Risk-Taking Behaviour and Criminal Offending: An Investigation of Sensation Seeking and the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire

Abstract

This study investigated relationships between hostility, Zuckerman’s sensation seeking, and Eysenck and Eysenck’s personality scales within a prison population, to explore whether they could be conceptualized in terms of two socialized and unsocialized sensation seeking factors. Participants included 79 incarcerated adult male offenders (age range = 18- 62). Findings support the distinction between socialized and unsocialized sensation seeking and suggest that these factors represent more overarching personality factors. Psychoticism was a clear marker of the more broad impulsive, unsocialized sensation seeking factor, rather than representing a supertrait in its own right. This factor was also represented by lie, disinhibition, and boredom susceptibility scales. Findings relating to hostility also supported such a reformulation, as unsocialized scales did cluster together to predict the unsocialized hostility factor, whereas unsocialized scales did not. The results demonstrate the need for a theoretical reformulation of the two given theories of personality.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1997).Australian standard offence classification. Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printing.

Babbie, E. (1998). The practice of social research (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Biaggio, M. K., Supplee, K., & Curtis, N. (1981). Reliability and validity of four anger scales. Journal of Personality Assessment,45(6), 639-648.

Blackburn, R. (1998). Psychopathy and the contribution of personality to violence. In T. Millon, E. Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.),Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal and violent behavior (pp. 50-68). New York: Guilford.

Buss, A., & Durkee, A. (1957). An inventory for assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology,21(4), 343-349.

Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Personality: Biological foundations. In P. A. Vernon (Ed.),The neuropsychology of individual differences (pp. 151-199). London, UK: Academic Press.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S.B.G. (1985). Manual of the Eysenck personality scales. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

10.

Glicksohn, J., & Abulafia, J. (1998). Embedding the sensation seeking within the big three. Personality and Individual Differences,19(2), 1085-1099.

11.

Goma, M. (1995). Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality. Personality and Individual Differences,19(2), 125-134.

12.

Haapsalo, J. (1990). Sensation seeking and Eysenck’s personality dimensions in an offender sample. Personality and Individual Differences,11(1), 81-84.

13.

Trimpop, R. M. (1994). The psychology of risk taking behaviour. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Science.

14.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Zuckerman, M. (1989). Personality in the third dimension: A psychobiological approach. Personality and Individual Differences,10(4), 391-418.

16.

Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

17.

Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S.B.G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,46, 139-149.

18.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54(1), 96-107.

19.

Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models for personality: The big three, the big five and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65(4), 757-768.