Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice

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

Race and (antisocial) personality

⁎
Matt DeLisi
Iowa State University, 203A East Hall 510 Farm House Lane Ames, Iowa 50011-1070, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Background: Race differences in crime and violence are dramatic in the United States but criminology has
Race avoided offering explanations due mostly to political correctness.
Personality Method: The current study draws on research on personality, race differences in personality, race and self-
Self-control control, and race and psychopathy to examine whether personality is potentially useful for articulating race
Psychopathy
differences in offending.
Crime
Results: Findings on race differences in personality, self-control, and psychopathy are mixed and effect sizes
among significant findings are small. Relying on the street code, one of the few theories that explicitly attempts
to explain criminal violence perpetrated by African Americans, it is hypothesized that personality pathology
potentially drives the violent adaptations that are attributed to the code.
Conclusion: The race-crime-personality linkages are equivocal at best and more research is needed to gauge the
utility of personality as a basis for understanding race differences in crime and violence, particularly homicide.

1. Introduction
In a recent book, DeLisi, 2015) showcased how glaringly different
racial groups are on measures of crime—in this example homicide—by
reviewing research based on data from the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention. In their study, Hu, Webster, and Baker (2008) analyzed
trends from 1999 to 2005 using CDC data and disaggregated the firearm
homicide mortality rate per 100,000 by race and age group. For 15 to
19 year olds, among whites, the highest rate was 7.0 and the lowest rate
was 6.2. Among blacks, the highest rate was 56.4 and the lowest rate
was 48.5. In other words, the lowest black rate was nearly seven times
higher than the highest white rate. For 20 to 24 year olds, among
whites, the highest rate was 10.7 and the lowest rate was 9.0. Among
blacks, the highest black rate was 106.1 and the lowest rate was 94.2. In
other words, the lowest black rate was nearly nine times higher than the
highest white rate. For 25 to 29 year olds, among whites, the highest
rate was 8.4 and the lowest rate was 6.7. Among blacks, the highest
black rate was 93.1 and the lowest rate was 74.4. In other words, the
lowest black rate was nearly nine times higher than the highest white
rate.
These trends continued even in the less crime-prone years of the
age-crime curve. For 30 to 34 year olds, among whites, the highest rate
was 6.3 and the lowest rate was 5.1. Among blacks, the highest black
rate was 64.4 and the lowest rate was 44.0. In other words, the lowest
black rate was nearly seven times higher than the highest white rate.
For 35 to 39 year olds, among whites, the highest rate was 4.9 and the
lowest rate was 4.1. Among blacks, the highest black rate was 35.8 and
the lowest rate was 27.3. In other words, the lowest black rate was
nearly six times higher than the highest white rate. For 40 to 44 year
olds, among whites, the highest rate was 4.0 and the lowest rate was
3.4. Among blacks, the highest black rate was 26.2 and the lowest rate
was 20.3. In other words, the lowest black rate was five times higher
than the highest white rate.
Such extraordinary race differences in homicide mortality and by
extension, homicide offending and victimization demand an explana-
tion.1 But on this and many issues relating to race, criminology has been
mostly silent due to political correctness and fear of being labeled as
racist for offering explanations for black-white differences (Felson,
Deane, & Armstrong, 2008; Sampson and Wilson, 2005). A notable
exception is Anderson, 1999) code of the street theory which attributes
black disproportionate involvement in violent crime to subcultural
adaptations where various interpersonal signs of disrespect are

This article was processed by Drs. Boutwell and Wright.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: delisi@iastate.edu.
1
Other than heart disease, homicide is the main reason for life expectancy differences between whites and blacks, and blacks are between 5 and 10 times more likely than whites to kill
or be killed (O'Flaherty & Sethi, 2010). Much of the race differential in homicide relates to other involvement in antisocial behavior (which would potentially implicate differential
personality functioning). For instance, the black to white ratio for homicide involving other felonies, such as robbery is more than 10 to 1. For drug crimes, the ratio is nearly 8 to 1, and
for other arguments and assaults the ratio has ranged between 4 and 1 and 9 to 1 historically (O'Flaherty and Sethi, 2010).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.004
Received 6 January 2018; Accepted 2 May 2018
0047-2352/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: DeLisi, M., Journal of Criminal Justice (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2018.05.004
M. DeLisi
expected to be responded to with force. Recently, DeLisi, 2014) chal-
lenged the veracity of the street code by hypothesizing that the adap-
tations that Anderson describes—street adaptation among offenders
and decent adaptation among non-offenders—are themselves relatively
coherent groups based on likely personality profiles. From this per-
spective, an individual's personality drives social interaction patterns
and behavioral responses. With this idea in mind, the current article
explores the role of personality as a potentially useful construct for
understanding racial and ethnic differences in antisocial behavior by
utilizing theory and research on (1) personality and antisociality, (2)
race and personality, (3) race and self-control, and (4) race and psy-
chopathy. Suggestions for using personality-based research to under-
stand race differences in criminal offending are offered.
1.1. Personality and Antisociality
Personality functioning is critical for understanding behavior in
most domains of life.2 Several conceptual models for personality exist.
One of the earliest and most frequently studied is Eysenck's PEN model
which articulates psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism as the
“Big 3” components of personality (Eysenck, 1964, 1996; Eysenck,
1977; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985; also see, Zuckerman, 1997). Extra-
version is theorized to typify individuals with low cortical arousal who
seek stimuli from the environment to increase their arousal level. Given
their reduced arousal, Eysenck suggested that extraverts require higher
levels of stimulation to affect learning and are more challenging to
condition. Extraverts are typified as lively, active, assertive, sensation
seeking, carefree, dominant, surgent, and venturesome. Neuroticism is
characterized by a tendency toward negative emotionality that is the-
orized to result from a hyperactive autonomic nervous system and in-
creased emotional drives. Neurotics are typified as anxious, depressed,
guilty, tense, moody, emotional, and having low self-esteem. Psycho-
ticism is the dimension that most explicitly comports with antisocial
traits. It characterizes a person who is tough-minded, aggressive, cold,
egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathic, and creative.
Tellegen, 1982) developed the Multidimensional Personality Ques-
tionnaire to assess his three dimensional model of personality that in-
cluded positive emotionality, negative emotionality, and constraint.
Positive emotionality is the tendency to experience positive affective
experiences and is comprised of lower-order factors of wellbeing,
achievement, social potency, and social closeness. Negative emotion-
ality is the tendency to experience negative affective experiences and is
comprised of lower-order factors of alienation, aggression, and stress
reaction. Constraint is characterized by self-restraint and the inhibition
of emotional and behavioral responses and is comprised of lower-order
factors of harm avoidance, traditionalism, and control.
The Five Factor Model is a structural model of personality that
contains five dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism and its predominant
measures are the NEO-PI (Costa Jr. and McCrae, 1985) and NEO-PI-R
(Costa Jr. and McCrae, 1992). Neuroticism refers to the chronic level of
emotional adjustment and instability and includes facet scales for an-
xiety, angry hostility, depression, self-consciousness, impulsiveness,
and vulnerability. Extraversion refers to the quantity and intensity of
preferred interpersonal interactions, activity level, need for stimulation,
and capacity for joy. It includes facet scales for warmth, gregariousness,
assertiveness, activity, excitement seeking, and positive emotions.
2
Criminology has historically eschewed the use of personality to understand criminal
behavior despite evidence which indicated that various personality features were sig-
nificant in distinguishing offenders from non-offenders (cf., Andrews and Wormith, 1989;
Cochrane, 1974; DeLisi et al., 2010; Ellis, 1987; Furnham and Thompson, 1991;
Hindelang, 1972; Romero et al., 2003; Tennenbaum, 1977; Waldo and Dinitz, 1967). This
curious history was recently reviewed by Wright and DeLisi, 2015) who suggested that
criminology disavowed personality research on ideological grounds in favor of theoretical
explanations that were structural or sociological in scope.
2
Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Openness to experience involves the appreciation and seeking of ex-
periences. Open individuals are characterized as curious, imaginative,
willing to have novel experiences, and open to varied emotional ex-
periences. Closed individuals are characterized as conventional, con-
servative, dogmatic, rigid, and behaviorally set in their ways. It in-
cludes facet scales for fantasy, aesthetics, feelings, actions, ideas, and
values. Agreeableness refers to the kinds of interactions a person has
along a continuum from compassion to antagonism. High scorers on
agreeableness are good natured, trusting, soft-hearted, helping, and
altruistic. Low scorers tend to be cynical, rude, uncooperative, irritable,
and manipulative. It includes facet scales for trust, straightforwardness,
altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-mindedness. Con-
scientiousness captures the degree of organization, persistence, control,
and motivation in goal-directed behavior. High scorers are organized,
reliable, hardworking, self-directed, ambitious, and persevering. Low
scorers are aimless, unreliable, lazy, careless, negligent, and hedonistic.
It includes facet scales for competence, order, dutifulness, achievement
striving, self-discipline, and deliberation.
Within the Five Factor Model of Personality, a coherent profile of
personality traits is commonly seen among antisocial individuals.
Within Neuroticism, there is a tendency toward high anger and hosti-
lity, low self-consciousness, and high impulsiveness. Within
Extraversion, there is a tendency toward low warmth, low positive
emotions, and high excitement-seeking. There are not expected asso-
ciations within Openness to Experience. In structural models of per-
sonality, and strongest effects are expected for Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness. For Agreeableness, there is a tendency toward low
trust, straightforwardness, altruism, compliance, modesty, and tender-
mindedness. For Conscientiousness, there is a tendency toward low
competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline,
and deliberation. These profiles are supported by multiple meta-ana-
lytic studies (Jones, Miller, & Lynam, 2011; Miller & Lynam, 2001;
Samuel and Widiger, 2008).
Indeed, numerous empirical linkages have been established between
personality and antisocial behavior. Drawing on data from the Dunedin
Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study, Krueger, Schmutte,
Caspi, Moffitt, Campbell, and Silva (1994) examined the linkages be-
tween personality and criminal offending among 862 male and female
18 year-olds using the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire
(MPQ). Their findings were striking. The MPQ contains three super-
ordinate factors which are constraint, negative emotionality, and po-
sitive emotionality. Constraint was negatively correlated with self-re-
ports of delinquency, informant reports of delinquency, and court
convictions for both men and women. Constraint was not significantly
correlated with police contacts for either gender. Negative emotionality
was positively correlated with self- and informant-rated delinquency,
police contacts, and court convictions (with the exception of court
convictions among women). Positive emotionality was not significantly
correlated with any measure of antisocial conduct. The most versatile
and severe offenders differed significantly in personality from norma-
tive delinquents. The versatile offenders were characterized by a re-
jection of traditional values, thrill seeking, impulsivity, aggressiveness,
alienation, and lack of sociability. They scored extremely low on harm
avoidance and social closeness and uniquely high on alienation.
Cale, 2006) performed a meta-analysis of 52 studies using 97 sam-
ples containing 15,403 participants to review the association between
the three commonalities of Eysenck's and Tellegen's models, namely
personality features of extraversion/sociability, neuroticism/emotion-
ality, and impulsivity/disinhibition. These studies spanned an extra-
ordinary array of humanity and included schoolchildren, nonclinical
participants, prison inmates, children with Conduct Disorder, ag-
gressive delinquents, non-aggressive delinquents, participants who en-
joyed risky jobs, participants who enjoyed risky sporting activities,
criminal drug addicts, college students, twins, middle school students,
bullies, alcoholics, high school students, university undergraduates, and
diverse samples of criminals or persons with externalizing symptoms.
M. DeLisi
Cale reported significant relations between these three broadband
dimensions of personality and antisocial conduct. Among 94 samples,
73% of the samples had positive effect sizes for extraversion/sociability
and the mean effect size was r = 0.10. Among 90 samples, 84% of the
samples had positive effect sizes for neuroticism/emotionality and the
mean effect size was r = 0.18. Among 96 samples, 98% of the samples
had positive effect sizes for impulsivity/disinhibition and the mean
effect size was r = 0.37. In other words, impulsivity/disinhibition was
clearly the strongest personality link to antisocial behavior.
These associations are not limited to normal personality, but are
also seen among the personality disordered. Decuyper, De Pauw, De
Fruyt, De Bolle, and De Clercq (2009) performed a meta-analysis of 26
independent samples of 6913 participants for psychopathy and 57 in-
dependent samples of 16,424 participants for Antisocial Personality
Disorder. What did their findings reveal? In terms of findings with an
effect size of r ≥│0.20│, persons with Antisocial Personality Disorder
were angry, hostile, impulsive, excitement-seeking, distrustful, devious,
egocentric, tough-minded, incompetent, hasty, disloyal, and lacking in
self-discipline. The effects among psychopathic persons were similar
although psychopaths were significantly more antagonistic in addition
to being colder interpersonally and negatively affected by anxiety.
1.2. Race and personality
Against this backdrop of antisocial personality features, it is im-
portant to examine race differences in personality to see if anything can
be useful for understanding race differences in offending. Using a na-
tionally presentative sample of Americans, Goldberg, Sweeney,
Merenda, and Hughes (1998) found that blacks and Hispanics had
significantly lower scores on Conscientiousness than whites, but no
other significant differences were found. Based on data from the Na-
tional Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Blum et al. (2000)
found that black and Hispanic youth were more likely than white youth
to engage in violent conduct whereas white youth were more prone to
internalizing symptoms including suicide attempts. Using data from
middle schoolers in the United States, McLaughlin, Hilt, and Nolen-
Hoeksema (2007) found that Hispanic females reported experiencing
greater levels of anxiety, depression, and aggression than white or black
girls. Black males reported the highest levels of overtly aggressive be-
haviors, anxiety, and disordered eating than white or Hispanic males.
Foldes, Duehr, and Ones (2008) conducted a large-scale meta-ana-
lysis of group differences in personality among whites, blacks, His-
panics, Asians, and American Indians. Several important findings were
produced. They found small to moderate black-white differences in
personality with whites scoring higher than blacks on emotional sta-
bility, Extraversion and within Extraversion, sociability. Hispanic-white
comparisons were similarly small, and white-Asian differences were
slight with the exception of Conscientiousness factors which favored
Asians. More moderate findings were found in white-American Indian
comparisons where whites had greater emotional stability, Extraver-
sion, and Agreeableness and American Indians scored higher on Con-
scientiousness. The greatest contrasts were seen in comparisons of
personality between blacks and Asians.
Research of race differences in personality among general popula-
tion samples is not very revealing and indicates few differences, and
where there are differences, they tend to be small in their effects.
Research of race differences in personality among antisocial samples
reveals a different picture. Cross and Tracy (1971) found that black
delinquents had a shorter time horizon for gratification delay and a
more external locus of control than white delinquents. In a study of
black and white males who were participants in a domestic violence
abatement counseling program, Hamberger and Hastings (1992) re-
ported large differences. Black males scored significantly higher than
whites on measures of narcissism, paranoia, hypomania, drug use, and
psychotic delusions. Blacks were also more aggressive than whites.
Blacks have been rated as having more antisocial personality features
3
Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
and aversive attitudes than whites among probation officers (Bridges &
Steen, 1998). Cooper, Wood, Orcutt, and Albino (2003) reported racial
similarities between whites and blacks in a sample of ~2000 adoles-
cents whereby a general syndrome toward behavioral disinhibition was
associated with diverse antisocial and delinquent acts. However, they
also found that thrill-seeking was more strongly associated with de-
viance among white than black youth.
Some criminological models expressly or indirectly suggest that race
differences (particularly black-white differences) in personality func-
tioning are an important source of variation for race differences in
delinquency and violent crime. In social information processing theory,
hostile attribution bias is more predictive of violence among black of-
fenders than white offenders (Vitale et al., 2005). In general strain
theory African Americans are theorized to experience more and greater
types of strain that produce higher levels of negative emotionality,
especially anger and hostility than whites. These differences in strain,
anger, and hostility manifest in greater violence among blacks
(Kaufman, Rebellon, Thaxton, & Agnew, 2008; also see, Jang &
Johnson, 2003; Nyborg & Curry, 2003). In the previously mentioned
code of the street, Anderson, 1999) developed a theory specifically for
urban African Americans that attempts to explain their voluminous
involvement in violent crime. If one were to translate the street code
into personality parlance, it would be characterized by high anger and
hostility, low altruism, high sensation seeking, high assertiveness, and
low scores on most facets of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
These personality features lend themselves to impulsive overreactions
to perceived threats.
1.3. Race and self-control
Although self-control as it is understood in criminology is believed
to be disjointed from personality, it is not disjointed substantively. At
the most basic level, self-control is indicative of the core personality
construct of Conscientiousness, and the constitutive elements of self-
control in Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) are effectively personality
constructs. Unfortunately, the literature on race differences in self-
control is disparate and mixed with some research indicating null race
differences, others suggesting slight race differences, and still other
research provided evidence of acute race differences in self-control. For
instance, research using exclusively black samples has shown that self-
control operates as theorized by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) and is
associated with problem behaviors (Vazsonyi and Crosswhite, 2004)
just as has been shown in majority white samples. A study of jail in-
mates found that white inmates had the lowest self-control followed by
Hispanic inmates and black inmates. In other words, blacks had the best
self-control. However, the effects of self-control on crime in this crim-
inal sample were consistent across racial groupings (De Li, 2005).
Others have theorized that blacks have significantly worse self-
control than whites based on blacks' disproportionate involvement in
motor vehicle accidents, failure to wear a seat belt, marijuana use, risky
sexual behaviors, and contracting sexually transmitted diseases
(Greenberg, 2008). In this way, race differences in mortality and mor-
bidity are partially understood as reflecting race differences in pre-
ventive behaviors that require planning, a long time horizon, and the
delay of gratification.
Studies of the constituent parts of self-control as conceptualized by
Gottfredson and Hirschi indicate that core self-regulation deficits by
race are a potentially fruitful explanation of race differences in of-
fending. In a study using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999, Beaver, Wright, and DeLisi (2011)
reported dramatic race differences in cognitive skills and self-control
with blacks evincing lower cognitive skills and lower self-control. The
self-control differences were based on teacher assessments of the stu-
dent's self-control, teacher assessments of the student's approach to
learning, ability to concentrate, and remain focused on difficult tasks,
and the student's externalizing behaviors including the frequency with
M. DeLisi
which the child argues, fights, acts impulsively, and gets angry.
These race differences are enduring and result in race differences in
school sanctions which are commonly attributable to discriminatory
enforcement practices. However, race differences in prior antisocial
behavior have been shown to completely account for race differences in
school suspensions (Wright, Morgan, Coyne, Beaver, and Barnes, 2014).
Subsequent research using these data also found that a severe subgroup
of children characterized by low self-control was the only subgroup
where nonwhite children were the majority (Vaughn, DeLisi, Beaver,
and Wright, 2008). Children with severe self-control impairments had
lower interpersonal skills, lower social skills, greater parental physical
punishment, lower approaches to learning, and reduced cognitive skills.
In a study of 164 male murderers imprisoned in Georgia and their
subsequent parole risk, Heilbrun, Heilbrun, and Heilbrun (1978) found
that those who committed impulsive murders also were most likely to
fail on parole because of their low self-control. Moreover, blacks were
more likely than whites to commit impulsive homicides, and their
greater parole failure reflected a basic deficit in complying with the
conditions of parole (also see, Heilbrun & Heilbrun, 1977).3 In other
words, racial differences were seen in impulsivity, impulsive lethal
violence, and self-control capability that is needed for complying with
parole. Other studies have noted racial differences in temperamental
features that relate to self-regulation. Using data from the Child De-
velopment Project, a longitudinal, multi-site study of children's ad-
justment from ages 5 to 16, Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates,
and Pettit (2004) reported that blacks scored higher than whites on
measures of difficult temperament, unadaptable, and resistance to
control. Their study focused on the effects of parental physical dis-
cipline and subsequent externalizing behaviors. Whereas physical dis-
cipline was associated with greater externalizing behaviors among
whites, it was associated with reduced externalizing behaviors among
blacks. Based on the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth De-
velopment, Miner and Clarke-Stewart (2008) examined temperamental
features and trajectories of externalizing behaviors among children ages
2, 3, 4, 7, and 9 years. They found that caregivers and teachers alike
rated African American children as having greater externalizing fea-
tures than whites at all ages and the effects got stronger over time
(mothers' ratings indicated the opposite effect). These externalizing
behaviors included a range of aversive tendencies including displays of
defiance, disobedience, being touchy or petulant, having a hot temper,
stubbornness, sullenness, and irritability, demandingness, and sudden
changes in mood.
If one takes a strictly criminological etiological account of self-
control, then sharp race differences in self-control should be expected.
Data from the Pittsburgh Youth Study, a prospective longitudinal study
of youth, Peeples and Loeber, 1994) found that black youth were sig-
nificantly more likely to be reared in a single-parent home, had less
parental supervision, and had less parental monitoring than white
youth. These characteristics are theorized to produce low self-control
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Moreover, blacks were more hyperactive
than whites although the differences were not significant. Blacks are
also more likely to be subject to parental corporal punishment and these
differences also have resulted in increased negative affect, impulsivity,
and discipline-related anger (Lorber, O'Leary, and Smith Slep, 2011).
Given the race differences in exposure to single-parent homes and
concomitant reductions in parental supervision and monitoring relative
3
A potential explanation for race differences in homicide offending/victimization
generally and impulsive homicide offending/victimization specifically centers on the
putative warrior gene monoamine oxidase A or MAOA. Low-activity variants of MAOA
are the risk alleles and have been linked to antisocial and violent behaviors. Moreover,
the rare 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene is associated with delinquency and violence at
levels that are twice as high as carriers of other MAOA variants (Guo et al., 2008).
However, only 0.1% of whites carry the 2-repeat allele of MAOA, but it more prevalent
among African Americans and has been linked to a bevy of antisocial behaviors and
subsequent criminal justice system statuses (Beaver et al., 2013; Beaver, Barnes, &
Boutwell, 2014).
4
Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
to families with two parents, blacks would a priori have lower self-
control than whites.
1.4. Race and psychopathy
A relatively narrow literature has investigated the potential of
psychopathy—a particularly pernicious form of personality dysfunc-
tion—as an explanation for race differences in crime and violent con-
duct. Again, the literature is mostly equivocal about race differences in
psychopathic personality features. In the manual for the Psychopathy
Checklist: Youth Version (PCL:YV; Forth, Kosson, & Hare, 2003), blacks
are significantly more psychopathic than whites with an effect size of
Cohen's d = 0.61 which is moderate in size. Skeem, Edens, Camp, and
Colwell, 2004) performed a meta-analysis of 21 studies that en-
compassed 8890 participants from correctional, substance abusing, and
psychiatric samples. They found significant race differences in psy-
chopathy although the effect size was quite small. Blacks averaged
about 0.7 points higher than whites on the Psychopathy Checklist-Re-
vised (PCL-R) and the size of this effect was small (Cohen's d = 0.11).
Perhaps due to the smallness of this effect, the authors concluded that
“research to date indicates no reliable, meaningful differences between
Blacks and Whites on the most widely accepted measure of psychopathy
(Skeem, Edens, Camp, and Colwell, 2004, p. 520).
McCoy and Edens (2006) conducted a meta-analysis of 16 studies
spanning 2199 participants. These studies included samples of diverse
groups including adjudicated delinquents, incarcerated adolescents,
juvenile probationers, juvenile prisoners, juveniles charged with of-
fenses in adult/criminal court, adjudicated substance-abusing youth,
and incarcerated juvenile sex offenders. In terms of race, the samples
ranged from 17% Black to 83% Black. The effect size differences in
psychopathy by race were variable ranging from Cohen's d = −0.40
(where whites were more psychopathic than blacks) to Cohen's
d = 0.61. Overall, McCoy and Edens (2006) found that blacks had
higher psychopathy scores than whites although the effect was small
(Cohen's d = 0.20).
In a paper on racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic per-
sonality, Lynn, 2002) examines many content areas that bear not only
on psychopathy but also directly relate to self-control as conceptualized
in criminology by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990). Lynn draws on dis-
parate sources of data that are inclusive as possible of the various racial
and ethnic groups in the United States. In a review of studies of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) that used data
from the United States, Japan, and Nigeria, significant racial and ethnic
differences were found. Relative to whites, Native Americans or
American Indians had the highest scores on the Psychopathic deviate
scale of the MMPI followed by Hispanics and blacks. All three of these
groups had significantly higher psychopathy scores than whites. In all
studies that included data on East Asians, the latter had significantly
lower psychopathy scores than whites. Data on Conduct Disorder pro-
duced similar results. Based on studies employing samples from the
United States, United Kingdom, Hong Kong, Mauritius, and The Neth-
erlands, significant racial and ethnic differences were once again found.
Native Americans, blacks, and Hispanics had significantly higher scores
on Conduct Disorder than whites based on prevalence estimates and
effect sizes. East Asians had lower scores than whites. For ADHD, dif-
ferent patters emerged with blacks significantly exceeding whites.
However, whites had greater ADHD symptoms and prevalence than
Hispanics and Eats Asians.
Lynn, 2002) also reviewed several forms of externalizing behaviors
including school suspensions and exclusions, moral values, responsi-
bility with honoring financial obligations, and diverse forms of crime
spanning homicide, rape, robbery, burglary, auto theft, assault, do-
mestic abuse/violence, indices of violent crime, recidivism, and im-
prisonment. Among these data, a clear gradient was found with blacks
having the greatest involvement followed by Hispanics, whites, and
Asians. In studies that included them, Native Americans were either the
M. DeLisi
most severe group or second only to blacks.
Other behavioral outcomes that relate to gratification delay, tena-
city and capacity for long-term investments, recklessness, responsi-
bility, and impulsivity were also reviewed. Although these relate to
psychopathy, they also relate expressly to self-control theory within
criminology and define an individual whose global deficits in self-reg-
ulation produce maladaptive behaviors in a host of domains. On these,
the results were again mixed with Hispanics engaging in behaviors that
conveyed the greatest recklessness followed by blacks and whites. One
conclusion to draw from Lynn, 2002) review is that core differences in
self-regulation deficits and antisocial personality/psychopathic traits
are an important source of variation that likely produce some of the
sharp behavioral differences seen among whites, blacks, Hispanics, and
Asians in criminal behavior. On this point and larger issues, there was
sharp disagreement with Lynn's work (Skeem, Edens, Sanford, and
Colwell, 2003; Zuckerman, 2003; also see, Lynn, 2003).
2. Discussion
Equivocation is seemingly the best way to characterize the research
on race differences in personality functioning, race differences in self-
control, and race differences in psychopathy. Many studies produce null
to significant effects albeit with miniscule effect sizes. But other studies
particularly those that examine self-regulation and its correlated neu-
rocognitive features show sharp racial differences. This is important
because early-emerging temperamental and personality functioning
that centers on behavioral regulation, emotional regulation, and cog-
nition are signal variables for predicting subsequent delinquency,
crime, violence, and socially maladaptive behaviors (DeLisi & Vaughn,
2014; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Thus they are potentially im-
portant variables for understanding the severe race differences in
criminal offending and violence perpetration as implicated by theory
(e.g., Anderson, 1999) and the CDC results described at the introduc-
tion.
Of the features of personality, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness
are the dimensions with the most thorough association with antisocial
behavior. They are also personality features that are thoroughly lacking
if one considers theoretical work (e.g., Anderson, 1999) that was de-
signed to specifically explain interpersonal violence such as impulsive
homicide among the African American male population. The facets of
Conscientiousness are competence, order, dutifulness, achievement-
striving, self-discipline, and deliberation. Low scorers on competence
are unable or unwilling to complete tasks and responsibilities and tend
to misjudge situations. Low scorers on order are haphazard and tolerate
disorder in their lives and in their home and social environments. Low
scorers on dutifulness see little value in complying with rules and ex-
pectations and thus are rule-breaking in their conduct. Low scorers on
achievement-striving extend little effort, do just enough to get by in
situations, or simply fail. Low scorers on self-discipline are lazy and
waste their time with unproductive activities. Low scorers on delib-
eration are not cautious and instead rush into situations or behavioral
responses without appropriately thinking through the potential rami-
fications.
The facets of Agreeableness are trust, compliance, altruism,
straightforwardness, modesty, and tender-mindedness. Low scorers on
trust are distrustful of other people and see them as adversaries or
threats. Low scorers on compliance fail to follow through with re-
sponsibilities. Low scorers on altruism are inconsiderate of others and
focused on the self. They are oblivious to their broader connection to
humanity. Low scorers on straightforwardness are devious and conning.
Low scorers on modesty are braggarts who have an excessive sense of
entitlement or self-worth. Low scorers on tender-mindedness are cun-
ning, harsh, and retributive.
Taken together, low scorers on Conscientiousness and
Agreeableness are exceedingly likely to be involved in crime as in-
dicated by meta-analyses (Jones et al., 2011; Miller & Lynam, 2001).
5
Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Moreover, individuals with these personality features are also precisely
the kind of individuals who would respond to innocuous forms of social
interaction (e.g., direct eye contact, inadvertent contact, and other
trivial behaviors that initiate street code responses) with violence and
even lethal violence. My confidence in this assertion is bolstered by
qualitative research findings on criminal offenders particularly research
that illuminates violent offenders' accounts for why they respond to
various normative situations with violence (e.g., Brookman, Bennett,
Hochstetler, and Copes, 2011; Copes & Hochstetler, 2003; Gunter,
2008). Although the offenders' accounts are framed as highlighting the
salience of the code of the street, it is my contention that the street code
is derivative of higher order constructs in the personality domain. Street
code rationalizations for violence and lethal violence are also seen
among criminal and inmate samples in cultures outside the United
States and among participants other than African Americans. This
suggests the causal force is not cultural or subcultural, but individual-
level.4 Indeed, an investigation of the code of the street with geneti-
cally-sensitive data found that youth with the greatest number of ge-
netic risk factors were most likely to subscribe to the street code
(Simons, Lei, Beach, Brody, Philibert, and Gibbons, 2012).
To date, no study of the street code has adequately controlled for
race differences in personality functioning. This means that we do not
know whether the street code would survive the competing effects of
personality dimensions and whether race differences on these dimen-
sions are also salient for understanding race differences in violence.
Moreover, it is generally unknown whether youth who ascribe to the
street code are characterized by low self-control or are psychopathic
although both characterizations seem likely.
It is not surprising that the dominant explanation for race differ-
ences in criminal violence attributes those differences to structural and
subcultural forces for the tendency to skirt examinations of individual-
level constructs to understand ethnic differences in violence is common
in criminology. Unfortunately, the research reviewed here on person-
ality, self-control, and psychopathy does not shed powerful light on
race differences either. However, many types of data can be utilized to
see whether personality—which is an enduring and significant pre-
dictor of so many life outcomes and behaviors—is also responsible for
the various racial and ethnic differences that are seen in offending,
victimization, and criminal justice system involvement.
References
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner
City. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Andrews, D. A., & Wormith, J. S. (1989). Personality and crime: Knowledge destruction and,
construction in criminology. Justice Quarterly. 6(3), 289–309.
Beaver, K. M., Barnes, J. C., & Boutwell, B. B. (2014). The 2-repeat allele of the MAOA
gene confers an increased risk for shooting and stabbing behaviors. Psychiatric
Quarterly, 85(3), 257–265.
Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., Boutwell, B. B., Barnes, J. C., DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G.
(2013). Exploring the association between the 2-repeat allele of the MAOA gene
promoter polymorphism and psychopathic personality traits, arrests, incarceration,
and lifetime antisocial behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(2),
164–168.
Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2011). The racist teacher revisited: Race and
social skills in a nationally representative sample of American children. In R. J.
Newley (Ed.). Classrooms: Management, Effectiveness, and Challenges (pp. 115–132).
New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Blum, R. W., Beuhring, T., Shew, M. L., Bearinger, L. H., Sieving, R. E., & Resnick, M. D.
(2000). The effects of race/ethnicity, income, and family structure on adolescent risk
behaviors. American Journal of Public Health, 90(12), 1879–1884.
Bridges, G. S., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile
offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological
Review, 63, 554–570.
Brookman, F., Bennett, T., Hochstetler, A., & Copes, H. (2011). The ‘code of the Street'and
4
Identical behavioral responses to putative threats to self or signs of disrespect are seen
internationally (Brookman et al., 2011; Dalrymple, 2001; Gunter, 2008), among diverse
racial and ethnic groups (Brookman, Bennett, Hochstetler, & Copes, 2011; Dalrymple,
2001; Gunter, 2008; Taylor, Esbensen, Brick, and Freng, 2010) and in prison cultures that
are not urban settings theorized by Anderson
M. DeLisi
the generation of street violence in the UK. European Journal of Criminology, 8(1),
17–31.
Cale, E. M. (2006). A quantitative review of the relations between the “big 3” higher order
personality dimensions and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality,
40(3), 250–284.
Cochrane, R. (1974). Crime and personality: Theory and evidence. Bulletin of the British
Psychological Society, 27, 19–22.
Cooper, M. L., Wood, P. K., Orcutt, H. K., & Albino, A. (2003). Personality and the pre-
disposition to engage in risky or problem behaviors during adolescence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(2), 390–410.
Copes, H., & Hochstetler, A. (2003). Situational construction of masculinity among male
street thieves. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 32(3), 279–304.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL:
Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and
NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Cross, H. J., & Tracy, J. J. (1971). Personality factors in delinquent boys: Differences
between blacks and whites. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 8(1), 10–22.
Dalrymple, T. (2001). Life at the Bottom: The Worldview that makes the Underclass. Chicago,
IL: Ivan R. Dee.
De Li, S. (2005). Race, self-control, and drug problems among jail inmates. Journal of Drug
Issues, 35(4), 645–663.
Decuyper, M., De Pauw, S., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., & De Clercq, B. J. (2009). A meta-
analysis of psychopathy-, antisocial PD-and FFM associations. European Journal of
Personality, 23(7), 531–565.
DeLisi, M. (2014). Antisocial traits murdered the code of the street in a battle for respect.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(6), 431–432.
DeLisi, M. (2015). Homicide. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Vaughn, M. G., Trulson, C. R., Kosloski, A. E., Drury, A. J., ...
Wright, J. P. (2010). Personality, gender, and self-control theory revisited: Results
from a sample of institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Applied Psychology in Criminal
Justice, 6(1), 31–46.
DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Foundation for a temperament-based theory of an-
tisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice,
42(1), 10–25.
Ellis, L. (1987). Relationships of criminality and psychopathy with eight other apparent
behavioral manifestations of sub-optimal arousal. Personality and Individual
Differences, 8(6), 905–925.
Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Crime and Personality. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Crime and Personality (3rd Ed.). London: Routledge & Keegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. J. (1996). Personality and crime: Where do we stand? Psychology, Crime &
Law, 2, 143–152.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and Individual Differences. New York:
Plenum Press.
Felson, R. B., Deane, G., & Armstrong, D. P. (2008). Do theories of crime or violence
explain race differences in delinquency? Social Science Research, 37(2), 624–641.
Foldes, H. J., Duehr, E. E., & Ones, D. S. (2008). Group differences in personality: Meta-
analyses comparing five U.S. racial groups. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 579–616.
Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare PCL:YV technical manual. Toronto,
Ontario: Multi-Health Systems.
Furnham, A., & Thompson, J. (1991). Personality and self-reported delinquency.
Personality and Individual Differences, 12(6), 585–593.
Goldberg, L. R., Sweeney, D., Merenda, P. F., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Demographic
variables and personality: The effects of gender, age, education, and ethnic/racial
status on self-descriptions of personality attributes. Personality and Individual
Differences, 24(3), 393–403.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Greenberg, D. F. (2008). Age, sex, and racial distributions of crime. In E. Goode (Ed.). Out
of Control: Assessing the General Theory of Crime (pp. 38–48). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Gunter, A. (2008). Growing up bad: Black youth road culture and badness in an East
London neighbourhood. Crime, Media, Culture, 4(3), 349–366.
Guo, G., Ou, X. M., Roettger, M., & Shih, J. C. (2008). The VNTR 2 repeat in MAOA and
delinquent behavior in adolescence and young adulthood: associations and MAOA
promoter activity. European Journal of Human Genetics, 16(5), 626–634.
Hamberger, L. K., & Hastings, J. E. (1992). Racial differences on the MCMI in an out-
patient clinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(1), 90–95.
Heilbrun, A. B., & Heilbrun, K. S. (1977). The black minority criminal and violent crime:
The role of self-control. The British Journal of Criminology, 370–377.
Heilbrun, A. B., Heilbrun, L. C., & Heilbrun, K. L. (1978). Impulsive and premeditated
homicide: An analysis of subsequent parole risk of the murderer. The Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 69, 108–114.
Hindelang, M. J. (1972). Relationship of self-reported delinquency to scales of the CPI and
the MMPI. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology & Police Science, 63, 75–81.
Hu, G., Webster, D., & Baker, S. P. (2008). Hidden homicide increases in the USA,
1999–2005. Journal of Urban Health, 85(4), 597–606.
Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2003). Strain, negative emotions, and deviant coping among
African Americans: A test of general strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
19(1), 79–105.
Jones, S. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). Personality, antisocial behavior, and
aggression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 329–337.
Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx
Kaufman, J. M., Rebellon, C. J., Thaxton, S., & Agnew, R. (2008). A general strain theory
of racial differences in criminal offending. Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 41(3), 421–437.
Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, 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(2), 328–338.
Lansford, J. E., Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (2004). Ethnic
differences in the link between physical discipline and later adolescent externalizing
behaviors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(4), 801–812.
Lorber, M. F., O'Leary, S. G., & Smith Slep, A. M. (2011). An initial evaluation of the role
of emotion and impulsivity in explaining racial/ethnic differences in the use of cor-
poral punishment. Developmental Psychology, 47(6), 1744–1749.
Lynn, R. (2002). Racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32(2), 273–316.
Lynn, R. (2003). Race differences in psychopathic personality: A reply to Skeem and
Zuckerman. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1471–1477.
McCoy, W. K., & Edens, J. F. (2006). Do black and white youths differ in levels of psy-
chopathic traits? A meta-analysis of the psychopathy checklist measures. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(2), 386.
McLaughlin, K. A., Hilt, L. M., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2007). Racial/ethnic differences in
internalizing and externalizing symptoms in adolescents. Journal of Abnormal Child
Psychology, 35(5), 801–816.
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to
antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765–798.
Miner, J. L., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2008). Trajectories of externalizing behavior from
age 2 to age 9: Relations with gender, temperament, ethnicity, parenting, and rater.
Developmental Psychology, 44(3), 771–786.
Nyborg, V. M., & Curry, J. F. (2003). The impact of perceived racism: Psychological
symptoms among African American boys. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent
Psychology, 32(2), 258–266.
O'Flaherty, B., & Sethi, R. (2010). Homicide in black and white. Journal of Urban
Economics, 68(3), 215–230.
Peeples, F., & Loeber, R. (1994). Do individual factors and neighborhood context explain
ethnic differences in juvenile delinquency? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10(2),
141–157.
Romero, E., Gomez-Fraguela, A., Luengo, A. N., & Sobral, J. (2003). The self-control
construct in the general theory of crime: An investigation in terms of personality
psychology. Psychology, Crime & Law, 9(1), 61–86.
Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (2005). Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban in-
equality. In S. L. Gabbidon, & H. T. Greene (Eds.). Race, Crime, and Justice: A Reader
(pp. 177–190). New York, NY: Routledge.
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships be-
tween the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342.
Simons, R. L., Lei, M. K., Beach, S. R., Brody, G. H., Philibert, R. A., & Gibbons, F. X.
(2012). Social adversity, genetic variation, street code, and aggression: A genetically
informed model of violent behavior. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 10(1), 3–24.
Skeem, J. L., Edens, J. F., Camp, J., & Colwell, L. H. (2004). Are there ethnic differences in
levels of psychopathy? A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 28(5), 505–527.
Skeem, J. L., Edens, J. F., Sanford, G. M., & Colwell, L. H. (2003). Psychopathic per-
sonality and racial/ethnic differences reconsidered: A reply to Lynn (2002).
Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1439–1462.
Taylor, T. J., Esbensen, F. A., Brick, B. T., & Freng, A. (2010). Exploring the measurement
quality of an attitudinal scale of street code-related violence: Similarities and dif-
ferences across groups and contexts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 8(3),
187–212.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief Manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Tennenbaum, D. J. (1977). Personality and criminality a summary and implications of the
literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5(3), 225–235.
Vaughn, M. G., DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2008). Identifying latent classes
of behavioral risk based on early childhood manifestations of self-control. Youth
Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7(1), 16–31.
Vazsonyi, A. T., & Crosswhite, J. M. (2004). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general
theory of crime in African American adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 41(4), 407–432.
Vitale, J. E., Newman, J. P., Serin, R. C., & Bolt, D. M. (2005). Hostile attributions in
incarcerated adult male offenders: An exploration of diverse pathways. Aggressive
Behavior, 31(2), 99–115.
Waldo, G. P., & Dinitz, S. (1967). Personality attributes of the criminal: An analysis of
research studies, 1950-65. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 4(2),
185–202.
Wright, J. P., & DeLisi, M. (2015). Conservative Criminology: A Call to Restore Balance to the
Social Sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wright, J. P., Morgan, M. A., Coyne, M. A., Beaver, K. M., & Barnes, J. C. (2014). Prior
problem behavior accounts for the racial gap in school suspensions. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 42(3), 257–266.
Zuckerman, M. (1997). The psychobiological basis of personality. In H. Nyborg (Ed.). The
Scientific Study of Human Nature: Tribute to Hans J. Eysenck at 80 (pp. 3–16). Oxford,
England: Pergamon.
Zuckerman, M. (2003). Are there racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic person-
ality? A critique of Lynn's (2002) racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic per-
sonality. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(6), 1463–1469.