Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 4752

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Exploring the relationship between the Five-Factor Model of personality,

social factors and self-reported delinquency
Darrick Jolliffe
School of Law, University of Greenwich, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Big Five is one of the predominant models of personality structure but relatively little research has
Received 30 July 2012 focussed on how the ve factors might be related to self reported offending separately for males and
Received in revised form 25 January 2013 females. This is problematic for understanding the relationship between personality and offending as
Accepted 29 January 2013
females and males typically have different personality proles and differ considerably in self-reported
Available online 6 March 2013
offending. In this research 720 adolescents (376 males and 344 females) completed a Big Five personality
measure along with measures of self-reported offending, socioeconomic status and family structure. The
Keywords:
results suggested that low agreeableness and low conscientiousness were independently related to the
Personality
Big Five
prevalence of self-reported offending for males and that low agreeableness was independently related
Self-reported offending to frequent male offending. Low conscientiousness was independently related to female offending, but
Gender so too were interactions between disrupted family and extraversion and disrupted family and openness.
The interaction between extraversion and a disrupted family was also independently related to frequent
female offending. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.
2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction suggested that Eysencks P is inversely related to both A and C

The most inuential theory of personality and crime was that of
Eysenck (1996), in which he persuasively argued that the relative
balance of three superordinate personality factors that one pos-
sessed predicted their involvement in crime. Specically, those
who have high extraversion (E; sensation seeking, venturesome-
ness), high neuroticism (N; anxious, depressed) and high psychot-
icism (P; aggressive, impulsive, unempathic) were more likely to
be offenders (Eysenck, 1996). Eysenck also suggested that female
offenders have the same personality prole as male offenders,
and controversially, that the factors which commonly comprise
sociological theories of crime (e.g. low socioeconomic status) have
their impact on offending through these personality structures (Ey-
senck, 1996; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1973).
Currently, the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality is one of
the primary models for organising personality traits. The FFM
was based on the lexical hypothesis which suggests that all person-
ality traits have been encoded in language (e.g. Costa & McCrae,
1995), and includes the dimensions of E and N (dened similarly
to those of Eysenck), as well as Agreeableness (A; altruism, mod-
esty), Openness (O; imaginative, aesthetic sensitivity) and Consci-
entiousness (C; self-discipline, competence). Research has
Address: School of Law, University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College, Park
Row, London SE10 9LS, United Kingdom. Tel.: +44 0208 331 8949.
E-mail address: D.Jolliffe@gre.ac.uk
(Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991).
A limited number of studies have compared offending to the
FFM. For example, John, Caspi, Robins, Moftt, and Stouthamer-
Loeber (1994) assessed the relationship between the ve factors
of personality and delinquency for a group of 350 1213 year old
boys. The results suggested that the most delinquent boys scored
lower on agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness and high-
er on extraversion. Other studies have generally found low agree-
ableness and low conscientiousness to be associated with
offending, while a lesser degree of support has been found for an
association with low openness, high neuroticism and high extra-
version and offending (e.g. Bartlett & Anderson, 2012; Jones, Miller,
& Lynam, 2011; Miller & Lynam, 2001).
The variation in the support for the link between specic facets
of the FFM and offending might be attributable to the differential
operationalisation of offending across studies. For example, a
number of studies use prisoners to represent offending behaviour,
but it is well known that not all those who commit offences are
convicted, let alone imprisoned for their offences (e.g. Farrington
et al., 2003). There is also evidence that personality might be inu-
enced by the experience of incarceration (Newton, 1998). Gener-
ally, self-reported offending provides a more accurate picture of
more typical, but still serious offending behaviour (Thornberry &
Krohn, 2003). Self-reports also have the benet of giving a more
valid picture of the number of offences that individuals commit
compared to ofcial measures of offending (Farrington, 1998).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.01.014
48 D. Jolliffe / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 4752
This distinction between the prevalence and the frequency of
offending was an important contribution of the criminal career
approach to offending (Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2007),
which has yet to be well integrated with the study of personality.
This body of literature suggests that offenders are versatile in
their offending (as opposed to specialising in certain types of of-
fences), and that a small proportion of offenders in any cohort
commit a disproportionate number of offences. These frequent
offenders differ from more typical offenders in important individ-
ual and social background characteristics (Farrington & West,
1993). It is not known whether different aspects of the FFM
might be associated with frequent as opposed to more typical
offending.
An additional potential source of variation in studies linking the
FFM and offending is the gender composition of the samples used
in past studies. While many studies do not include females, some
combine males and females into a single category of offenders.
This is problematic as research has consistently shown that males
are much more likely to be offenders than females, males commit
many more offences than females (Becker & McCorkel, 2011), and
male and female offending has different correlates. Females appear
more inuenced by social factors (e.g. relationships, low socioeco-
nomic status; Blanchette & Brown, 2006), and males appear more
inuenced by individual factors (e.g. impulsivity; Farrington,
1998). In addition, females consistently demonstrate different per-
sonality proles than males on the FFM, with females generally
higher on all facets except Openness (Marsh, Nagengast, & Morin,
in press).
Only one study has previously compared the FFM of person-
ality and self-reported offending separately for males and fe-
males. Heaven (1996) administered the FFM to a group of 214
high school students (108 females and 106 males) along with
a delinquency scale. Females scored signicantly higher than
males on the ve personality domains, but signicantly lower
on delinquency. A signicant negative correlation between low
agreeableness and violence for males and females was found,
as was a signicant positive relationship between neuroticism
and vandalism for boys and violence for girls. Conscientiousness
was signicantly and negatively correlated to vandalism for
both boys and girls.
Recently researchers have examined the potential moderating
role of social environments when examining the relationship be-
tween personality and offending (Zimmerman, 2010). For example,
in a large study of adolescents Meier, Slutske, Arndt, and Cadoret
(2008) found that the relationship between impulsivity and delin-
quency was stronger in more deprived neighbourhoods. Similar
ndings have been noted in other studies (e.g. Lynam et al.,
2000), but these have been limited to the examination of single
personality traits as opposed to superordinate personality struc-
tures. It might be expected, however, that the association between
personality structures (especially low agreeableness and low con-
scientiousness) and offending might be stronger in more negative
social contexts.
This study examines the independent relationship between the
FFM of personality and self-reported offending for a group of male
and female secondary school students. In addition the potential
moderating role of low SES and disrupted families are explored.
These measures of social environment were selected as both have
been associated with an increased likelihood of offending (e.g.
Becker & McCorkel, 2011; Juby & Farrington, 2001) and might
inuence personality development. It was hypothesized that low
agreeableness and low conscientiousness would be related to both
male and female offending with the association stronger for more
frequent offending. A negative social environment might moderate
these relationships, but the limited research made this hypothesis
more tentative.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Data for this study were obtained from 720 adolescents (376
males, 344 females) in Year 10 (Mean age = 14.8, SD = .41, Range
1317) from three schools in one region in the UK. Over 90% of
the sample was Caucasian, while 4.3% were Asian and 2.6% were
Afro-Caribbean. There were no signicant differences in age, racial
composition, socioeconomic status or family status between stu-
dents at the three schools.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Personality
The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999) was used
to assess personality in this sample. This 44 item scale was de-
signed to assess the ve domains of personality (Extraversion (E),
Neuroticism (N), Agreeableness (A), Conscientiousness (C) and
Openness (O)) by asking respondents to indicate how much each
of the statements describes them. The Cronbach alpha coefcients
for the entire sample were found to be: E = .76, A = .68, C = .74,
O = .71, N = .74.
Self-reported offending. The 8-item self-reported offending ques-
tionnaire was based on that administered as part of national sur-
veys in the UK (see Budd, Sharp, & Mayhew, 2005 for items).
These asked about marijuana use, theft (shoplifting, stealing from
a machine, stealing from a car), serious theft (stealing a car, bur-
glary, pickpocketing) and serious violence (assault with a weapon).
If adolescents indicated that they had been involved in any of the
delinquent acts they were asked how many times they had done
it in the last school year. All questions referred to a period of
approximately nine months.
Socioeconomic status (SES). SES was assessed by asking the chil-
dren if their parents were employed and also their type and place
of employment. A value from 1 (e.g. teachers) to 8 (long-term
unemployed) was assigned according to the system developed by
the Ofce of National Statistics (Walker et al., 2002). Scores were
dichotomized with the lowest 25% being considered low SES (Far-
rington & Loeber, 2000).
Non-intact family. Respondents were asked to report whether
they lived with both of their biological parents. Over 42% of the
sample reported living in non-intact families.
2.3. Procedure
Anonymous self-report questionnaires were administered in
classrooms by an experienced researcher. A passive consent pro-
cedure was used to obtain approval from parents, and active in-
formed consent was obtained from all eligible students. The
response rate (based on enrollment gures) was approximately
80%.
3. Results
3.1. Personality and offending proles of males and females
Table 1 shows the mean scores on the BFI and the prevalence of
the social factors separately for males and females. For example,
males were found to have a mean score of 27.9 on the E scale
(sd = 5.2) compared to 28.1 (sd = 4.9) for females. This difference
was not signicant (n.s., d = .04). However, females did score sig-
nicantly higher than males on neuroticism (t = 7.5, p < .0001,
d = .58) and agreeableness (t = 4.8, p < .0001, d = .33). There
were no differences in males and females on the proportion who
were of low SES or from disrupted families.
 D. Jolliffe / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 4752 49

Table 1 model (B = .100, Wald = 10.0, p < .002, Exp (B) = .91), followed by
Personality and self-reported offending by gender. low conscientiousness (B = .089, Wald = 11.0, p < .001, Exp
Males Females (B) = .91). The nal model successfully classied 70% of the male par-
N = 337 N = 329 ticipants according to their offending with a total Nagelkerke
Big Five M (sd) M (sd) t p d R2 = 0.15. The model did not change much (71.5% successfully classi-
Extraversion 27.9 (5.2) 28.1 (4.9) 0.6 n.s 0.04 ed, Nagelkerke R2 = 8.1, low agreeableness and low conscientious-
Neuroticism 22.1 (4.8) 25.0 (5.2) 7.5 0.0001 0.58 ness were the only variables independently related) when the
Conscientiousness 28.2 (5.4) 29.0 (5.2) 1.8 n.s. 0.15
Agreeableness 30.1 (5.6) 31.8 (4.5) 4.8 0.0001 0.33
analysis was repeated with a more restrictive criteria for offending
Openness 31.0 (4.9) 30.8 (5.1) 0.7 n.s. 0.04 (3 + offences).
Social factors % % Chi square p d
A similar procedure using stepwise logistic regression was con-
Low SES 11.5 15.3 2.1 n.s. 0.18 ducted to predict female offending. Low conscientiousness was the
Disrupted family 40.4 43.4 0.7 n.s. 0.07 rst variable which entered into the model (B = .134, Wald = 25.0,
Offending p < .0001, Exp (B) = 0.88), followed by the interaction between
Marijuana use 31.1 30.8 0.0 n.s. 0 openness and disrupted family (B = .035, Wald = 6.3, p < .012,
Vandalism 40.7 21.5 30.6 .0001 0.50 Exp (B) = .97) and the interaction between extraversion and dis-
Shoplifting 29.5 29.7 0.0 n.s. 0
rupted family (B = .061, Wald = 17.2, p < .0001, Exp (B) = 1.1). The
Other theft 24.7 14.5 11.7 0.001 0.36
Serious theft 19.4 11.6 8.2 0.004 0.63 nal model successfully classied 69% of the female participants
Serious violence 23.1 8.7 27.4 0.0001 0.63 according to their offending with a total Nagelkerke R2 of .23.
Total 64.6 50 15.7 0.0001 0.34 The model did not change much (84% successfully classied, Nage-
lkerke R2 = 22, low conscientiousness, interaction between open-
ness and disrupted family, interaction between extraversion and
disrupted family were the three variables independently related)
The results of the self-reported offending measure by gender
when the analysis was repeated with a more restrictive criteria
can be seen on the bottom of Table 1. As with previous research,
for offending (3 + offences).
males had a signicantly higher prevalence of offending, except
Figure 1 illustrates the interaction between extraversion and
for marijuana use and shoplifting. In line with previous research
disrupted families for female offending. Amongst females from
on personality and offending (Kruegar et al. 1994), a distinction
non-disrupted homes, those who reported committing offences
was drawn between offenders and non-offenders (or abstainers).
only had slightly higher extraversion scores than those who did
This is supported by relative seriousness of the offences included
not (M = 28.5 compared to 27.6; t = 1.3, n.s.). However, amongst fe-
in the current measure and the signicant versatility in offending
males from disrupted homes those who reported offending had
amongst those committing offences (Farrington, 1998). For exam-
signicantly higher extraversion compared to those who did not
ple, in the current study males who reported marijuana use were
(M = 29.2 compared to 27.2, t = 2.3, p < .03). Similarly, females from
six times more likely to report serious theft and four times more
non-disrupted homes who did not report committing offences had
likely to report serious violence compared to those who did not.
signicantly higher openness than those who reported offences
Similar statistically signicant increased risks were noted amongst
(M = 32.0 compared to 29.5, t = 3.4, p < .001), but this difference
all offences for both males and females.
was not evident for those females from disrupted homes
Table 2 shows the personality proles of offenders compared to
(M = 31.3 compared to 29.9, t = 1.6, n.s.).
non-offenders along with the prevalence of the social factors (low
SES, disrupted family) for males and females separately. It can be
3.3. Personality proles of male and female frequent offenders
seen that males who reported committing an offence scored signif-
icantly higher on neuroticism and signicantly lower on conscien-
The 243 male offenders reported committing a total of 7340 of-
tiousness and agreeableness. Male offenders were somewhat more
fences (or an average of about 30.2 offences per offender), how-
likely to come from low SES and disrupted families, but these re-
ever, a total of 40 frequent male offenders accounted for 60% of
sults were not statistically signicant. Alternatively, compared to
the total number of offences (4416). The most frequent offence
female non-offenders, female offenders had signicantly higher
was marijuana use followed by vandalism, but male frequent
extraversion and signicantly lower openness as well as signi-
offenders had committed an average of 5 (out of the 8) different
cantly lower conscientiousness and agreeableness. Female offend-
types of offences. Likewise, the 172 female offenders reported
ers were signicantly more likely to come from disrupted homes,
committing a total of 4330 offences (or an average of 25.2 offences
but were not of lower SES.
per offender), however, a total of 26 frequent female offenders ac-
counted for 60% of the total number of offences (2651). The most
3.2. Prediction of self-reported offending frequent offence was marijuana use followed by shoplifting, but fe-
male frequent offenders had committed an average of 4 (out of the
In order to determine whether aspects of personality were re- 8) different types of offences.
lated to offending by males independent of social factors a step- Table 3 shows the relationship between the personality and so-
wise logistic regression was undertaken. This method of cial factors for frequent and non-frequent offenders separately for
regression is appropriate with this type of exploratory research males and females. Because of the relatively small numbers of fre-
(Cramer, 2003). In the regression, offending by males was included quent offenders (especially females) these results should be con-
as the dependent variable and the independent variables were all sidered exploratory. Male frequent offenders were signicantly
those that were signicantly different between offenders and lower on agreeableness, and somewhat higher on extraversion
non-offenders (e.g. neuroticism, agreeableness, conscientiousness) (but not signicantly so). Only a very small proportion of frequent
and those with a standardized mean effect size d > .101. Interaction male offenders were classied as low on SES. The nding that
terms between the social factors and personality were also included. agreeableness was the only factor signicantly related to male fre-
Low agreeableness was the rst variable which entered into the quent offending was supported by carrying out a stepwise logistic
regression (as with offenders). Low agreeableness was the only
1
This is approximately equivalent to a 5% difference between offenders and non- variable which entered into the model (B = .091, Wald = 4.1,
offenders. p < .04, Exp (B) = .91).
50 D. Jolliffe / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 4752

Table 2
Personality proles of offenders and non-offenders for males and females.

Males Offender Non-offender

N = 218 N = 119
Big Five M (sd) M (sd) t p d
Extraversion 28.1 (5.3) 27.5 (5.1) 0.9 n.s. 0.10
Neuroticism 22.5 (5.0) 21.4 (4.3) 2.0 0.044 0.23
Conscientiousness 27.2 (5.2) 30.1 (5.3) 5 0.0001 0.55
Agreeableness 29.3 (4.4) 31.7 (4.6) 4.7 0.0001 0.54
Openness 30.9 (4.8) 31.3 (5.0) 0.7 n.s. 0.08
Social factors % % Chi square p d
Low SES 13.2 8.7 1.6 n.s. 0.26
Disrupted family 43.4 34.8 2.6 n.s. 0.20

Females Offender Non-offender

N = 162 N = 167
Big Five M (sd) M (sd) t p d
Extraversion 28.8 (5.0) 27.4 (4.7) 2.5 0.012 0.29
Neuroticism 25.4 (4.3) 24.6 (5.0) 1.3 n.s. 0.17
Conscientiousness 27.2 (5.0) 30.7 (4.7) 6.4 0.0001 0.72
Agreeableness 30.9 (4.6) 32.7 (4.1) 3.8 0.0001 0.41
Openness 29.7 (5.0) 31.8 (5.0) 3.9 0.0001 0.42
Social factors % % Chi square p d
Low SES 17.2 13.5 0.86 n.s. 0.16
Disrupted family 53.2 33.7 13.3 0.0001 0.44

Interaction Between Disrupted Family and Extraversion Table 3

29.5 Personality proles of frequent offenders and non-frequent offenders for males and
females.
29 Males Frequent Non-frequent
Mean Extraversion Score

28.5 Big Five M (sd) M (sd) t p d

Extraversion 29.3 (6.1) 27.9 (5.2) 1.4 n.s. 0.26
28 Neuroticism 21.9 (5.1) 22.6 (4.9) 0.7 n.s. 0.14
Conscientiousness 26.6 (5.7) 27.3 (5.1) 0.6 n.s. 0.13
27.5 Agreeableness 27.8 (4.9) 29.6 (4.3) 2.1 0.04 0.41
Openness 31.0 (4.9) 30.9 (4.8) 0.2 n.s. 0.02
27
Social factors % % Chi square p d
Low SES 5.4 14.7 2.3 n.s. 0.61
26.5
Disrupted family 42.6 47.5 0.3 n.s. 0.11

26 Females Frequent Non-frequent

Disrupted Family
Big Five M (sd) M (sd) t p d
Extraversion 31.0 (3.6) 28.5 (5.1) 2.1 0.04 0.51
No SR Offending SR Offending
Neuroticism 25.0 (6.3) 25.4 (4.2) 0.4 n.s. 0.09
Conscientiousness 25.3 (4.0) 27.5 (5.1) 1.9 n.s. 0.44
Fig. 1. Interaction between extraversion and disrupted family for females. Agreeableness 30.2 (5.2) 31.0 (4.5) 0.8 n.s. 0.17
Openness 27.9 (4.8) 29.9 (5.0) 1.7 n.s. 0.40

Female frequent offenders had signicantly higher extraversion Social factors % % Chi square P d

scores and were also signicantly more likely to come from dis-
rupted families. As with male frequent offenders, female frequent
offenders were not over represented in the low SES group. A step-
wise logistic regression was carried out including the signicant
variables (extraversion, disrupted family) and the interaction ef-
fect. The results suggested that the interaction between extraver-
sion and a disrupted family was the only variable independently
related to female frequent offending (B = .042, Wald = 7.6,
p < .006, Exp (B) = 1.04).
4. Discussion
It has long been known that males and females differ on mea-
sures of personality and measures of offending, but this research
has highlighted that males and females also differ in the way in
which personality and offending are related. For males the rela-
tionship between personality and offending was relatively
straightforward; low conscientiousness and low agreeableness
Low SES 8.0 18.8 1.7 n.s. 0.53
Disrupted family 73.1 49.7 4.9 0.03 0.55
predicted male offending, and low agreeableness predicted male
frequent offending.
These ndings t well with the literature on male offending and
personality (Miller & Lynam, 2001) and the two personality do-
mains identied encompass well established individual risk factors
for offending. That is, the carelessness, being easily distracted and
disorganization of low conscientiousness is a clear description of
high behavioural impulsivity (e.g. White et al., 1994). High impul-
sivity is commonly found to be the best predictor of later offending
in males (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2009) and is a central feature in
inuential theories of male crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
Similarly, the emotional coldness and selshness of low agreeable-
ness describes low empathy. A lack of empathy is a typical corre-
late of male offending (e.g. Jolliffe & Farrington, 2004),
particularly more serious and violent offending (Hare, 1996).
 D. Jolliffe / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 4752
There has been previous research to link the impulsivity aspect
of low conscientiousness to female offending as found in the cur-
rent study (e.g. Komarovskaya, Booker Loper, & Warren, 2007).
However, the most important nding of the current research was
that female offenders were not characterized by low agreeable-
ness, but by the interaction between the personality facets open-
ness and extraversion with disrupted families.
Disrupted families have been consistently associated with an
increased likelihood of offending, but the relationship is far from
straightforward (e.g. Jolliffe, Murray, Farrington, & Vanneck, in
press). Both the family conict that ultimately results in the dis-
rupted family and the reduced parental supervision associated
with a single-parent household have been implicated as potential
mechanisms increasing the likelihood of offending (Juby & Farring-
ton, 2001). Both mechanisms could be operating synergistically
with female personality in the current study. For example, female
non-offenders had signicantly higher openness than offenders,
but this difference was eliminated amongst those from disrupted
homes (and this was independently related to offending). The
intellectual curiosity, originality and active imagination (key as-
pects of openness) which might promote non-offending amongst
females could be attenuated by the family conict in a disrupted
family. Similarly, overall female offenders and non-offenders did
not differ on extraversion, but extraversion was signicantly high-
er for offenders compared to non-offenders (and independently re-
lated to offending) amongst those from disrupted homes. It could
be that characteristics such as being outgoing, energetic and excit-
ing (extraversion) could increase past a critical (offending) thresh-
old for adolescents from disrupted families who have reduced
supervision. Under closer supervision such traits could be attenu-
ated or channeled into prosocial activities. It is also important to
note that the offences of females are often committed with males
(particularly older males) and that male involvement as a co-offen-
der increases the seriousness and frequency of female offending
(Becker & McCorkel, 2011). It is easy to imagine how an extra-
verted and unsupervised female would make an attractive accom-
plice to a male offender.
5. Limitations and directions for future research
This, like all research has limitations that should be considered
when interpreting the ndings. For example, only a small number
of social factors were explored in this study. Additional factors
such as parental supervision, measures of family functioning and
importantly, neighbourhood disadvantage should be included to
attempt to better elucidate the potential mechanisms between
personality, the social context and offending. For example, it is
noteworthy that low SES was not signicantly related to either
offending or frequent offending. This null nding is consistent with
some research with adults (e.g. Dunaway, Cullen, Burton, & Evans,
2000), but perhaps a more sensitive measure of low SES (e.g. family
income, parental education, housing) would have found the more
typical negative association with offending (Farrington, 1998). In
addition, a measure of disrupted family could ask about the nature
of the disruption and when the disruption occurred. Evidence sug-
gests that divorce (as opposed to the death of parent) earlier in life
might be more strongly associated with offending (Juby & Farring-
ton, 2001). While self-reports of offending are generally considered
valid (Thornberry & Krohn, 2003), these also have limitations
(memory, concealment, exaggeration) and future research should
attempt to triangulate these with parental reports and ofcial
records.
This research was cross-sectional which means it was not pos-
sible to establish directionality. It is unlikely that a childs person-
ality would create a disrupted family, but it is not impossible.
51
Longitudinal research examining personality and the timing and
impact of various social factors would allow more condent con-
clusions to be drawn about the relationship between personality,
social factors and the development of offending for males and
females.
6. Conclusion
Like much previous research, the current study highlighted the
importance of low conscientiousness and low agreeableness for
understanding offending. However, this research also demon-
strated that the relative importance of these varied by gender
and degree of criminal involvement. Future research should aim
to replicate and expand on these results by continuing to examine
the relationship between gender, personality, additional measures
of social background and knowledge about criminal careers.
References
Bartlett, C. P., & Anderson, C. A. (2012). Direct and indirect relations between the Big
5 personality traits and aggressive and violent behaviour. Personality and
Individual Differences, 52, 870875.
Becker, S., & McCorkel, J. A. (2011). The gender of criminal opportunity: The impact
of male co-offenders on womens crime. Feminist Criminology, 6, 79110.
Blanchette, K., & Brown, S. L. (2006). The assessment and treatment of women
offenders: An integrated perspective. Chichester: Wiley.
Budd, T., Sharp, C., & Mayhew, P. (2005). Offending in England and Wales: First
results from the 2003 crime and justice survey. In Home ofce research study.
London: Home Ofce.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysencks PEN system: Three-
and ve-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
308317.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and
conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and
Individual Differences, 12, 887898.
Cramer, D. (2003). Advanced quantitative data analysis. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Dunaway, R. G., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., & Evans, T. D. (2000). The myth of social
class and crime revisited: An examination of class and adult criminality.
Criminology, 38, 589632.
Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and crime: Where do we stand? Psychology, Crime
& Law, 2, 143156.
Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J. (1973). The personality of female prisoners. British
Journal of Psychiatry, 123, 693698.
Farrington, D. P. (1998). Predictors, causes and correlates of male youth violence.
Crime and Justice, 24, 421475.
Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Hawkins, J., Catalano, R., Hill, K., & Kosterman, R. (2003).
Comparing delinquency careers in court records and self-reports. Criminology,
41, 933958.
Farrington, D. P., & Loeber, R. (2000). Some benets of dichotomization in
psychiatric and criminological research. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health,
10, 100122.
Farrington, D. P., & West, D. J. (1993). Criminal, penal and life histories of chronic
offenders: Risk and protective factors and early identication. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 3, 492523.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Hare, R. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 23, 2554.
Heaven, P. C. L. (1996). Personality and self-reported delinquency: Analysis of the
Big Five personality dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 20,
4754.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R. W., Moftt, T. E., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994).
The Little Five: Exploring the nomological network of the Five-Factor Model
of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development, 65, 160178.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),
Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guildford Press.
Jolliffe, D., Murray, J., Farrington, D., & Vannick, C. (2012). Testing the Cambridge
quality checklists on a review of disrupted families and crime. Criminal
Behaviour & Mental Health, 22, 30314.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 9, 441476.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2009). A systematic review of the relationship
between childhood impulsiveness and later violence. In M. McMurran & R.
Howard (Eds.), Personality, personality disorder and violence (pp. 4061). London:
Wiley.
Jones, S. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, antisocial behavior, and
aggression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 329337.
52 D. Jolliffe / Personality and Individual Differences 55 (2013) 4752
Juby, H., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Disentangling the link between disrupted
families and delinquency. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 2240.
Komarovskaya, I., Booker Loper, A., & Warren, J. (2007). The role of impulsivity in
antisocial and violent behavior and personality disorders among incarcerated
women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 14991515.
Kruegar, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moftt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva, P. A.
(1994). Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence
from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328338.
Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moftt, T. E., Wikstrom, P. O., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000).
The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending:
The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 109, 563574.
Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (in press). Measurement invariance of
Big-Five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity,
maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology. (online rst).
Meier, M. H., Slutske, W. S., Arndt, S., & Cadoret, R. J. (2008). Impulsive and callous
traits are more strongly associated with delinquent behavior in higher risk
neighborhoods among boys and girls. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117,
377385.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation
to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765798.
Newton, M. (1998). Changes in measure of personality, hostility and locus of control
during residence in a prison therapeutic community. Legal and Criminological
Psychology, 3, 209223.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career
research: New analysis of the Cambridge study of delinquent development.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Comparison of self-report and ofcial data
for measuring crime. In J. V. Pepper & C. V. Petrie (Eds.), Measurement problems
in criminal justice research: Workshop summary (pp. 4394). Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Walker, A., OBrien, M., Traynor, J., Fox, K., Goddard, E., & Foster, K. (2002). Living in
Britain. London: Ofce of National Statistics.
White, J. L., Moftt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D. J., Needles, D. J., & Stouthamer-
Loeber, M. (1994). Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to
delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 192205.
Zimmerman, G. M. (2010). Impulsivity, offending, and the neighborhood:
Investigating the person-context nexus. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26,
301332.