“From very early, the oxygen of the criminal’s life is to seek

excitement by doing the forbidden” (S. Samenow). Critically consider

Samenow’s quotation by outlining how useful criminal personality

theories are in the explanation of criminal behaviour.

Dionne Angela Donnelly

Module: PSYC201: Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Theories of criminal personality aim to explain behavioural variability within and across

situations. Cognitive theory states faulty thinking leads to the pursuit of the wrong kind of

excitement. Eysenck’s PEN theory states that personality has a genetic basis and consists

of three factors, extroversion (E), psychoticism (P) and neuroticism (N). Those who score

highest on EPN are most likely to become criminals. Psychobiological theories by

Lombroso (1911) and Sheldon (1940) postulate criminality manifests itself in a criminal’s

physical attributes. More recently, the impact of the XYY gene and neurochemistry on

criminality have been studied. Criminal behaviour is also affected by disrupted or

dysfunctional family relationships. Finally, research has investigated whether psychopaths

are at an increased risk of criminality. In order to aid understanding of criminal personality

these distinct theories were integrated, creating a more useful and comprehensive ‘super-

theory’.

A criminal, as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (1989), is a “person guilty or convicted

of a crime”. This is an extremely broad definition covering a vast spectrum of age ranges and

potential offences, e.g. from graffiti by teenagers to tax evasion by affluent older men, all

unlikely to have been motivated by the same factors (Ainsworth, 2000). Therefore, it is difficult

to comprehend how theories of criminal personality can be useful in explaining such a wide

range of potential actions. However, these theories by definition seek only to account for

individuals' behavioural variability within and across situations (Wagstaff, 2007) and to

investigate individual differences which cannot be explained by sociological/criminological

theories (Blackburn, 1993). Samenow’s research is based on the premise that all contemporary

1

biological/sociological/psychological theories were useless for explaining criminality (Reid,

2003). However, Samenow's generalisation that all criminals seek “excitement by doing the

forbidden” could be seen to apply to some, but definitely not all instances of crime. Despite this

they are still deemed useful for explaining criminal behaviour. In order to do this more

comprehensively, such theories can be integrated into a ‘super-theory’ of criminal personality.

Criminality as a result of thinking errors

Yochelson and Samenow (1976) found 52 thinking errors that differentiate criminals from non-

criminals, which manifest in the way criminals experience their world and process information

before taking action (Reid, 2003). These include: entitlement (the world exists for their benefit);

superoptimism (they will not be caught); discontinuity/ fragmentation (inability to uphold

commitments); and a ‘cutoff’ which, when faced with stressful/emotional situations, stops the

anxieties and fears which usually prevent people committing crime (Walters, 1990, see also

Yochelson & Samenow, 1976). Samenow (1978) stated that these thinking styles mean criminals

from different socioeconomic backgrounds all have a similar cognitive structure. Samenow’s

quotation above incites the error of irresponsible decision making, as the criminal chooses to

commit illegal acts for excitement rather than participate in exciting but legal activities.

However, there are a number of methodological flaws. Yochelson and Samenow (1976) did not

use a control group to compare these patterns to and the sample consisted mainly of black males,

meaning that the theory is not generalisable (Reid, 2003). Despite this, Walters (1990) supported

their theory and postulated that thinking styles become ingrained in the criminal’s consciousness,

thus they find unrestrained hedonism and rulelessness more rewarding than self-discipline and

social conformity. Zuckerman (1994, cited in Roberti, 2004) referred to this as ‘sensation

seeking’, a trait causing individuals to take risks in order to seek varied, new and intense

2

experiences. Males are significantly more likely to be sensation seekers (Roberti, 2004), which

could help explain why there are more male offenders than females. This could be why criminals

escalate from petty antisocial behaviour to more serious crimes; the criminal may become

‘addicted’ to crime (Hodge et al. 1997, cited in Ainsworth, 2000), possibly due to tolerance or

desensitisation causing them to seek further stimulation. An explanation for this could be cortical

under-arousal, linked to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the continuous

search for stimulation (Biederman & Spencer, 1999, see also, Loo et al., 2009; Rowe, Robinson

& Gordon, 2004). The estimated prevalence of ADHD in incarcerated criminals is 25 per cent

(Eme, 2009; Gordon & Malmsjo-Moore, 2005). Yochelson and Samenow’s (1976) theory can be

criticised for not stating where the thinking patterns originate, for example if they have a

biological basis. However, biological bases of criminal personality are an integral aspect of

Eysenck’s PEN theory.

Eysenck’s personality types

Eysenck (1996) viewed personality as a mediator between genetic/environmental forces and

criminal behaviour. Eysenck’s theory has three premises. Firstly, it provides a descriptive model

of personality, related to three trait dimensions: Psychoticism (P), Extroversion (E) and

Neuroticism (N) (Blackburn, 1993). Research suggests that those who score highly on EPN are

more likely to be involved in crime (Ainsworth, 2000, see also Eysenck & Eysenck, 1970; Pakes

& Winstone, 2007). However, Feldman (1993, cited in Ainsworth, 2000) stated that they may be

more prone to exaggerate their delinquency. Furthermore, there may be differences in the

perpetrators of different crimes, Gudjonsson and Sigurdsson (2000) found that sex offenders

were more introverted than violent offenders. Secondly, there are innate biological differences in

our cortical and autonomic nervous systems (ANS) affecting the way we interact with the

3

environment. Similar to sensation-seeking, extroverts are thought to be cortically under-aroused

(Ainsworth, 2000) and need more stimulation to maintain ‘hedonic tone’ (Blackburn, 1993).

Neurotics have a labile ANS which reacts strongly to negative stimuli, and are not easily

conditioned. People who are mix of high EN are not easily controlled and do not learn from their

mistakes, making them more prone to criminality (Ainsworth, 2000). P is highly related to

psychopathy, the characteristics of which will be discussed later. Thirdly, restraints on our

naturally hedonistic personality are acquired through socialisation, achieved via classical

conditioning. Individuals ‘learn’ to have a conscience via a conditioned anxiety response

(Ainsworth, 2000; Blackburn, 1993). Therefore, as all behaviour (including criminal) is

phenotypic, to improve the usefulness of criminal personality an integrated theory is needed but

impossible to test (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1970).

Criminals have a certain ‘look’ about them...

Eysenck was not the first to consider criminality having a biological basis. Lombroso (1911)

studied criminals’ skulls, and found them to have heavy jaws, flat or crooked noses and

asymmetrical skulls (see also, Ainsworth, 2000). He also argued that born criminals represented

one third of the criminal population and different physiologies indicated different crimes, e.g. sex

offenders have glinting eyes and thick lips, murderers have glassy eyes and thin lips. This theory,

like Eysenck’s, was phenotypic, with nature providing the raw materials and society providing

potential criminal circumstances (Yochelson & Samenow, 1976). The idea of a link existing

between physical attributes and crime was expanded upon by Sheldon (1940). He noted three

body types and coinciding temperaments: Rafter (2007) states that endomorphs (soft, round

people) are viscerotonic – relaxed and sociable; mesomorphs (muscular and compact) are

somatotonic – energetic and aggressive; and ectomorphs (fragile and intelligent) are cerebrotonic

4

– ‘introverted’. Sheldon and Glueck (1956, cited in Wagstaff, 2007) found mesomorphy in 60 per

cent of delinquents, but only 30 per cent of non-delinquents. Lindzey (1973, cited in Yochelson

& Samenow, 1976) postulated that the relationship between mesomorphy and crime is not

causal, but there is a strong and consistent connection between the two. Attempts have been

made to use body mass index (BMI) instead of the intrusive measures used by Sheldon (1940).

Madden, Walker and Miller (2008) found a curvilinear relationship between BMI and

criminality, similar to that found for endomorphy-mesomorphy-ectomorphy. However, Genovese

(2009) argued BMI is an inadequate measure as it was only able to correctly classify 55 per cent

of his sample. Madden, Walker and Miller (2009) responded that the original measure was

extremely subjective and although BMI is not flawless it is objective and unobtrusive.

Genetic criminality?

Another biological theory of criminality stated that males with an extra Y chromosome were

more likely to be violent criminals (the ‘supermale’ or XYY syndrome, Ainsworth, 2000; Briken,

Habermann, Berner & Hill, 2006; O’Brien, 2000) but this has since been discredited (Wood,

2003). Nevertheless, recent research has investigated the link between criminality and several

hormones. Deficiencies in levels of serotonin, noradrenergic metabolite MHPG, and vasopressin

have all been linked to increased likelihood of committing violent crime (LeMarquand, Hoaken,

Benkelfat & O’Pihl, 2008). However, this area of research is still in the relatively early stages

and it is unknown whether the results are reliable. Also, psychobiological research is only useful

in that suggests a predisposition towards criminality, unlike other theories, e.g. cognitive, it

cannot tell us why some people choose to commit crime and others do not.

5

Familial effects on the criminal

Psychoanalytic theory postulates that people turn to crime through Oedipal guilt and seek

punishment to assuage this guilt (Glover, 1960, cited in Yochelson & Samenow, 1976). This may

explain the element of risk-taking/sensation-seeking referred to in cognitive theory. Alexander

and Staub (1931, cited in Yochelson & Samenow, 1976) asserted that criminals are victims of

unconscious processes and are insusceptible to punishment, this may be why criminals are less

prone to conditioning (see Ainsworth, 2000). Also, the superego (moral centre) may be

underdeveloped due to poor socialisation by the family, leaving the ego (pleasure seeking centre)

dominant, and the individual unable to delay gratification (‘latent delinquency’, Wagstaff, 2007;

see also, Aichhorn, 1925, cited in Fitzpatrick, 1976; Blackburn, 1993). Nonetheless, these

explanations are flawed. Females should be more prone to crime than males as they do not fear

castration and so have weaker superegos, but 80 per cent of all offenders are male (Home Office,

2007). Kline (1987, cited in Blackburn, 1993) argued unconscious conflicts cannot explain all

crimes, such as acquisitive white-collar crimes.

Bowlby (1946, cited in Wagstaff, 2007) found that a child’s prolonged separation from their

mother during the first 5 years of life increased their risk of delinquency. However, Warren and

Palmer (1965, cited in Virkkunen, 1976) found that criminals were more likely to suffer paternal

than maternal deprivation. Critics argue that the state of family relationships have more influence

than any separation from a caregiver (Loeber & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1986; Rutter, 1979). The

theory also states that early attachment styles are internalised as a working model of dyadic

relationships (Blackburn, 1993). This is supported by Ward, Hudson, Marshall and Siegert

(1995) who found different attachment styles affect type of crime committed, for example,

anxious-ambivalent attachment is linked to child sex offences. However, it also possible that

6

criminality may be influenced by having a good relationship with a criminal father. The child

introjects the father’s criminal ways (Blackburn, 1993). Bowlby (1970) argued that psychopaths

are much more likely to have suffered the death, divorce or separation of their parents, leading to

a disruption of bonds which may account for their anti-social personality.

Psychopathy – a distinct criminal personality?

Psychopathy is defined as collection of affective, interpersonal and behavioural characteristics

including impulsivity, shallow emotion, lack of empathy or guilt and persistent violation of

social norms (Cleckley, 1976). Blair, Peschardt, Budhani, Mitchell and Pine (2006) found that

the emotional problems seen in psychopaths are due to genetic rather than social causes.

Häkkänen,-Nyholm, Repo-Tiihonen, Lindberg, Salenius &Weizmann-Henelius (2009) found that

over half of the sexual offenders in their sample were psychopathic and they were more likely to

be violent (see also, Gretton, Hare & Catchpole, 2004; Rasmussen, Storsæter & Levander, 1999).

However, Heilbrun (1979) found that whilst psychopathy was found to be predictive of violence,

this was only in those with low intelligence, who also showed greater levels of impulsivity. This

suggests that whilst psychopathy may have an effect on the type of crime committed, it is also

dependent upon other factors, which may be genetically based. The prevalence of psychopathy in

UK prison population is 7.7 per cent in males and 1.9 per cent in females (Coid et al., 2009).

Therefore it is obvious that psychopathy only plays a role in certain instances, although it is

possible that those with higher intelligence (and therefore less impulsivity) are less likely to be

caught and be represented in the prison populations used in these studies.

Is integration possible?

A theory which incorporates all the above could aid our understanding of criminal behaviour (see

7

Figure 1) and may help researchers reveal how much variability each explanation is responsible

for. For example, genetics affect high levels of EPN (Ainsworth, 2000); and therefore the

personalities of parents (which dictates their behaviour towards their children); psychopathy

(Blair et al. 2006); and cognition. These variables interact not only with each other but with other

individuals in the social environment and certain situational variables (such as the presence of

criminal peers and opportunities for crime). The presence of some or all of these variables

increases the likelihood of the individual committing a crime. This behaviour then feeds back to

the criminal’s cognitions and affects future behaviour (possibly increasing the neurotic conflicts

already present, Blackburn, 1993, or reinforcing the criminal’s faulty perceptions of himself).

Figure 1: How different psychological theories interact in explaining criminal personality.

Conclusions

Psychological theories of criminal personality aim to explain the individual differences in

criminal behaviour which sociological and criminological theories cannot. Despite some

overlaps, e.g. between Eysenck’s PEN theory and genetics, they all attempt to explain distinct

8

HighEPN

Dysfunctional Family

Characteristics

Psychopathy

Genetic Predisposition

Faulty Cognitive Appraisal

Criminal Behaviour

Social Environment & Situational Variables

psychological constructs. Samenow’s quotation illustrates just one possible aspect of why people

commit crime, and no theory has all the answers. A truly useful theory of criminal personality

would take all of the above theories and integrate them to help truly understand what causes the

variability of criminal behaviour.

References

Aichhorn, A. (1951). Wayward Youth. London: Imago.

Ainsworth, P. B. (2000). Psychology and Crime: Myths and Reality. Edinburgh: Pearson

Education.

Biederman, J. & Spencer, T. (1999). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as a

noradrenergic disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 1234-1242.

Blair, R. J. R., Peschardt, K. S., Budhani, S., Mitchell, D. G. V. & Pine, D. S. (2006). The

development of psychopathy. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(3/4),262–275

Blackburn, R. (1993). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct: Theory, Research and Practice.

Chichester: Wiley.

Bowlby, J. (1970). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on behavior. Journal of

Contemporary Psychotherapy, 2(2), 75-86.

Briken, P, Habermann, N., Berner, W. & Hill, A. (2006). XYY chromosome abnormality in

sexual homicide perpetrators. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B

(Neuropsychiatric Genetics), 141B, 198-200.

Cleckley, H. (1976). The Mask of Sanity (5th Ed.). St Louis: Mosby.

Coid, J, Yang, M, Ullrich, S., Roberts, A., Moran, P., Bebbington, P., Brugha, T., Jenkins, R., Far-

rell, M., Lewis, G., Singleton, N. & Hare, R. (2009). Psychopathy among prisoners in Eng-

land and Wales. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 32, 134-141.

9

"Criminal" (1989). Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed.). OED Online. Oxford University Press.

Retrieved 5 December 2009 from http://dictionary.oed.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/cgi/entry

/50053985?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=criminal&first=1&max_to_show=10

Eme, R. (2009). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and the family court. Family Court

Review, 47(4), 650-664.

Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and crime: Where do we stand? Psychology, Crime and Law,

2,143-152.

Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Crime and personality: An empirical study of the

three-factor theory. British Journal of Criminology, 10, 225-239.

Fitzpatrick, J. J. (1976). Psychoanalysis and crime: A critical survey of salient trends in the

literature. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 423, 67-74.

Genovese, J. E. C. (2009). Can body mass index (BMI) be used as a proxy for somatotype? The

Social Science Journal, 46, 390-393.

Gordon, J. A. & Malmsjo-Moore, P. (2005). ADHD prevalence and correlates among the general

population. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 87-97.

Gretton, H. M., Hare, R. D. & Catchpole, R. E. H. (2004). Psychopathy and offending from

adolescence to adulthood: A 10-year follow-up. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, 72(4), 636-645.

Gudjonsson, G. H. (2000). Differences and similarities between violent offenders and sex offend-

ers. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(3), 363-372.

Häkkänen,-Nyholm, H., Repo-Tiihonen, E., Lindberg, N., Salenius S. & Weizmann-Henelius, G.

(2009). Finnish sexual homicides: offence and offender characteristics. Forensic Science In-

ternational, 188, 125-130.

Home Office (2007). Crime in England and Wales 2006/07. Retrieved 20 November 2009 from

10

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ pdfs07/hosb1107.pdf.

LeMarquand, D, Hoaken, P. N. S., Benkelfat, C. & O’Pihl, R. (2008). Biochemical factors in ag-

gression and violence. Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, & Conflict, 1, 174-188. Oxford: El-

sevier.

Loeber, R. & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1986). Family factors as correlates and predictors of ju-

venile conduct problems and delinquency. Crime and Justice, 7, 29-149.

Lombroso, G. F. (Ed.). (1911). Criminal Man: According to the classification of Cesare Lom-

broso. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.

Loo, S. K., Sigi-Hale, T., Macion, J., Hanada, G., McGough, J. J., McCracken J. T. & Smalley, S.

L. (2009). Cortical activity patterns in ADHD during arousal, activation and sustained

attention. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2114–2119.

Madden, S., Walker, J. T. & Mitchell Miller, J. (2008). Does size really matter? A reexamination

of Sheldon’s somatotypes and criminal behavior. The Social Science Journal, 45, 330- 344.

Madden, S., Walker, J. T. & Mitchell Mille, J. (2009). The BMI as a somatotypic measure of

physique: A rejoinder to Jeremy E. C. Genovese. The Social Science Journal, 46, 394–401.

O’Brien, (2000). Behavioural phenotypes. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 93, 618-

620.

Pakes, F. & Winstone, J. (2007). Psychology and Crime: Understanding and Tackling Offending

Behaviour. Devon: Willan.

Rafter, N. (2007). Somatotyping, antimodernism, and the production of criminal knowledge.

Criminology, 45(4), 805-833.

Rasmussen, K., Storsæter, O. & Levander, S. (1999). Personality disorders, psychopathy and

crime in a Norwegian prison population. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 22(1),

11

91-97.

Reid, C. L. (2003). Do minority and female offenders have distinct “criminal personalities”? A

critique of Yochelson and Samenow’s theory of criminality. Criminal Justice Studies, 16(3),

233-244.

Roberti, J. W. (2004). A preview of behavioural and biological correlates of sensation seeking.

Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 256-279.

Rowe, D. L., Robinson, P. A. & Gordon, E. (2004). Stimulant drug action in attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): Inference of neurophysiological mechanisms via

quantitative modeling. Clinical Neurophysiology, 116, 324-335.

Rutter, M. (1979). Maternal deprivation 1972-1978: New findings, new concepts, new

approaches. Child Development, 50, 283-305.

Samenow, S. (1978). A response to Dr. Dienstbier’s review of The Criminal Personality, Volume

1. Law and Human Behavior, 2(1), 43-45.

Sheldon, W. H. (1940). The Varieties of Human Physique. New York: Harper.

Virkhunen, M. (1976). Parental deprivation and recidivism in juvenile delinquents. British

Journal of Criminology, 16(4), 378-384.

Wagstaff, G.F. (2007). The Criminal Personality. Unpublished revision notes. University of

Liverpool.

Walters, G.D. (1990). The Criminal Lifestyle: Patterns of Serious Criminal Conduct. California:

SAGE.

Ward, T., Hudson, S. M., Marshall, W. L. & Siegert, R. (1995). Attachment style and intimacy

deficits in sexual offenders: A theoretical framework. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research

and Treatment, 7(4), 317-335.

Wood, J. R. T. (2003). Forensic sciences from the judicial perspective. Australian Bar Review,

12

23(2), 1-19.

Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. (2004). The Criminal Personality: Volume I: A Profile for Change.

Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.

13