher on all three dimensions.

• The difference for extraversion is four points.

• The difference for neuroticism is six points.

• The difference for psychoticism is seven points.

• The largest difference is for psychoticism.

• The smallest difference is for extraversion.

Award up to four marks for explanation:

• Higher extraversion supports the prediction of impulsivity and sensation seeking.

• Higher neuroticism supports the prediction of emotional instability.

• Higher psychoticism supports the prediction of aggression or limited empathy.

• The overall pattern is consistent with Eysenck’s criminal personality.

• Group means do not show that every offender has the profile.

• The results are correlational and do not demonstrate that personality caused offending.

• Questionnaire responses may be affected by self-report bias.

Question 6

Possible answer:

Eysenck’s theory explains offending through broad personality dimensions, particularly high extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism, and their effect on conditioning. A neural explanation focuses directly on brain structure, brain activity or neurochemistry, such as reduced prefrontal functioning. Personality may have a biological basis, but Eysenck also explains offending through socialisation, making the theory biosocial rather than purely neural.

For four marks, both explanations should be accurate and the contrast explicit.

Question 7

Award one mark for identifying a valid limitation and up to two marks for explanation.

Possible answers include:

Social desirability

Offenders may give answers that make them appear more socially acceptable, particularly if they believe the results could affect parole or treatment. The personality score may therefore lack validity.

Lack of insight

A respondent may not accurately recognise their own impulsivity or empathy. The questionnaire may therefore measure self-perception rather than actual personality.

Response bias

Some respondents may agree with statements regardless of their content or attempt to appear unusually tough. This would reduce the accuracy of group comparisons.

Maximum: 3 marks

Question 8

Award one mark for each relevant point, up to four marks:

• Eysenck proposed that personality dimensions have a biological or inherited basis.

• Extraversion is linked with arousal and neuroticism with autonomic reactivity.

• Social rules or conscience are learned through conditioning.

• Personality affects how easily the person is conditioned.

• Offending results from the interaction between biological personality and socialisation.

• The theory therefore includes both nature and nurture.

Question 9

Award up to four marks for clear and effective evaluation.

Possible content:

• Personality dimensions produce testable predictions.

• The EPQ provides standardised quantitative measurement.

• Self-report may be affected by dishonesty or social desirability.

• Evidence does not consistently support all three dimensions.

• Offending is too diverse for one criminal personality.

• Personality and offending are correlated, so causation is uncertain.

• The theory is deterministic or reductionist.

• The theory includes both biological and social influences.

• Personality traits occur among many non-offenders.

• Labelling people through personality scores is socially sensitive.

Example full-mark response:

Eysenck’s theory is testable because offender and non-offender groups can be compared using standardised personality questionnaires. However, these questionnaires depend on honest self-report, and offenders may conceal traits such as aggression or low empathy. In addition, not all studies find the complete three-trait profile, so the evidence may support particular risk traits rather than one universal criminal personality.

Question 10

A high-level response should include accurate knowledge and developed evaluation.

Indicative AO1 content

• Definition of personality.

• Dimensional view of personality.

• Biosocial nature of the theory.

• Extraversion.

• Low cortical arousal.

• Sensation seeking.

• Impulsivity.

• Neuroticism.

• Autonomic reactivity.

• Emotional instability.

• Psychoticism.

• Aggression, coldness and limited empathy.

• Criminal personality as high E, N and P.

• Conditioning.

• Socialisation.

• Conditioned anxiety.

• Development of conscience.

• Poor conditioning and offending.

• Measurement using personality questionnaires.

Indicative AO3 content

• Testability and falsifiability.

• Standardised measurement through the EPQ.

• Self-report bias.

• Social desirability and lack of insight.

• Mixed evidence across the three dimensions.

• Diversity of offenders and offence types.

• Traits also occurring among non-offenders.

• Correlation and cause-and-effect problems.

• Prisonisation and direction of effect.

• Cultural and historical variation.

• Conditioning as an oversimplified account of socialisation.

• Biological and dispositional determinism.

• Reductionism.

• Interaction between biology and learning.

• Comparison with neural, cognitive or differential association explanations.

• Practical implications for early intervention.

• Socially sensitive implications of screening and labelling.

• Need to treat personality as vulnerability rather than destiny.

Thirteen to sixteen marks: Knowledge is accurate and generally detailed. Discussion is thorough, focused and effective. The relationship between personality, conditioning and offending is explained clearly. Evidence and methodological issues are used to construct arguments, and specialist terminology is precise.

Nine to twelve marks: Knowledge is mostly accurate and discussion is generally effective. The three dimensions and their links with offending are explained, although some evaluation points may lack detail or development.

Five to eight marks: Some relevant knowledge is present, but the response is mainly descriptive. The personality dimensions may be listed without explaining conditioning or links with offending. Evaluation may be generic.

One to four marks: Knowledge is very limited or confused. The response may omit major dimensions, confuse psychoticism with psychosis or provide little relevant evaluation.