PREDICTING CRIMINALITY FROM PERSONALITY: BIG FIVE MODEL AND

The Big Five Model, Criminality and Psychoticism

- 1 -

PREDICTING CRIMINALITY FROM PERSONALITY: BIG FIVE MODEL AND

PSYCHOTICISM AMONG INMATES IN JAMES CAMP PRISON

BY

AGAMA PATRICK EDEM

[10254306]

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY,

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF THE BACHELOR OF ARTS [HONS] DEGREE

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF GHANA

LEGON

MAY 2011


- 2 -

DECLARATION AND APPROVAL

I, Agama Patrick Edem, hereby declare that except for the references to other people‟s work

which has been duly acknowledged, the work presented here was done by me as student of the

Department of Psychology, University of Ghana, Legon 2010/2011 academic year. This work

has never been submitted in whole or in part anywhere for a degree. The work is submitted with

the approval of my supervisor, Dr. Adote Anum.

AGAMA PATRICK EDEM DR. ADOTE ANUM

(STUDENT) (SUPERVISOR)


- 3 -

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to the Almighty God who gave me strength to conduct the research. I am

grateful to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Agama, for their support and encouragement. Finally I

dedicate this work to my supervisor, Dr. Adote Anum, who guided me thoroughly to the end of

this work.


- 4 -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

My sincere gratitude first and foremost goes to Dr. Adote Anum, my supervisor, whose useful

advice, criticisms and commitment has seen me successful through this work.

I am also grateful to Mr. Francis Baah (Ghana Prisons Service) for the immense support and

contribution towards the success of the work.

To my parents Mr. George Agama and Mrs. Emma Afari Agama, I say, God bless you. Also to

my great research assistants (Selasie, Natasha, Sonia and Carl) and to respondents (inmates of

James Camp Prison), I say, thank you all for your time and assistants.

Above all, I am most thankful to the Almighty God for His love and providence which has kept

me going all this while.


- 5 -

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research was to examine changes in levels of Extraversion, Neuroticism and

Agreeableness are associated with levels of Psychoticism among inmates in James Camp Prison.

Forty inmates between the ages of eighteen (18) and seventy (70) were purposively sampled to

respond to the 50-Item Set of IPIP Big-Five Personality Inventory and the short version of the

Psychoticism scale. The data collected was analyzed by correlating the variables of the

hypotheses using the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation. The results showed that there exist

a significant negative relationship between Extraversion and Psychoticism. Contrary to

predictions there was no relation between Agreeableness and Psychoticism. There was also no

relation between Neuroticism and Psychoticism. The findings implied that Neuroticism and

Agreeableness are not good predictors of Psychoticism unlike Extraversion in the Ghanaian

culture.


- 6 -

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The trait approach to personality has the idea that, people have consistent personality

characteristics that can be measured and studied (Kalat, 2002). Personality is associated with

behavior. Therefore individual differences in behavior can be explained by differences in

personality. In that sense, an understanding of one‟s personality may help us predict criminality.

And thus, the current study sought to determine whether levels of agreeableness, neuroticism and

extraversion, which are part of the Big Five dimensions, would be related to levels of

Psychoticism.

Allport and Odbert (1936) as cited by Kalat (2002) plodded through an English dictionary and

found almost 18,000 words that might be used to describe personality. They deleted from this list

words that were merely evaluations such as „pleasant‟ or „nasty‟. They further looked for

synonyms and antonyms such as „affectionate‟, „warm‟ and „loving‟ and accepted only one of

them. As cited by Kalat, (2002), Cattell (1965) narrowed the original list to thirty five (35) traits

using factor analysis method. McCrae and Costa (1985), contemporary researchers, went further

to propose five major clusters of personality traits which became known as the Big Five

personality dimensions (Wade & Tavris, 2000). Hence the focus of this is on the Big Five

dimensions with reference to Personality, Psychoticism and criminality. The Big Five

dimensions include; Neuroticism, which is the tendency to experience unpleasant emotions

relatively easily; Extraversion, which is the tendency to seek stimulation and to enjoy the

company of other people; Agreeableness which is also the tendency to be compassionate towards

others and not be antagonistic; Conscientiousness, the tendency to show self-discipline, to be


- 7 -

dutiful, and to strive for achievement and competence; and finally, Openness to experience

which may also be the tendency to enjoy new intellectual experiences and new ideas (Kalat,

2002).

Neuroticism and extraversion are very powerful traits of the big five dimensions that influence

much of human behaviors, (Block, 1995) as reported by Kalat, (2002). Neuroticism is defined as

a predisposition to experience negative affect (McCrae, 1990) and therefore those who are high

in neuroticism experience more anxiety, depression, hostility and self-consciousness. Individual

high in this trait tend to experience emotional instability, irritability, sadness and self-pity.

Neurotic individuals are worriers, defeatist and complainers, even when they have no problems.

People low in this have the tendency to be calm, secure and self-satisfied (McCrae & Costa,

1986). The tendency to be active, assertive, energetic, outgoing, talkative, expressive and

gregarious describes people high in Extraversion. It describes a sense of exuberance and

willingness to be involved with the world around. People who are low on extraversion are

retiring, somber and reserved (McCrae & Costa, 1997).

Openness to experience means an appreciation for variety of experience. People with this are

artistic, curious, insightful, imaginative, independent and interested in variety. Another

dimension is Conscientiousness and this is the tendency to be efficient, organized, reliable, and

dependable (McCrae & Costa, 1986). This describes how likely someone is to act with self-

control, self-discipline, responsibility and have an interest in achievement. Someone low on

conscientiousness would be disorganized, impulsive or careless. For instance, chaotic and

spontaneous people are mostly on the low side of conscientiousness whereas anal-retentive,

obsessive-compulsive workaholics are on the high side of it (Wade & Tavris, 2000).

Agreeableness involves attributes such trust, altruism, kindness, affection and other prosocial


- 8 -

behaviors. People who score high on agreeableness are pleasant, cooperative and willing to

compromise. Moreover people who score low are suspicious of other‟s motive and place their

own interest first (McCrae & John, 1992).

Another aspects of the study involves Psychoticism and this is associated not only with the

liability to have a psychotic episode (or break with reality), but also with aggression. Psychotic

behavior is rooted in the characteristics of tough-mindedness, non-conformity, inconsideration,

recklessness, hostility, anger and impulsiveness. People high on Psychoticism would behavior in

a psychotic manner and such psychotic tendencies include recklessness, disregard for common

sense, and inappropriate emotional expression to name a few (Boeree, 1998 as cited by Porzio,

2004). Higher psychoticism scores were also reported amongst psychopaths and criminals

(Howarth, 1986 as reported by Porzio, 2004).

The main issue about criminality here is that, it is affected by a person‟s behavior whereas a

person‟s stable trait or personality influences his behavior (Wade & Tavris, 2000). So then could

a person‟s personality determine whether he or she would be high or low on Psychoticism hence

commit crime or not? Moreover would some aspects of the Big Five dimensions like

extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism affect levels of Psychoticism? This study looks at

that debate, and asked whether we can predict criminality by looking at factors of an individual‟s

personality. Thus specific research question was that, would a person high on extraversion and

neuroticism of the Big five model be higher on psychoticism than the person low on extraversion

and neuroticism? In addition, would an individual high on extraversion but low on neuroticism

be high on psychoticism or vice versa? Another question that arose from this is that, would

people high on all the factors of the big five model be significantly high on psychoticism or be

low on it?


- 9 -

If McCrae and Costa (1990) think people who are high in neuroticism experience more anxiety,

depression, hostility and self-consciousness, then could it be that such individuals would commit

crime and hence high on psychoticism? Furthermore, to Wade and Tavris (2000), people low on

extraversion are shy, silent, cautious and less enthusiastic, hence it is plausible to ask whether

such people would be relatively low on Psychoticism. And these are issues this particular

research sought to find.

Aims and Objectives

1. To examine whether levels of extraversion would be associated with levels of

Psychoticism among inmates in James Camp Prison.

2. To examine whether levels of neuroticism would be associated with levels of

Psychoticism among inmates in James Camp Prison.

3. To examine whether levels of agreeableness would be associated with levels of

Psychoticism among inmates in James Camp prison.


- 10 -

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

In this section, personality theories surrounding the variables of this study, which include the five

factor model (Neuroticism, Extraversion and Agreeableness, in this case) and Psychoticism will

be examined.

Allport’s Theory

Gordon Allport (1897-1967) investigated personality traits and theorized that, individuals differ

in the trait that predominate their personality. “Traits are not creations in the mind of the

observer, nor are they verbal fictions; they are here accepted as biophysical facts, actual

psychophysical dispositions related to persistent neural systems of stress and determination” (p.

339), (Allport, 1937b) as reported by Cloninger (1996).

For Allport, traits are highly individualized, or unique. He explicitly disagreed with theories who

asserted that one motive or instinct is determinative for all people (as, for example, Freud

attributed personality to sexual motivation). Rather, people are motivated by diverse traits (for

this study the Big Five dimensions) reflecting the differences in their learning (Cloninger, 1996).

Cattell’s Theory

Another prominent trait theorist who believed in the dimensional trait approach is Raymond

Cattell. Cattell‟s (1950, p. 2) definition of personality neatly summarizes his entire theoretical

and empirical approach. To him, “Personality is that which permits prediction of what a person

will do in a given situation” (Cloninger, 1996), therefore in this study, the focus is whether the


- 11 -

Big Five dimensions, to be precise extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism, could predict

levels of Psychoticism in criminals. Cattell pioneered multivariate research methods. And this

research strategy works with several variables at one time to predict behavior. He theorized that

in normal personalities, sixteen (16) traits account for most individual differences (Cloninger,

1996).

Robert McCrae and Paul Costa: The Five- Factor Model

The Big five personality traits include five dimensions that account for a great deal of human

personality differences (Kalat, 2002). Current research regarding the Big five (often referred to

as the Five-Factor) model of personality maintains that personality can be observed within five

broad dimensions (Goldberg, 1993), namely extraversion, neuroticism, agreeableness,

conscientiousness and openness to experience.

Contemporary personality researchers like McCrae and Costa have expressed dissatisfaction with

Eysenck and Cattell theories, suggesting that Eysenck‟s theory (which involves, Extraversion,

Neuroticism and Psychoticism) is too simple and has too few factors. And also, Cattell‟s theory

is too complicated and difficult to replicate (Schultz & Schultz, 1994). Thus in the 1980s, Robert

McCrae and Paul Costa embarked on a program that identified the five factor model (McCrae &

Costa, 1985, 1987 as cited in Schultz & Schultz, 1994).

As reported by Schultz and Schultz (1994), McCrae and Costa believe that, Neuroticism and

Extraversion are more strongly influenced by hereditary than environment. Moreover, the five

factors have been detected both in children and in adults. Longitudinal research in which the

same subjects were tested over six years, demonstrated a high level of stability in all five

dimensions (Costa & McCrae, 1988 as cited in Schultz & Schultz, 1994). Extraversion was


- 12 -

found to be positively related to emotional wellbeing and neuroticism negatively related to

emotional wellbeing. Thus the research concluded that, persons high on extraversion and low on

neuroticism were genetically predisposed to emotional stability (Schultz & Schultz, 1994). And

this gives credence to this study.

Meanwhile not all contemporary personality researchers accept McCrae and Costa‟s five factors.

Some agree that there may be five factors but they disagree on what those traits are. Others argue

that no group of five dimensions could adequately account for the complexity of human

personality. Nevertheless, McCrae and Costa have provided an intriguing and well supported

approach to describing the composition of personality and the relative importance of heredity

and environment in determining traits (Schultz & Schultz, 1994).

Psychoticism

Hans J. Eysenck developed his model of personality based mostly on a psychophysiological

basis. Eysenck developed his model of personality and temperament with three dimensions:

Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism. This became known as the "PEN" model of

personality. Originally Eysenck only theorized about neuroticism and extraversion, but later he

realized that Psychoticism was also a contributing factor of personality. He then added

Psychoticism into his theory as the third factor of his model giving birth to his BIG-Three model

of personality (Porzio, 2004). It was also found that the Psychoticism scale correlates

significantly with other hostility and tough-mindedness scales and traits such as non-acceptance

of cultural norms, immaturity, and anti-authoritative attitudes. Higher Psychoticism scores were

also reported amongst psychopaths and criminals (Howarth, 1986 as cited by Porzio, 2004). This

reinforces the idea Eysenck described as his Psychoticism scale.


- 13 -

REVIEW OF RELATED STUDIES

Decades ago, classic researches have been done to examine the authenticity of different models

to predict behavior but at present, one of the most empirical models of personality that best

predicts behavior and hence Psychoticism is the Big five dimensions of personality (Kachik,

2003).

The Five Factor Model and Psychotic Behavior

One of the first studies that associated structural models of personality and antisocial behavior

was conducted by Miller and Lynam in 2006. The authors of this research argued that the

concept of personality has much to offer the field of criminology. To this end, they used meta-

analytic techniques to examine the relations between antisocial behavior relatively broadly and

four structural model of personality: Eysenck‟ PEN model, Tellengen‟s three factor model, Costa

and McCrae‟s five-factor model (FFM) and Cloninger‟s seven factor temperament and character

model. A comprehensive review of the literature yielded 59 studies that provided relevant

information. Eight of the dimensions bore moderate relation to antisocial behavior, the

dimensions could all be understood as measures of either Agreeableness or Conscientiousness

from the five-factor model. The implications of these finding is that there is a relation between

the dimensions and antisocial behavior (Miller & Lynam, 2006). This means that, levels of

agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, extraversion and openness to experience affect

antisocial behavior or Psychoticism. One flaw about this study is that, it did not find out the

particular antisocial behavior the levels of the dimension affect. Meanwhile, this study examines

how levels of the five-factor dimensions affect Psychoticism.


- 14 -

Van Dam, Janssens and De Bruyn (2005), researched on PEN (Psychoticism, Extraversion and

Neuroticism), juvenile delinquency and criminality recidivism. The aim of this study was to

examine which of the two personality models, PEN or Big Five, differentiates best between

Dutch juvenile offenders and college students, between Dutch self-reported recidivists and non-

recidivists, and between officially recorded recidivists and non-recidivists. Students and

offenders filled out the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire Revised and the Short Big Five

Questionnaire. Occurrence and severity of recidivism were measured by a self-report

questionnaire and official police records. Students were higher than offenders on PEN‟s

Extraversion and the Big Five dimensions Agreeableness and Openness. PEN‟s Extraversion

appeared to be higher in officially recorded recidivists compared to non-recidivists. PEN‟s

Psychoticism, Big Five‟s Neuroticism and Agreeableness differentiated self-reported recidivists

from non-recidivists. Only PEN‟s Psychoticism predicted severity of self-reported recidivism

(Van Dam et al., 2005). One relevance of their study is that, it tests the ability of the big five

dimensions to influence juvenile delinquency and in this case Psychoticism and this is what

forms the basis of this study. Meanwhile in the above study, the researchers did not specify the

kind of crime or juvenile delinquency that was understudied. In addition, if different levels of the

dimensions of the Big Five model were examined against various levels of Psychoticism, it

would have clarified which model best explains or predicts juvenile delinquency and criminal

recidivism.

Neuroticism and Psychoticism

The relationship between Neuroticism and Psychoticism is evidently indicated in a study done by

Goodwin, Fergusson and Horwood (2003). The aims of this research were to examine the


- 15 -

associations between the personality trait of neuroticism in adolescence and later psychotic

symptoms, taking into account potential confounding factors. Data were gathered over the course

of a longitudinal study of a birth cohort of New Zealand born young people. Over the course of

the study, data were gathered first on neuroticism at age fourteen; secondly on psychotic

symptoms predominantly subclinical, assessed on the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), at ages

eighteen and twenty one; and thirdly on a range of potential confounding factors including

measures of childhood adversity and co-morbid mental disorders. The results of this study

showed that young people in the highest quartile of neuroticism at age fourteen had rates of

psychotic symptoms that were two to three times higher than those in the lowest quartile. After

statistical adjustment for confounding factors, including childhood adversity and co-morbid

mental disorders, the association between neuroticism and later psychotic symptoms reduced but

remained statistically significant. After adjustment for confounding factors, young people with

high levels of neuroticism had rates of psychotic symptoms that were between 1·5 to 1·8 times

higher than those with low levels of neuroticism. With the above analyses, it was concluded that

early neuroticism may be a precursor to the onset of psychotic symptoms. The mechanism

underlying this association are unclear, but may relate to overlapping features between

prodromal phases of psychosis and items that measure neuroticism (Goodwin et al., 2003). The

relevance of this finding to this study is that, it evidently shows the effect levels of neuroticism

will have on Psychoticism. Moreover, whiles the above research was done among cohort of New

Zealand born young people, this current study would be done among some criminals in Ghana to

examine the effect of the five-factor dimension on Psychoticism.


- 16 -

Extraversion and Psychoticism

Reviewing a classic study by Rushton and Chrisjohn (1981), which was first published online on

May, 2002 would evidently show the relationship between extraversion, Psychoticism and

delinquency. Eight separate samples of high school and university students in Britain and Canada

were used to test predictions from Eysenck's theory that delinquents should be high scorers on

scales of extraversion, neuroticism, and Psychoticism. Self-report paper- and pencil-

questionnaire measures of both personality and delinquency were administered under conditions

that ensured anonymity. The evidence showed clear support for a relationship between high

delinquency scores and high scores on both extraversion and Psychoticism. These relationships

held up across diverse samples and different ways of analyzing the data. No support was found

for a relationship between delinquency scores and the dimension of neuroticism (Rushton &

Chrisjon, 1981). The scores on both extraversion and Psychoticism in relation to that of

delinquency are relevant to this study in a sense that, the higher criminals score on extraversion,

the higher they would score on Psychoticism, hence extraversion and Psychoticism are positively

related. Despite this relevance, it is obvious that the above research is based on Eysenck‟s theory

and this current study focuses on the five factor model.

Agreeableness and Psychoticism

A study done by Gleeson, Rawlings, Jackson and McGorry, (2005) showed how Agreeableness

and Neuroticism can serve as Predictors of Relapse after First-Episode Psychosis. Cross-

sectional investigations, using the five-factor model of personality have evinced relationships

among neuroticism, agreeableness, and psychotic symptoms. The current study examined these

relationships via a prospective follow-up study with remitted first-episode psychosis patients.


- 17 -

Baseline five-factor model personality profiles, diagnoses, symptom ratings, and premorbid

adjustment ratings were followed by nine monthly ratings on Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale

psychosis items in sixty first-episode patients. Valid baseline personality profiles were completed

by forty patients. Patients who had a return of symptoms scored higher on baseline neuroticism

and agreeableness than those who remained in remission. Premorbid adjustment also predicted

return of symptoms. After premorbid adjustment was controlled for, the agreeableness

differences remained significant, but the neuroticism scores were no longer significantly

different. It was concluded that lower agreeableness acts as a mediating variable in relapse. This

current study is also designed to find whether agreeableness can predict psychoticism.

Rationale for the study

The rationale for this study could be derived from the researches above, for instance in Miller

and Lynam‟s study in 2006; they associated structural models of personality and antisocial

behavior and predicted that the dimensions are related to antisocial behavior, hence have much to

offer the field of criminology. And this is what this study sought to find. Moreover, in the study

by Van Dam et al., (2005) as indicated above, it was found that only the PEN‟s Psychoticism

predicted severity of self-reported recidivism and also the study tested the ability of the big five

dimensions to influence juvenile delinquency. Thus, it was plausible to embark on a study of this

nature. In a related but longitudinal study, Goodwin et al., (2003) predicted the relationship

between neuroticism and Psychoticism among young people in New Zealand. And this current

study sought to do similar but in this case among some prisoners in Ghana. Furthermore, this

current study sought to replicate a classic study by Rushton and Chrisjohn (1981) as published


- 18 -

by ScienceDirect, in 2002 to evidently show the relationship between extraversion, Psychoticism

and delinquency, but the focus would be on the Big five dimensions.

After careful review of the above studies, it would be relevant to stipulate that, the research

variables for this particular study are Extraversion, Neuroticism and Agreeableness (The Big

Five dimension), which are the predictors and are examined to see their effect on and

Psychoticism (dependent variable) among Criminals.

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESES

With reference to the above theoretical frameworks and literature review, it is plausible to

hypothesize in this study that;

1. Inmates who score high on extraversion would score significantly low on Psychoticism.

2. Inmates who score significantly high on Neuroticism would score high on Psychoticism.

3. Inmates who score significantly high on Agreeableness would score high on

Psychoticism.


- 19 -

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter focuses on the research design, population, sample, sampling procedures and

materials to be used in collecting data, scoring of the data and statistical analysis of the data.

Population and Respondents

The target population for this study was convicted male prisoners of Ghana whiles the accessible

population was convicted prisoners of James Camp prisons of either violent or non-violent

crimes. Only males were used for this study since James Camp Prisons is an all-male prison.

Forty (40) inmates between the ages of eighteen (18) and seventy (70) were purposively sampled

based on judgement or prior information and willingness of the inmates to participate in the

research in order to select a sample appropriate, readily accessible and that would provide

information needed for this study. This sample size was used because it would ensure internal

validity.

Material / Questionnaire

Adapted questionnaires would be used to solicit for information on the various dimensions of

personality and psychoticism.

IPIP Big-Five Personality Inventory

The first questionnaire is the 50-item set International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) Big-Five

Personality Inventory, developed to measure the Big-Five factor markers reported in an article by

Goldberg, (1992) as published by IPIP web site. This includes ten (10) item-set on each of the

five dimensions (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Openness and Conscientiousness)


- 20 -

scales, keyed positive (+) and negative (-). Each item is rated on a five-point linkert scale from

“very inaccurate” (1) through to “very accurate” (5). The short version of the IPIP instrument

(Goldberg, 1992), has the internal consistency reliability estimates (coefficient alpha) for each of

the five domains as .87 (for: Extraversion), .82 (for: Agreeableness), .79 (for:

Conscientiousness), .86 (for: Emotional stability or Neuroticism), and .84 (for:

Intellect/Openness) (Goldberg, 1992 as cited by IPIP). The IPIP scales have good internal

consistency and relate strongly to major dimensions of personality assessed by the NEO-FFI

(Five –factor Inventory) and EPQ-R (Gow, Whiteman, Pattie, & Deary, 2005)

Short version of the EPQ-R scale or P-scale

The second scale is the revised version of the Psychoticism scale (P-scale) and this was revised

by Eysenck, Eysenck and Barrett (1985). The revised version of Eysenck Personality

Questionnaire (EPQ-R) or P-scale contains 48 items, 12 each for the personality factors

Extraversion (E), Psychoticism (P) and Neuroticism (N), plus a Lie Scale (L). Participants would

be required to read each item, and circle either „yes‟ or „no‟ to show which best described them.

These questionnaires would be self-administered but help would be given when and where it is

necessary. The alpha reliability of the P-scale (short version) for males is .68 and for females is

.51 (Eysenck, et al., 1985).

Procedure

Questionnaires were personally administered to participants to fill but interviewing would be

employed in the administration of questionnaire when a participant cannot read or write.

Interviews were conducted in different of the Ghanaian languages where necessary. One week


- 21 -

was used for the administration of questionnaires. For the lost or damage of test material,

replacement were made to ensure accurate collection of data. Respondents were informed about

the purpose of the research and asked to tick the appropriate column applicable to them. None of

the items on the questionnaires were open ended questions. Moreover anonymity was ensured to

assure confidentiality. In addition, subjects‟ preparedness to be part of the test was considered to

enforce accuracy.

Scoring of Data

The IPIP Big five scales were scored as follows;

For positively (+) keyed items, the response "Very Inaccurate" is assigned a value of 1,

"Moderately Inaccurate" a value of 2, "Neither Inaccurate nor Accurate" a 3, "Moderately

Accurate" a 4, and "Very Accurate" a value of 5. For negatively (-) keyed items, the response

"Very Inaccurate" is assigned a value of 5, "Moderately Inaccurate" a value of 4, "Neither

Inaccurate nor Accurate" a 3, "Moderately Accurate" a 2, and "Very Accurate" a value of 1.

Once numbers were assigned for all of the items in the scale, they were summed to obtain a total

scale score.

The scoring key for the EPQ-R or the P-scale is as follows;

Respondents scored high on each dimension (Psychoticism, Extraversion, Neuroticism and Lie)

if they answered „yes‟ for items keyed „YES‟, and „no‟ for items keyed „NO‟ as shown below.

However, respondents scored low on each dimension if they answered „no‟ for items keyed

„YES‟ and „yes‟ for items keyed „NO‟.

Psychoticism (12) = YES; 10, 14, 22, 31, 39

NO; 2, 6, 18, 26, 28, 35, 43.


- 22 -

Extraversion (12) = YES; 3, 7, 11, 15, 19, 23, 32, 36, 44, 48

NO; 27, 41

Neuroticism (12) = YES; 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 30, 34, 38, 42, 46

Lie (12) = YES; 4, 16, 45.

NO; 8, 12, 20, 24, 29, 33, 37, 40, 47

Statistical Analysis

Various statistics were done including frequencies, means, and standard deviation to explore

patterns in the data and these were done through the use of the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) program. The Parametric statistical test used to analyze the data of the study

was the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient and this measured the magnitude and

interval of the variables in all the hypotheses. The Pearson Product-Moment correlation

coefficient was used because this study sought to correlate two variables for each of the

hypotheses, which are measured on at least an interval scale. The 0.05 level of significance was

adopted for this study.


- 23 -

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

This chapter includes the demographic analysis and the results of the statistical analysis

correlation between the factors of the Big five dimensions and Psychoticism which the study

seeks to find. Data was collected through quantitative analysis and this data is reported in the

form of tables and the findings analyzed statistically and descriptively.

Demographic Analysis

The ages ranged between nineteen (19) years and sixty seven (67) years. The mean age, 32.33,

was with a Standard Deviation of 12.035. Moreover about 15% of the respondents were aged 24

which made it the age with the highest frequency.

Table 1: Correlations

N= 40; * p>0.05; **p<0.05

Variables Psychoticism Extraversion Neuroticism Agreeableness

Psychoticism Pearson r

p-value

1

-0.287**

0.036

-0.111*

0.248

-0.103*

0.263

Extraversion Pearson r

1

Neuroticism Pearson r

1

Agreeableness Pearson r 1


- 24 -

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics

Correlation between Extraversion and Psychoticism

It was observed from Table 2 that, the mean of the 40 participants sampled on extraversion is

3.269 with a standard deviation of 0.610 and the mean of the subjects sampled for the study on

Psychoticism was 1.219 with a standard deviation of 0.106.

With a degree of freedom (df) of 38, it was observed in Table 2 above that, the Pearson product

moment correlation coefficient recorded for the relationship between extraversion and

psychoticism was r = -0.287, with p = 0.036 < 0.05. The results showed that there exists a

significant relationship between extraversion and psychoticism but this relationship is negative.

This means the hypothesis that inmates who score high on extraversion would score significantly

low on psychoticism was retained at the 0.05 significance level.

Correlation between Neuroticism and Psychoticism

With reference to Table 2, the mean of the 40 participants sampled on Neuroticism is 3.138 with

a standard deviation of 0.642. The mean of the subjects sampled for the study on Psychoticism

was 1.219 with a standard deviation of 0.106. It was observed in Table 2 that the Pearson product

Mean Std. Deviation N

Psychoticism 1.219 0.106 40

Extraversion 3.269 0.610 40

Neuroticism 3.138 0.642 40

Agreeableness 3.788 0.484 40


- 25 -

moment correlation coefficient recorded for the relationship between Neuroticism and

Psychoticism was r = -0.111, with p = 0.248 > 0.05 and the df of 38. This means the hypothesis

that inmates who score high on Neuroticism would score high on Psychoticism was rejected at

the 0.05 significance level.

Correlation between Agreeableness and Psychoticism

From the table 2, it was observed that the mean score of subjects sampled on agreeableness is

3.788 with a standard deviation of 0.484. The mean of the 40 subjects sampled for the study on

Psychoticism was 1.219 with a standard deviation of 0.106.

Also from the Table 1 above, it was observed that the Pearson product moment correlation

coefficient r for the relationship between agreeableness and psychoticism was r = -0.103, with p

= 0.263 > 0.05. This means the hypothesis that inmates who score significantly high on

Agreeableness would score high on Psychoticism was not supported at the 0.05 significance

level.

Summary of the Results

With a minimum age of 19 and a maximum age of 67, a mean age of 32.33 was derived. The

result for the correlation between Extraversion and Psychoticism indicated that, the hypothesis

that, inmates who score high on extraversion would score significantly low on psychoticism was

retained at the 0.05 level of significance since p = 0.036 < 0.050. This is as a result of the

negative relationship between the variables.


- 26 -

It was observed also that, the second hypothesis which is, inmates who score high on

Neuroticism would score high on Psychoticism was rejected at the 0.05 significance level and

this is because the relationship (r= -0.111) and the p-value (0.248) is greater than 0.05.

The third hypothesis which states that inmates who score significantly high on Agreeableness

would score high on Psychoticism was rejected at the 0.05 level of significance because the

variables were negatively related (r= -0.103). The p-value calculated was greater than 0.05. (p=

0.263 > 0.05).


- 27 -

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

Introduction

This chapter discusses the findings of the study, their interpretations and implications in relation

to the empirical studies and theoretical framework used in the literature review. The chapter is

organized in sections along the objectives or hypotheses stated for the study. This gives a

detailed discussion of the study drawing from its highpoints or otherwise which will be used to

proffer recommendations for future researches.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This study was aimed at examining whether levels of dimensions of the Big Five Model,

specifically Extraversion, Neuroticism and Agreeableness would be associated with levels of

Psychoticism among inmates in James Camp prison. After the analysis of data, it was observed

that, all variables for each of the hypotheses were negatively related. The hypothesis which

stated that, inmates who score high on extraversion would score significantly low on

psychoticism was supported.

In the second analysis, the hypothesis which states that, inmates who score high on Neuroticism

would score high on Psychoticism was rejected. The final hypothesis which states that, inmates

who score significantly high on Agreeableness would score high on Psychoticism was rejected

due to the negative correlation observed.


- 28 -

IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS AND PREVIOUS RESEARCHES

The general implication for this research is for the society to be careful in judging who is likely

to engage in more crime when looking at the person‟s personality type or variables.

Extraversion and Psychoticism

This research retained the hypothesis that correlated extraversion and psychoticism and this

implies that, inmates who score high on extraversion would score significantly low on

psychoticism. Generally, people high on extraversion tend to be active, assertive, energetic,

outgoing, expressive and gregarious, meanwhile people low on psychoticism are not tough-

minded, they conform, are considerate, not reckless, and not impulsive (McCrae & Costa, 1997).

Socio-culturally, since the Ghanaian culture is a collective one, people high on extraversion are

more integrated into the society (due to the outgoing nature) therefore tend to have social support

in terms material, emotional and informational. This factor makes them less likely to engage in

criminal activities. Due to their talkative nature, they are more likely to say things which would

reveal their inner thoughts and could be advised by significant others to refrain from engaging in

such acts. This implies that, an inmate who is high on extraversion or who is active and assertive

could be considerate and not impulsive, hence might not engage in criminal or antisocial

activities due to the cultural factor. In the study reviewed above by Van Dam et al., (2005),

results showed that students were higher than offenders on extraversion. Although the same

study showed that PEN‟s Extraversion appeared to be higher in officially recorded recidivists

compared to non-recidivists, implications could be, despite the fact that an individual is

gregarious outgoing and a talkative does not necessarily mean he or she would engage in

criminal or psychotic behaviors. Another study by Rushton and Chrisjon, (1981) showed clear


- 29 -

support for a relationship between high delinquency scores and high scores on extraversion. That

implied that the higher inmates score on extraversion, the higher they would score on

Psychoticism, hence Extraversion and Psychoticism are positively related. Meanwhile this

relationship is obviously different from what was found in this study and there are various

reasons that accounted for such findings of the study. One reason for the negative relationship is

that only males were used for this study whiles most past researches used both sexes in their

researches. Also, it was realized that for some respondents, the likelihood of giving socially

desirable answers is high due to the female research assistants that were used.

Neuroticism and Psychoticism

The findings of this study indicated a negative relationship between Neuroticism and

Psychoticism (although not significant) therefore, the hypothesis that stated that, inmates who

score high on Neuroticism would score significantly high on Psychoticism was rejected.

Although studies showed that people low in neuroticism have the tendency to be calm, secure

and self-satisfied (McCrae & Costa, 1986), this study indicated that people low on neuroticism

are high on psychoticism which involves recklessness, impulsivity and non-conformist behavior.

In the Ghanaian culture, calm people (low in neuroticism) are mostly perceived as secretive and

tend to keep things to themselves therefore less likely to exhibit their criminal tendencies until

manifested. Moreover, people high in neuroticism are worriers, defeatist and complainers;

therefore the collective culture of Ghana makes them receive more comfort and social support.

By so doing, they are sometimes less likely to engage in antisocial or psychotic behaviors. This

implies that, people might have personalities that may show that they are not calm, or show

predisposition to experience negative affect (McCrae, 1990) but does not necessarily mean they

would engage in antisocial or psychotic behavior. The results of the study done by Goodwin,


- 30 -

Fergusson and Horwood (2003) reviewed earlier in the study showed that young people in the

highest quartile of neuroticism had rates of psychotic symptoms that were two to three times

higher than those in the lowest quartile. This means that, psychoticism and neuroticism are

positively related and this is different from the findings of this research which showed negative

relationship although not significant due to the cultural factors. In another study done by Rushton

and Chrisjon, (1981), no support was found for a relationship between delinquency scores and

the dimension of neuroticism, indicating that there was no significant relationship between the

two variables. This current research also found an insignificant relationship between neuroticism

and Psychoticism especially due to the cultural factors.

Agreeableness and Psychoticism

It was observed in this research that, the hypothesis which states that inmates who score

significantly high on Agreeableness would score high on Psychoticism was not supported. It was

found that, there is a negative correlation between Agreeableness and Psychoticism although

insignificant. This implies that when individuals tend to be compassionate towards others,

willing to comply and not be antagonistic (Kalat, 2002), they are either less likely to engage in

psychotic behaviors or show no relation between psychotic behaviors and agreeableness. On the

other side, when someone is antagonistic and not willing to comply, that fellow is more likely to

engage in antisocial or psychotic behavior. The socio-cultural values of Ghanaians advice against

engaging in antisocial behaviors and individuals who are high on agreeableness conform to such

social values. Another reason for this result is that, in the Ghanaian culture people who engage in

criminal activities are perceived as not having affection for the other party and moreover people

high on agreeableness are affectionate (McCrae & John, 1992). There is also a public assumption

that, people from some particular ethnic groups are more likely to engage in psychotic behaviors


- 31 -

and this notion is due to the perception that such people are difficult to convince, hence less

agreeable. A study done by Gleeson, Rawlings, Jackson and McGorry, (2005) showed how

Agreeableness and Neuroticism can serve as Predictors of Relapse after First-Episode Psychosis.

Their research concluded that, patients who had a return of symptoms scored higher on baseline

neuroticism and agreeableness than those who remained in remission. After premorbid

adjustment was controlled for, the agreeableness differences remained significant and that

showed that, lower agreeableness acts as a mediating variable in relapse. This past research is

contradiction to the findings of the current study due to the above mentioned cultural factors.

Another reason for the negative relationship is that, only males were used for this study whiles

most past researches used both sexes in their researches. Moreover in this study, there was oral

translation of the items on the questionnaire from English to other local languages to some

respondents by female research assistants, therefore socially desirable answers might be given to

some of the questions.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

With respect to the various findings of this study, it is obvious that there were limitations that

needed to be looked at for future studies. One of such limitations is the use of only males for the

predictions and this is because there are more of males than females in the Prisons. Moreover

males are culturally perceived as more likely to commit crime. In the analysis of hypotheses, it

was observed that, results of past researches contradicted some findings of the research because

such researches used both male and female inmates.


- 32 -

Another limitation is the sample size of the study that is not large for generalization to the

population of prisoners in Ghana. And also, the used of more female research assistants to collect

data from a male prison could have affected the responds of the participants.

Finally, language barrier could also be a limitation. Some inmates available for the study found it

a little difficult to understand some simple English vocabularies hence translation was quite

difficult since not all assistants understood the local dialects.

CONCLUSION

This research recommends for further studies to be done in the topic area of Personality and

Criminality, to see how criminality is affected by personality variables. Different models of

personality could be used to assess their influences. To be more specific, future researchers are

advised to use both males and females inmates in their studies. Moreover, researchers can use a

larger sample size to ensure accurate representation of the population of inmates.

The legislative and judicial services; judges, lawyers, eye witnesses, the police and other security

officers should be extra vigilant in concluding who a criminal might be after looking at the

person‟s personality. Policy makers should consider psychological variables when drafting

policies on criminal issues and for court proceedings.


- 33 -

REFERENCES

Cloninger S. C. (1996). Theories of Personality, Understanding Persons, 2nd

edition, USA,

Prentice - Hall Inc.

Eysenck S. B. G., Eysenck H. J. & Barrett P. (1985). A revised version of the psychoticism scale.

Personality and Individual Difference Vol. 6. No. 1. pp. 21-29, 1985

Goldberg L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American psychologist, 48,

26-34.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure.

Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

Goodwin R. D., Fergusson D. M. &. Horwood L. J (2003). Neuroticism in adolescence and

psychotic symptoms in adulthood. Psychological Medicine, 33, pp 1089-1097

doi:10.1017/S0033291703007888

Gow A. J, Whiteman M. C., Pattie A. & Deary I. J. (2005). Goldberg‟s „IPIP‟ Big-Five factor

markers: Internal consistency and concurrent validation in Scotland. Personality and

Individual Difference Vol. 39, Issue 2, 317-329.

Kachik J. C. (2003) The Five Factor Model and Holland‟s theory: Community College and

Corporate Leaders. A Dissertation presented to the Graduate School of the University

of Florida.

Kalat J. W. (2002). Introduction to Psychology, 6th

edition, USA: Wadsworth Thomson.

McCrae R.R. (1990). Controlling neuroticism in the measurement of stress. Stress Medicine, 6,

237 – 241.


- 34 -

McCrae, R. R & John, O. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.

Journal of Personality, 60(2), 174-214.

McCrae, R. R., & COSTA, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping and coping effectiveness in an adult

sample. Journal of Personality, 54, 385-405.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American

Psychologist, 52, 509-516.

McCrae. R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood. New York: Guilford.

Miller, J.D., & Lynam, D.R. (2006). Reactive and proactive aggression: Similarities and

differences. Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 1469-1480

Porzio S. K. (2004, Dec. 04). A critical Review of Eysenck‟s theory of Psychoticism and How it

relates to Creativity. Rochester Institute of Technology, retrieved, Dec. 01, 2010 from

the World Wide Web: http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/porzio.html

Ruston J. P. & Chrisjohn R. D. (1981). Extraversion, neuroticism, psychoticism and self-reported

delinquency: evidence from eight separate samples. Personality and Individual

Differences. Vol. 2, Issue 1, p. 11-20

Schultz D. And Schultz, S. E. (1994) Theories of Personality, fifth edition, USA. Wadsworth Inc.

Van Dam C., Janssens J. M.A.M. And De Bruyn E. E. J. (2005), PEN, Big Five, juvenile

delinquency and criminal recidivism. Personality and Individual Differences, Volume

39, Issue 1, Pages 7-19.


- 35 -

APPENDICES

Appendix I

Questionnaire for 50-Item Set of IPIP Big-Five Factor Markers

Describe yourself as you generally are now, not as you wish to be in the future. Describe

yourself as you honestly see yourself, in relation to other people you know of the same sex as

you are, and roughly your same age. So that you can describe yourself in an honest manner, your

responses will be kept in absolute confidence. Indicate for each statement whether it is 1. Very

Inaccurate, 2. Moderately Inaccurate, 3. Neither Accurate Nor Inaccurate, 4. Moderately

Accurate, or 5. Very Accurate as a description of you.

1

Very

Inaccurate

2

Moderately

Inaccurate

3

Neither

Accurate

Nor

Inaccurate

4 . Moderately

Accurate

5

Very

Accurate

1. Am the life of the party.

2. Feel little concern for others.

3. Am always prepared.

4. Get stressed out easily.

5. Have a rich vocabulary.

6. Don't talk a lot.

7. Am interested in people.

8. Leave my belongings around.

9. Am relaxed most of the time.

10. Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas.

11. Feel comfortable around people.

12. Insult people.

13. Pay attention to details.

14. Worry about things.


- 36 -

15. Have a vivid imagination.

16. Keep in the background.

17. Sympathize with others' feelings.

18. Make a mess of things.

19. Seldom feel blue.

20. Am not interested in abstract ideas.

21. Start conversations.

22. Am not interested in other people's problems.

23. Get chores done right away.

24. Am easily disturbed.

25. Have excellent ideas.

26. Have little to say.

27. Have a soft heart.

28. Often forget to put things back in their proper place.

29. Get upset easily.

30. Do not have a good imagination.

31. Talk to a lot of different people at parties.

32. Am not really interested in others.

33. Like order.

34. Change my mood a lot.

35. Am quick to understand things.

36. Don't like to draw attention to myself.

37. Take time out for others.

38. Shirk my duties.

39. Have frequent mood swings.

40. Use difficult words.


- 37 -

41. Don't mind being the center of attention.

42. Feel others' emotions.

43. Follow a schedule.

44. Get irritated easily.

45. Spend time reflecting on things.

46. Am quiet around strangers.

47. Make people feel at ease.

48. Am exacting in my work.

49. Often feel blue.

50. Am full of ideas.


- 38 -

Appendix II

A REVISED VERSION OF THE P SCALE

SHORT-SCALE EPQ-R

Instructions: Please answer each question by putting a circle around the ‘YES or the „NO‟

following the question. There are no right or wrong answers, and no trick questions. Work

quickly and do not think too long about the exact meaning of the questions.

1. Does your mood of ten go up and down? ................................................

2. Do you take much notice of what people think? .........................................

3. Are you a talkative person? .........................................................

4. If you say you will do something, do you always keep your promise no matter how

inconvenient it might be? .......................................................................

5. Do you ever feel „just miserable‟ for no reason? ...........................................

6. Would being in debt worry you? .....................................................

7. Are you rather lively? ..............................................................

8. Were you ever greedy by helping yourself to more than your share of anything? .................

9. Are you an irritable person? ........................................................

10. Would you take drugs which may have strange or dangerous effects? .........................

11. Do you enjoy meeting new people? ...................................................

12. Have you ever blamed someone for doing something you knew was really your fault?

............

13. Are your feelings easily hurt? ........................................................

14. Do you prefer to go your own way rather than act by the rules? .............................

15. Can you usually let yourself go and enjoy yourself at a lively party? ..........................

16. Are all your habits good and desirable ones? ............................................

17. Do you often feel „fed-up.? ..........................................................

18. Do good manners and cleanliness matter much to you? ...................................

19. Do you usually take the initiative in making new friends? ..................................

20. Have you ever taken anything (even a pin or button) that belonged to someone else? ............

21. Would you call yourself a nervous person? .............................................

22. Do you think marriage is old-fashioned and should be done away with? ......................


- 39 -

23. Can you easily get some life into a rather dull party? ......................................

24. Have you ever broken or lost something belonging to someone else? .........................

25. Are you a worrier? ................................................................

26. Do you enjoy co-operating with others? ...............................................

27. Do you tend to keep in the background on social occasions? ...............................

28. Does it worry you if you know there are mistakes in your work? ............................

29. Have you ever said anything bad or nasty about anyone? ..................................

30. Would you call yourself tense or „highly-strung‟? .........................................

31. Do you think people spend too much time safeguarding their future with savings and

insurances? .........

32. Do you like mixing with people? .....................................................

33. As a child were you ever cheeky to your parents? ........................................

34. Do you worry too long after an embarrassing experience? ..................................

35. Do you try not to be rude to people? ..................................................

36. Do you like plenty of bustle and excitement around you? ..................................

37. Have you ever cheated at a game? ....................................................

38. Do you suffer from „nerves‟? .........................................................

39. Would you like other people to be afraid of you? ........................................

40. Have you ever taken advantage of someone? ............................................

41. Are you mostly quiet when you are with other people? ....................................

42. Do you often feel lonely? ............................................................

43. Is it better to follow society‟s rules than go your own way? .................................

44. Do other people think of you as being very lively? .......................................

45. Do you always practice what you preach? ..............................................

46. Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt? ..........................................

47. Do you sometimes put off until tomorrow what you ought to do today? .......................

48. Can you get a party going? ..........................................................

Documents

PREDICTING CRIMINALITY FROM PERSONALITY: BIG FIVE MODEL AND