You are on page 1of 34

STRUCTURAL MODELS OF PERSONALITY

AND THEIR RELATION TO ANTISOCIAL


BEHAVIOR: A META-ANALYTIC
REVIEW
JOSHUA D. MILLER
DONALD LYNAM
University of Kentucky

The authors argue that the concept of personality has much to offer
the field of criminology. To this end, they used meta-analytic tech-
niques to examine the relations between antisocial behavior defined rel-
atively broadly and four structural models of personality: Eysencks
P E N model, Tellegen 3 three-factor model, Costa and McCraeS five-
factor model (FFM), and Cloningers 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 relations to antisocial behavior; the dimensions could all
be understood as measures of either Agreeableness or Conscientious-
ness f r o m the FFM. The implications of these findings for future
research are considered.

Despite a long-standing mistrust by criminologists of personality-char-


acteristic ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving-recent theoretical and
empirical work has explicitly employed personality to explain antisocial
behavior (ASB). In Moffitts (1993) taxonomy of ASB, temperament
(early personality) plays a pivotal role in the etiology of life-course-persis-
tent ASB. In addition, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) acknowledge that
their construct of low self-control is well within the meaning of personal-
ity trait (p. 109). Several empirical reports on the relation between per-
sonality and crime have recently appeared in Criminology, the flagship
journal of the field (e.g., Caspi et al., 1994; Moffitt et al., 2000; Wright et
al., 1999).

PREVIOUS RESEARCH
The recent studies cited above are not the first studies to consider the
role of personality in crime. In 1950, Schuessler and Cressey found that

* This research was supported by the University of Kentucky Research Challenge


Trust Fund and NIMH grant MH60104. We would also like to thank Drs. Monica Kern
and John Georgesen for their helpful advice and comments in regards to meta-analytic
techniques.

CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME39 NUMBER4 2001 765


MILLER AND LYNAM

42% of the personality tests reviewed demonstrated significant differ-


ences between criminals and noncriminals. Following this, Waldo and
Dinitz (1967) updated this line of research and found that 81% of the
more recent studies of the crime-personality relation were able to differen-
tiate between criminal and noncriminal groups. Finally, Tennenbaum
(1977) replicated this work, reporting that between the years 1966 and
1975, 80% of the personality tests showed significant differences between
criminals and noncriminals. Despite finding robust relations between
personality and crime, these earlier studies did little to enamor criminol-
ogists of personality. In fact, the methodological shortcomings of the ear-
lier research may have helped to foster or at least solidify the distrust of
personality by criminologists. These shortcomings revolved around three
major issues: (1) the then ill-defined personality construct, (2) suspicion of
the validity of the tests purporting to measure it (i.e., projective tests), and
( 3 ) concern about the process of scale construction through criterion key-
ing, which leads to predictor-criterion overlap and limits the ability of
these scales to provide meaningful information.

A SECOND LOOK AT PERSONALITY


Since the time of these studies, much has changed in the field of person-
ality research and it may be time to take a second look at personality.
First, broad, comprehensive models of personality, stemming from a vari-
ety of conceptualizations have been put forth in the hopes of describing
the most important personality dimensions and traits. Second, with the
exception of psychoanalytically oriented clinicians and researchers, projec-
tive tests such as the Rorschach or Thematic Apperception Test are no
longer viewed as valid, reliable indicators of personality (Lilienfeld et al.,
2000). Third, it is generally recognized that criterion-keyed tests like the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the California
Psychological Inventory (CPI) are greatly limited in terms of providing
basic information about personality. This limitation is due to the tech-
niques used to construct these measures. Both tests were developed using
an empirical o r criterion keying strategy, in which numerous items were
tested and were kept or discarded solely on the basis of whether they
could distinguish between certain groups. For example, the items for the
Psychopathic deviate (Pd) scale of the MMPI and the Socialization (So)
scale of the CPI were chosen based on their ability to discriminate
between identified offenders and nonoffenders, and several of these items
contain explicit reference to criminal activities (Dahlstrom et al., 1972).
As a result, little information about the basic personality dimensions
related to ASB is gained by finding that criminals score higher on the Pd
or the So scales. As Waldo and Dinitz noted in 1967, if the instrument is
to be utilized entirely for diagnostic purpose, this may be a valid technique
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 767

for scale development. However, if it is to be used for hypothesis testing


. . . then success has been built into the instrument (p. 202).
Because we believe that understanding the relations between basic
dimensions of personality and ASB can make a substantial contribution to
criminology, we undertake a quantitative review of the studies examining
the relations between basic dimensions of personality and ASB. It is our
hope that such a review will help personality gain a better foothold in the
field of criminology. The current review attempts to avoid the limitations
of the previous reviews in several ways. First, we use as our starting point
structural models of personality derived from basic research on personal-
ity. These models all share fundamental assumptions that traits are the
basic building blocks of personality, that there are a finite number of basic
traits, and that these traits provide comprehensive coverage of human per-
sonality. The term structural indicates that each model uses multiple
dimensions, domains, or superfactors to organize the vast array of person-
ality traits according to their interrelations (Wiggins and Pincus, 1993).
Second, we examine the relations between antisocial behavior and newer,
well-validated measures of personality derived from these basic models of
human personality. This is in contrast to previous reviews that were
forced to rely on research using personality measures derived from
clinical work, many of dubious validity. Third, we further avoid the prob-
lem of predictor-criterion overlap through the use of criterion-keyed
scales by including some of these scales only as measures of antisocial
behavior, not personality.

CURRENT PERSONALITY THEORY


The best way to combat previous problems in examinations of the rela-
tion between personality and antisocial behavior is to borrow from basic
research in personality. Since its inception, the field of personality
research has been concerned with identifying the basic traits that serve as
the building blocks of personality. This research has been devoted to
developing and testing structural models of personality without reference
to external criteria. The present study examines the relations between
ASB and the four most widely used structural models of personality: the
five-factor model (FFM; McCrae and Costa, 1990), the PEN model
(Eysenck, 1977), Tellegens three-factor model (1985), and Cloningers
temperament and character model (Cloninger et al., 1993).
These models differ from each other in terms of the number and compo-
sition of the basic dimensions, and in terms of how they were derived. For
example, [ the FFM is based on a lexical hypothesis that posits that the
traits most important to human interaction, communication, and survival
have been encoded in the natural language as single words (Allport, 1937).
Based on this hypothesis, numerous individuals have factor-analyzed trait
MILLER AND LYNAM

terms taken from dictionaries in order to identify the basic dimensions of


personality.] In contrast, Cloninger has approached personality through a
biological/pharmacological viewpoint that attempts to link basic personal-
ity dimensions with underlying neurotransmitter systems. [ Similarly,
Eysenck has attempted to tie his personality domains to biological factors,
such as arousal level, testosterone, and the sympathetic nervous system.]
Finally, Tellegen used factor analysis of various mood scales to describe
the major dimensions of personality. Despite these differences, as will be
seen below, there is a great deal of conceptual overlap among the models.
These particular models were chosen because of their popularity or sali-
ence within the personality field. Importantly, all four models have
received sufficient empirical attention to warrant confidence in their relia-
bility and validity. Finally, because these models represent personality in a
broad fashion, and are not specifically oriented toward pathological
aspects of personality, they can provide important and relevant informa-
tion to this area of study.

STRUCTURAL MODELS OF PERSONALITY


Table 1 lists the structural models used in this study. [The FFM of per-
sonality was derived originally from studies of the English language to
identify the domains of personality functioning most important in describ-
ing the personality traits of oneself and other persons (Digman, 1990; John
and Srivastava, 1999; Wiggins and Pincus, 1992). This lexical research
emphasized five broad domains of personality, identified as Extraversion
(surgency or positive affectivity), Agreeableness, Conscientiousness (or
Constraint), Neuroticism (negative affectivity), and Openness (intellect or
unconventionality) (John and Srivastava, 1999). Extraversion assesses an
individuals proneness toward positive emotions and sociability. Agreea-
bleness is concerned with an individuals interpersonal relationships and
strategies; people high in Agreeableness tend to be trusting, straightfor-
ward, and empathic, whereas those who score low tend to be arrogant,
manipulative, and unconcerned about others. Conscientiousness relates to
the control of impulses, as well as to differences in t h e ability t o plan,
organize, and complete behavioral tasks. The personality domain of
Neuroticism assesses emotional adjustment and stability. The domain of
Openness to Experience refers to an individuals interest in culture and to
the preference for new activities and emotions. Each of these five broad
domains can be further differentiated into underlying facets or compo-
nents. For example, Costa and McCrae (1995a) have proposed six facets
within each domain on the basis of their research with the NEO Personal-
ity Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). For exam-
ple, they suggest that the domain of Conscientiousness can be usefully
differentiated into more specific facets of competence (versus laxity),
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 769

order (versus disorganization), dutifulness (versus undependability),


achievement striving (versus desultoriness), self-discipline (versus hedon-
ism), and deliberation (versus hastiness).

-> Table 1. Personality Models and Dimensions


Five-Factor Model Definitions

Neuroticism Emotional stability and adjustment versus instability and malad-


justment
Extraversion Sociability and agency
Openness to Experience Interest and willingness to try or consider new activities, ideas.
beliefs; intellectual curiosity
Agreeableness Interpersonal strategies: Agreeableness versus Antagonism
Conscientiousness Ability to control impulses, carry out plans and tasks. organiza-
tional skills, follow ones internal moral code
Eysenck
Psychoticism Egocentricity, interpersonal coldness and disconnectedness. lack
of empathy, and impulsiveness
Extraversion Sociability and agency
Neuroticism Emotional stability and adjustment versus instability and malad-
justment
Tellegen
Positive Emotionality Sociability, tendency to experience positive emotions, assertive-
ness, achievement orientation
Negative Emotionality Tendency to experience negative emotions; ones ability to
handle stress
Constraint Ability to control impulses, avoid potentially dangerous situa-
tions. and endorse traditional values and standards
Cloninger
Novelty Seeking Tendency toward intense exhilaration or excitement in response
to novel stimuli
Harm Avoidance Tendency to respond intensely to aversive stimuli
Reward Dependence Tendency to respond intensely to signals of reward
Persistence Perseverance despite frustration and fatigue
Self-directedness Self-determination and willpower
Cooperativeness Tendency to be agreeable versus antagonistic and hostile
Self-transcendence Involvement with spirituality

Another enduring multidimensional model of personality is Eysencks


three-factor model, which includes the domains of Neuroticism, Extraver-
sion, and Psychoticism (PEN; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1970). These factors
were originally derived from exploratory factor analyses of questionnaire
items. Subsequently, Eysenck has proposed that these three factors are
underlaid by diverse biological systems. Neuroticism, which measures
770 MILLER AND LYNAM

emotional stability and adjustment, is believed to be related to the sympa-


thetic nervous system and its activation threshold. Extraversion, which
measures traits related to ones sociability and agency, is believed to be
related to cortical arousal. That is, individuals who are overaroused will
tend to be quiet and introverted, whereas those who tend to be under-
aroused will act in an outgoing, extraverted fashion. Finally, Eysenck
argued that Psychoticism, which assesses egocentricity, interpersonal
warmth and connectedness, empathy, and impulsiveness, is related to tes-
tosterone levels.
Tellegens model, originally derived from analyses of mood ratings and
subsequently refined through questionnaire work, posits three basic
dimensions, each of which comprises several subscales. Positive Emotion-
ality refers to the tendency of individuals to be positively engaged with
others and the world around them: it consists of scales labeled well-being,
social potency, social closeness, and achievement. Negative Emotionality
assesses individuals tendency to experience negative emotions (e.g., fear,
anxiety, and anger) and their tendency to break down under stress; it com-
prises subscales labeled aggression,l alienation, and stress reaction.]
Finally, Constraint assesses individuals ability to control impulses, act
deliberately, avoid potentially dangerous situations, and endorse tradi-
tional values and standards: it comprises subscales labeled traditionalism,
harm avoidance, and control.
Finally, Cloninger has proposed a seven-factor temperament and char-
acter model (Cloninger et al., 1993) that consists of the following four tem-
perament factors of Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance, Reward
Dependence, and Persistence, as well as the three character dimensions of
Self-directedness, Cooperativeness, and Self-transcendence. In contrast to
the previous models, this model was not derived from empirical analysis of
traits but from a psychobiological model. All four temperament dimen-
sions are assumed to have genetic foundations. [Novelty Seeking is a heri-
table tendency toward intense exhilaration or excitement in response to
novel stimuli or cues (Cloninger, 1987574). Second, Harm Avoidance is
a heritable tendency to respond intensely to aversive stimuli, thereby
learning to inhibit behavior to avoid punishment, novelty, and frustrative
nonreward (p. 575). Reward Dependence is a predisposition to respond
intensely to signals of reward and to maintain or resist extinction of behav-
ior that has previously been associated with rewards or relief from punish-
ment] (p. 575). The fourth factor of Persistence is relatively new to the

1. In order to remove any possible predictor-criterion overlap, Krueger et al.


(1994) removed explicitly antisocial acts from the Aggression subscale and found the
correlations with antisocial behavior to be unchanged.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 771

model and measures perseverance despite frustration and fatigue (Clon-


inger et al., 1993:978). The character dimensions were developed to
increase the coverage of the model. Self-directedness refers to individuals
self determination and willpower (Cloninger et al., 1993:979). Coopera-
tiveness was created to assess individuals tendency to be agreeable versus
antagonistic and hostile (Cloninger et al., 1993). Finally, the third charac-
ter factor, Self-transcendence, is associated with individuals involvement
with spirituality.
As noted earlier,[ there is good evidence for the validity of all of the
models. For example, empirical support for the construct validity of the
FFM is extensive, both at the domain and facet levels, including conver-
gent and discriminant validation across self, peer, and spouse ratings
(Costa and McCrae, 1988), temporal stability across 7-10 years (Costa and
McCrae, 1994), cross-cultural replication (De Raad et al., 1998), and heri-
tability (Jang et al., 1998; Plomin and Caspi, 1999). The FFM has been
used as an integrative model of personality functioning for children (Hal-
verson et al., 1994), adults (McCrae and Costa, 1990), the elderly (Costa
and McCrae, 1994), and animal species (Gosling, 2001). Additionally, the
dimensions of Eysencks PEN model have been replicated cross-culturally
in more than 35 countries (see Eysenck, 1990), show high temporal stabil-
ity (Conley, 1985), substantial genetic involvement (Eaves et al., 1989),
and are related to biological variables (Eysenck, 1990). Similar support
exists for Tellegens model; its structure has been replicated across raters
(Harnkess et al., 1995) and countries (e.g., Almagor et al., 1995), and it
shows high heritabilities (Bouchard et al., 1990) and relations to biological
variables (Depue, 1996). Finally, some support exists for Cloningers
seven-factor model, primarily in the form of genetic studies (Stallings et
al., 1996).]

INTEGRATION OF PERSONALITY MODELS


Readers may wonder how so many different models can be so well vali-
dated. The answer lies in recognizing that there is actually substantial
agreement across the models in terms of the traits that are represented,
especially for the first three models (see John, 1990). The first three mod-
els all contain explicit representations of the big two-Extraversion
(Positive Emotionality in Tellegens model) and Neuroticism (Negative
Emotionality for Tellegen). Additionally, the FFM and Tellegens model
both contain a dimension related to the control of impulses and orienta-
tion to convention-Conscientiousness in the FFM and Constraint in Tel-
legens model. Additionally, Eysencks model contains Conscientiousness/
Constraint, although it is not represented as a single factor; empirical work
suggests that Eysencks P dimension can be considered a blend of low
Conscientiousness/Contraint and low Agreeableness (Costa and McCrae,
772 MILLER A N D LYNAM

1995b). All three models also contain representations of Agreeableness,


although in Tellegens model, it is found in the Negative Emotionality
dimension (Church, 1994). Cloningers model does not line up as cleanly
with the other models, although there are theoretical (Zuckerman, 1995)
and empirical (De Fruyt et al., 2000; Deitsch, 1996) relations between
them. For example, Cloningers Harm Avoidance is negatively related to
Extraversion and positively related to Neuroticism. Novelty Seeking is
positively related to Eysencks Psychoticism and negatively related to
Conscientiousness/Constraint; conversely, Persistence and Self-directed-
ness are negatively related to Psychoticism and positively related to Con-
scientiousness/Constraint. Finally, Cooperativeness is negatively related
to Psychoticism and positively related to Agreeableness. Beyond the map-
pings of these dimensions, there is little consensus regarding Cloningers
model. In general, then, these structural models are far from discrepant
with one another, and in fact are actually congruent.
To varying degrees, all four of these models have been used in the
examination of antisocial behavior. In fact, both Eysenck and Cloninger
hypothesized specific relations between their personality models and ASB.
For example, Eysenck argued that the personality profile of the typical
criminal would be one marked by elevations on all three of his dimensions
of personality. Similarly, Cloninger hypothesized that criminality would
be associated with high Novelty Seeking, low Harm Avoidance, and low
Reward Dependence.
In what follows, we review the existing literature on the relations among
these four comprehensive models of personality and antisocial behavior.
Because of the exploratory nature of this endeavor, we defined ASB
broadly. Specifically, we included self, parent, and teacher ratings of ASB.
In addition, within the domain of the self-report ratings, we included per-
sonality scales from inventories designed to distinguish offenders from
nonoffenders, such as the Pd scale from the MMPI and the So scale from
the California Personality Inventory. Finally, we included studies that uti-
lized Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) diagnoses or criteria because
APD is defined primarily through antisocial and deviant behavior (Ameri-
can Psychological Association, 1994).
Although we recognize the possibility that specific categories of antiso-
cial behavior may have different relations to personality, we ultimately
chose to use a broad, inclusive definition of antisocial behavior for several
reasons. The first is analytic; by using a broad definition, we were able to
include more studies, which leads to more stable effect size estimates.
Currently, the state of the literature would not allow for a quantitative
review of these relations done separately according to type or class of anti-
social behavior. Additionally, there are theoretical reasons for using the
broad definition. Much research suggests that ASB consists of some small
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 773

degree of specialization superimposed on a large degree of generality (e.g.,


Farrington, 1992; Piquero et al., 1999; Stander et al., 1989); conceptualizing
ASB broadly seems consistent with this conclusion. Moreover, all of the
measures employed are intercorrelated with one another. For example,
the empirically keyed scales of interest (i.e., MMPI Pd and CPI So) are
correlated with offending (e.g., Tennenbaum, 1977); self-reports of delin-
quency are correlated with reports from other sources and official reports
(e.g., Elliott et al., 1985); diagnoses or symptom counts of APD are related
to arrests and self-reports of offending (Robins et al., 1991). Again, our
broad definition of ASB is consistent with these relations. Finally, person-
ality is conceived as a set of broad dispositions; as such, its influence
should be present across definitions of ASB.

METHOD
In conducting the meta-analysis, several decisions had to be made.
Studies that reported relevant relations using several different samples
were treated as independent samples, and each was included in the meta-
analysis. In the two studies in which two or more pertinent dependent
variables were used, such as violence, vandalism, and theft, the average
correlation was used. Two studies did not report the actual correlations
between the personality dimensions and the dependent variable of interest
because the correlations were not significant. In this case, the results were
treated as if the correlations reported were .OO.
As mentioned earlier, our dependent variable of antisocial behavior was
defined in a broad manner. Scales or questionnaires that assessed APD,
as well as scales from the MMPI-2 (Pd), MCMI (Antisocial PD), and CPI
(So) were used, along with measures of self-, parent-, and teacher-
reported delinquency, and conduct disorder. Although some of these
(MCMI, MMPI-2) are often called personality scales, we were inter-
ested in examining only the dimensions of personality found within the
structural models. Moreover, because these scales reference ASB explic-
itly, they are appropriate only as dependent variables.

SELECTION OF STUDIES
We conducted a comprehensive search for empirical research regarding
the relations between these models of personality and ASB. In order to
do so, we used PsychINFO and Sociological Abstracts (1963-2000). We
selected the entire databases for this search so that they included the old-
est work-up through the most current references, including dissertations.
The personality-related terms in the search included Psychoticism, Extra-
version, Neuroticism-Eysenck; Negative Emotionality, Positive Emotion-
ality, Constraint-Tellegen; Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness,
774 MILLER AND LYNAM

Agreeableness, Conscientious-FFM; Novelty Seeking, Harm Avoidance.


Reward Dependence, Persistence, Self-directedness, Cooperativeness,
Self-transcendence-Cloninger. These terms were crossed with a number
of terms related to ASB, such as antisocial, antisocial behavior, violence,
crime, delinquency, and aggression. We did not solicit unpublished data or
manuscripts relevant to this topic.

Coded Information

From each study, several types of information were extracted. In addi-


tion to an effect size (Pearsons r was used because of the correlational
nature of most of the relevant studies), we coded the type of sample (age,
psychiatric or normal), sample size, percentage of women in the sample,
personality domain, significance levels, measure, and type of dependent
variable. The personality domains were coded in reference to the model
from which they came. For example, Eysencks PEN model included the
domains of Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism, whereas the
FFM included Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness. and
Conscientiousness. The dependent variable of antisocial behavior
included official designation as a prisoner or delinquent; parent-, teacher-,
or self-reported delinquency: and antisocial personality disorder symptoms
(from the DSM-IIIR, DSM-IV, Personality Adjective Checklist (PACL),
MMPI-2, Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) I and 11, and the
Coolidge Personality Inventory).

RESULTS
The appendix displays the studies that were included in the meta-analy-
sis along with study characteristics. In regard to the size of the effects, we
adopted Cohens criteria: small = .lo, medium = .30, large = S O . Finally,
moderator analyses using sample size, type of sample (prisoner versus
nonprisoner), year of publication, age, and percentage of the sample that
was female were conducted for both the FFM and Eysencks personality
models. In addition, we examined whether the effect sizes varied depend-
ing on whether the dependent variable was a personality scale from the
MMPI-2 o r MCMI or another rating of ASB, and whether delinquency or
ASB scores were from self-report data or from another source (i.e., par-
ent. teacher). Finally, for Eysencks model, we examined whether the
results differed depending on whether the Eysenck Personality Question-
naire was used (EPQ) or the Junior Eysenck Personality Questionnaire
(JEPQ). The results from these analyses are reported only in the cases in
which significance was achieved. As a result of the relatively large number
of analyses conducted, we used a more conservative alpha level of .01.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 775

Moderator analyses were not conducted for either Tellegens or Clon-


ingers models because of the small number of studies found for both
models.

FIVE-FACTOR MODEL
Table 2 provides the range of effect sizes and other relevant data. The
number of studies in which the five FFM dimensions were used ranged
from 14 to 15. The unweighted mean effect size for the domain of
Neuroticism was r = .09, with a standard deviation of .17. The unweighted
mean effect size for the domain of FFM Extraversion was r = .02, with a
standard deviation of .15. The next domain examined was Openness to
Experience, which had an unweighted mean effect size of r = .02, with a
standard deviation of .15. The next domain examined was Openness to
Experience, which had an unweighted mean effect size of r = -.02, with a
standard deviation of .09. The unweighted mean effect size for the domain
of Agreeableness was r = -.37, with a standard deviation of .11. Finally,
the unweighted mean effect size for the domain of Conscientiousness was
r = -.25, with a standard deviation of .13. Moderator analyses were con-
ducted; however, no significant results were found.

EYSENCKS PEN MODEL


The number of studies that used the PEN factors ranged from 34 to 37.
As can be seen in Table 2, the unweighted mean effect size for Psychoti-
cism was r = .39, with a standard deviation of .18. The unweighted mean
effect size for Extraversion was r = .13, with a standard deviation of .17.
Finally, an examination of the effect sizes found for Neuroticism revealed
a complex association with ASB. Although the unweighted mean effect
size for Neuroticism was r = .09, with a standard deviation of .20, this over-
all effect masked the fact that 6 of the 34 correlations were in the negative
direction, which suggests that both poles of Neuroticism may be related to
ASB.
A test of heterogeneity of effect sizes for Neuroticism revealed signifi-
cant heterogeneity, x2 = 116.4, df = 33, p < .001. Following this analysis,
specific moderators were tested and identified. A significant correlation
was found between effect size and the percentage of the sample that was
female, r = -.48, p < .01, which suggests that the relation between Neuroti-
cism and ASB was weaker in samples that were more heavily weighted
toward female subjects. There were no other significant findings in regard
to our potential moderators for Neuroticism.
We also conducted examinations for these same moderators for
Psychoticism and Extraversion. We found no evidence supporting any
specific moderators for Psychoticism. However, in regard to Extraversion,
776 MILLER AND LYNAM

Table 2. Effect Sizes


Unweighted 95% Weighted
Mean Confidence Mcan # of Total Range of File Drawer
Effect Size Interval Effect Size studies N Effect Sizes Analysis
~ - -
Five-Factor Modcl
Neuroticism .09*** .wt o .I8 .I2 14 4584 - 3 1 to .34 160
Extraversion .02 -.06 to .I0 .no 14 4584 -.I8 to 3 3 na
Openness -.02 -07 to .03 -.03 14 4584 -.22 to .I4 na
Agreeablcncw -.37*** -.43 to -31 -.41 1s 4673 -59 to -.20 2902
Conscientiousness -.25*** -32 to -.IX -.25 I4 4584 -.42 to .03 I134
Eysenck
Psychoticism ,39*** 3 2 to .45 39 35 15.339 .lo to .71 17.949
Extraversion l3***ah .08 to .I9 .I0 37 1.5.568 -.26 to .4n 1550
Neuroticism .ny***~ .02 to .I6 .23 34 14.678 - 3 1 to .46 2373
Te I lege n
Positive Emotionality .04 -.I0 to .I7 .01 2 1235 -.03 to .I0 na
Negative Emotionality .27*** .1x to .3h .26 2 123s .25 to .29 hn
Constraint - 26*** -.3Y to -.I3 -.24 2 1235 -.2n to -32 52
Cloninger
Novelty Seeking .34*** . l X to .50 .2x 4 742 .I2 to .41 91
Harm Avoidance -.03 -.IX to .I2 -.03 4 742 -.23 to . I 4 na
Reward Dependence -.12** -.26 to .02 -.07 4 742 -.26 to .[)I 5
Persistence .(I1 -.ox to . i n -.02 4 742 -.07 to .I4 na
Self-directedness - 75*** -38 t o -.12 -.21 4 742 -.41 to -.I2 49
Cooperativeness -.25*** - 5 2 to .02 -.lX 4 742 -53 to .(M 40
Self-transcendence .06 -.I1 t o .23 .n3 4 742 -.07 to 3 0 na
-
*/I 5 .05: **p 5 .0l: *"*p 5 ,001. Significance levels determined through use of the Stouffer method.
.' There was a significant interaction between Extraversion and ASB such that the relation was stronger
hctwcen E and ASH in aelf-report scales.
" There was a significant interaction between Extraversion and ASB such that the relation was stronger
between E and ASB in nonprisoner samples.
' Theie was a significant interaction between Neuroticism and ASB such that the relation between N and
ASH was wcakcr i n 4aniples comprising a higher percentage of females.

we found that the relation between Eysenck's Extraversion and ASB was
significantly stronger when ASB was determined by self-reports (as
opposed to other reports), r = .42, p 2 .01, and in nonprisoner samples, r =
-.43, p 2 .01.

TELLEGEN'S THREE-FACTOR MODEL


As a result of the dearth of studies ( N = 2) that have been conducted
examining the relation between this model and ASB, these results must be
viewed cautiously. The domain of Positive Emotionality had an
unweighted mean effect size of r = .04, with a standard deviation of .09.
The domain of Negative Emotionality had an unweighted mean effect size
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 777

of r = .27, with a standard deviation of .03. Finally, the Constraint dimen-


sion had an unweighted mean effect size of r = -.26, with a standard devia-
tion of .09.

CLONINGERS SEVEN-FACTOR MODEL


The effects sizes for Cloningers personality dimensions were based on
four studies. As shown in Table 2, the domain of Novelty Seeking had the
strongest relation to ASB. Novelty Seeking had an unweighted mean
effect size of r = .34, with a standard deviation of .16. Harm Avoidance
had an unweighted mean effect size of r = -.03, with a standard deviation
of .15. The unweighted mean effect size for Reward Dependence was r =
-.12, with a standard deviation of .14. Finally, the last temperament
dimension of Cloningers model is Persistence. This factor had an
unweighted mean effect size of r = .01, with a standard deviation of .09.
These studies also examined the relation of Cloningers proposed char-
acter factors and ASB. The factor of Self-directedness had an unweighted
mean effect size of r = -.25, with a standard deviation of .13. The next
character dimension to examine is Cooperativeness. As can be seen in
Table 2, this factor had an unweighted mean effect size of r = -.25, with a
standard deviation of .27. Finally, the character factor of Self-transcen-
dence had an unweighted mean effect size of r = .06, with a standard
deviation of .17.

FILE DRAWER ANALYSIS


Finally, in order to account for the bias toward publishing or submitting
only significant findings, we conducted a file drawer analysis. This statistic
examines how many studies with null findings would need to exist to bring
the combined significance level to less than .05. If only a few studies with
null results are needed to change the level of significance of a finding, then
the finding is not resistant to the file drawer threat (Rosenthal,
1995:189). In this study, only one finding was susceptible to this threat; the
combined significance level for Reward Dependence is small enough that
a small number of studies with null effects would threaten the significance
of the results. The rest of the categories would require a large number of
null findings before the significance would be challenged. For example,
the findings for Conscientiousness and Agreeableness suggest that it
would require over 1,000 studies with null findings to reduce the combined
significance level to the point of insignificance.

INTEGRATION AND DISCUSSION


One of the goals of this paper was to examine which basic dimensions of
personality relate to antisocial behavior. In order to do this, we examined
778 MILLER AND LYNAM

the relations between four structural models of personality and antisocial


behavior broadly defined. By examining models and instruments derived
from basic research on personality, we were able to avoid the problems
with predictor-criterion overlap that have plagued previous research.
Importantly, 8 of the 18 personality dimensions reviewed had an effect size
of .25 or greater, which could be considered moderate. The largest effect
sizes, all greater than 30, were found for Psychoticism, Agreeableness,
and Novelty Seeking. In addition, 4 other dimensions yielded significant
small effect sizes. Only 6 of the dimensions showed no relation to antiso-
cial behavior.
Because much of the FFM research has examined how the FFM relates
to other structural models (Church. 1994: Costa and McCrae, 1992; De
Fruyt et al.. 2000; Deitsch, 1996), it is possible to integrate the present
findings using the FFM framework. This framework has been used previ-
ously to organize results from meta-analyses on personality and birth-
order (Sulloway, 1995), genetics (Bouchard, 1997), scientific and artistic
creativity (Feist, 19YS), subjective well-being (DeNeve and Cooper, 1998).
and personality in animals (Gosling, 2001) and children (Shiner, 1998).
Importantly, a strong pattern emerges when the models are integrated.
All dimensions related to Agreeableness (i.e., FFM Agreeableness,
Eysencks Psychoticism, Tellegens Negative Emotionality, and Clon-
ingers Cooperativeness) are related to ASB at moderate levels: in fact,
the effect sizes for Psychoticism and Agreeableness, rs = .39 and -.37, were
the largest of all effect sizes. Similarly, with one exception, all dimensions
related to Conscientiousness (i.e.. FFM Conscientiousness. Eysencks
Psychoticism. Tellegens Constraint, and Cloningers Novelty Seeking and
Self-directedness) were also moderately related to ASB. The sole excep-
tion occurred or Cloningers Persistence scale, which is positively corre-
lated with Conscientiousness and showed no relation to ASB in the
present study: this exception is likely due to the shortness of the scale and
its concomitant poor reliability (Ball et al., 1997; Svrakic et al., 1993).
Neither of the dimensions related to Openness to Experience (i.e., FFM
Openness and Cloningers Self-transcendence) showed any relation to
ASB.
The results for dimensions related to Extraversion and Neuroticism
were, at first glance, more mixed. Extraversion varied in the strength of its
association with ASB, from nonsignificant for FFM Extraversion and Tel-
legens Positive Emotionality to small effects, YS = .13 and .12, for
Eysencks Extraversion and Cloningers Reward Dependence. However,
even at its strongest level, the relation is small and may be due to content
overlap among scales. For example, Eysencks Extraversion scale may be
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 779

more strongly related to ASB than to other measures because of the inclu-
sion of items assessing impulsivity (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1978). Simi-
larly, in some (Dietsch, 1996) studies, Reward Dependence is positively
correlated with Agreeableness.
Results for dimensions related to Neuroticism were interesting as well.
No significant effect was observed for Cloningers Harm Avoidance, small
effects were observed for FFM and Eysencks Neuroticism, and moderate
effects were found for Tellegens Negative Emotionality and Cloningers
Self-directedness. Interestingly, the two moderate relations are probably
best explained by overlap with Agreeableness and Conscientiousness;
Negative Emotionality has been found t o be moderately to strongly, nega-
tively correlated with Agreeableness, and Self-directedness has been
found to be moderately, positively correlated with Conscientiousness.
Unlike Neuroticism from Eysencks model or the FFM, a considerable
portion of Tellegens Negative Emotionality is made of an Aggression sub-
scale that is the Negative Emotionality subscale most strongly related to
Agreeableness and that may account for the size of the relation. In fact, in
the Krueger et al. (1994) study, the correlations between the Aggression
subscale and self-reported delinquency are almost twice as high as the cor-
relation for either of the other two subscales of Negative Emotionality.
Even more interesting in the case of Neuroticism is the significant heter-
ogeneity in the effect sizes across studies. Despite the overall positive
relation between Neuroticism and AASB, 6 of the 34 studies that
examined Eysencks Neuroticism and 4 of the 14 examinations of FFMs
Neuroticism found negative correlations. This suggests that both high and
low Neuroticism may be related to antisocial behavior. There are several
reasons high Neuroticism may be related to ASB. First, individuals who
are less emotionally stabie may be more prone to impulsive acts: in fact,
Costa and McCrae (1992) list impulsiveness as one of the facets of
Neuroticism in the FFM. Additionally, Caspi et al. (1994) have argued
that individuals with chronically high levels of such negative emotions
perceive interpersonal events differently than other people (p. 187),
which may lead them to act more antisocially. Finally, high scores on
Neuroticism may be preceded by ASB; individuals who act antisocially
reap the negative consequences of this behavior, which may include peer
rejection, social isolation, punishment, and even imprisonment. O n the
other hand, Lykken (1995) has argued that individuals who are extremely
emotionally stable (i.e., low in anxiety) behave antisocially because the
normal anxieties and fears that keep most people from behaving
antisocially are missing.
In addition to these broad results, three specific moderators were found.
Eysencks Neuroticism was more weakly related to antisocial behavior in
MILLER AND LYNAM

samples that were more predominantly female, whereas Eysencks Extra-


version domain was more strongly related to antisocial behavior in studies
that used nonprisoner samples and self-reports. The interpretation of
these findings is unclear, but they warrant further exploration, particularly
differences in how Neuroticism may or may not lead to ASB depending on
gender.
From the overall results, it is possible to generate a description of the
personality traits that are characteristic of antisocial individuals. Individu-
als who commit crimes tend to be hostile, self-centered, spiteful, jealous,
and indifferent to others (i.e., low in Agreeableness). They tend to lack
ambition, motivation, and perseverance, have difficulty controlling their
impulses, and hold nontraditional and unconventional values and beliefs
(i.e., are low in Conscientiousness). It is informative that by beginning
with the criminal, we arrived at a description very similar to the one
offered by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) who began with the crime.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) offer that individuals who are low in self-
control (1) have difficulty delaying gratification and instead respond to
tangible stimuli in the immediate environment; (2) lack diligence, tenacity,
or persistence in a task; (3) tend to be adventurous, physical, and active
rather than cautious, cognitive, and verbal; (4) are little interested in and
unprepared for long-term occupational pursuits; ( 5 ) are self-centered,
indifferent, or insensitive to the suffering and needs of others; (6) are gre-
garious and social people; and (7) have minimal frustration tolerance. The
first four characteristics map on very well to the dimension of Conscien-
tiousness or Constraint. Similarly, the fifth and seventh characteristics are
clear indicators of low Agreeableness. The only significant disagreement
between our descriptions concerns the sixth characteristic-sociability; we
found that dimensions related to Extraversion were not related to ASB.
We should note, however, that there is a fundamental disagreement
between the analysis presented here and the one offered by Gottfredson
and Hirschi (1990). We do not believe that the personality characteristics
of criminals are best subsumed under a single rubric of low self-control.
Rather, we believe that the personality dimensions that characterize the
criminal are better understood as coming from two distinct and separate
basic dimensions of personality-Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
Much basic research in the area of personality supports this conclusion.
Only Eysencks model fails to separate these two dimensions, and it has
been soundly criticized for this failure (Costa and McCrae, 1995b;
Goldberg and Rosolack, 1994). These two dimensions emerge consist-
ently, however, in FFM research whether one begins with the natural lan-
guage or with personality inventories; uses self, spouse, or peer reports;
rates children or adults; or makes these ratings in English, German, or
Dutch.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 781

The present findings are also consistent with other examinations of the
relations between personality and other problem behaviors. A recent
meta-analysis by Hoyle et al. (2000) examined the relations between sev-
eral personality models and risky sexual behavior. These authors found
that Novelty Seeking (Cloninger), Extraversion (Eysenck), low Agreea-
bleness and low Conscientiousness (FFM), and low Constraint (Tellegen)
were the strongest correlates of risky sexual behavior. Research also sug-
gests that substance use has similar personality correlates. For example,
Trull and Sher (1994) found that individuals who met the diagnostic crite-
ria for any substance use disorder scored significantly higher on the
dimensions of Neuroticism and Openness to Experience, and lower on
Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness. Similarly, Krueger
et al. (1996) found significant relations between Tellegens dimensions of
low Constraint and high Negative Emotionality and substance dependence
disorders. The similarities in personality signatures across different kinds
of behavior problems may help to explain the generality of deviance
(Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Osgood et al., 1988).

HOW DOES PERSONALITY LEAD TO ANTISOCIAL


BEHAVIOR?
It is possible that the relations between personality and crime are not
causal. For example, it may be that these relations are due to the presence
of a third variable, such as early childhood experiences, parenting style, or
disciplinary practices. However, the evidence for the significant stability
and heritability of personality suggests that these explanations are
unlikely. In addition, although we believe that identifying which basic
dimensions of personality are most strongly related to antisocial behavior
is important, we acknowledge that these are descriptive rather than
explanatory statements. In order to truly understand these relations, we
must examine the mechanisms underlying them, which requires an exami-
nation of the intervening or mediating processes that connect the two con-
structs. We believe it important to think about how personality exerts its
effects on antisocial behavior at both distal and proximal levels. [At a dis-
tal level, personality may lead to antisocial behavior by structuring an indi-
viduals environment in ways that are conducive to antisocial behavior.
For example, Caspi and Bem (1990) delineated three types of person-envi-
ronment transactions that they suggested contributed to the stability of
personality across time: reactive, evocative, and proactive. Reactive per-
son-environment transactions occur when individuals exposed to the same
environment experience it, interpret it, and react to it according to their
preexisting tendencies. Evocative transactions occur when individuals
evoke distinctive reactions from their social environments on the basis of
their personalities. Finally, proactive transactions occur when individuals
782 MILLER AND LYNAM

select or create social environments that are in line with their existing per-
sonalities. Although Caspi and Bem (1990) discussed the contribution of
these transactions to personality stability, they would seem equally appli-
cable to our understanding of how personality influences behavior. In
terms of reactive transactions, individuals low in Agreeableness may be
expected, similar to aggressive individuals, to make hostile attributions in
ambiguous situations, generate more aggressive responses, and be more
likely to believe that aggressive responses will work (Coie and Dodge,
1998); these responses will increase the likelihood of violence in any given
situation. In terms of evocative transactions, children who are difficult to
manage (i.e., who are low in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness) evoke
typical reactions from parents and peers that include harsh and erratic
parental discipline (Lytton, 1990), reduction of parental efforts at sociali-
zation (Maccoby and Jacklin, 1983), increases in permissiveness for later
aggression (Olweus, 1980), and peer rejection (Coie and Dodge, 1998); all
of these predict later antisocial behavior. In terms of proactive transac-
tions, individuals who are low in Conscientiousness will likely have poorer
educational and occupational histories than will those who are high in
Conscientiousness; these kinds of decisions will limit the prosocial oppor-
tunities for advancement of these individuals. Future research can and
should explore some of these possibilities.]
At this point, it is important to mention an important concept that is
often confused with person-environment transaction, that of person x
environment interactions, in which the effect of a psychological trait on
behavior depends on the context in which it occurs. Although there are
surprisingly few well-documented cases of person x environment interac-
tions in personality development, an important exception appears to be
the area of antisocial behavior, where several studies have found that the
effects of person characteristics on juvenile delinquency are potentiated in
certain ecological conditions such as schools (e.g., Caspi et al., 1993) or
neighborhoods (Lynam et al., 2000). For example, Lynam et al. (2000)
recently reported that the effects of impulsivity on offending were stronger
in poorer neighborhoods than in better-off neighborhoods; these results
were taken as indicating the increased importance of internal controls in
contexts in which external controls are lacking. Similar findings are
emerging from behavioral-genetic studies of aggression and crime; several
studies have shown that a genetic liability to crime is potentiated in crimi-
nogenic home environments (e.g., Cadoret et al., 1995). These studies are
important as they provide more specific identification of at-risk youth
(e.g., impulsive youth in poor neighborhoods), suggest potential environ-
mental interventions (e.g., increase external controls), and suggest poten-
tial mechanisms through which personality may exert its effects. Future
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 783

research will need to explore the possibility of such person x environment


interactions.
At a more proximal level, it is important to understand how personality
affects or is reflected in psychological processes that operate in the
moment that an antisocial action is committed (e.g., information process-
ing, decision making). To the extent that personality is manifest in individ-
ual differences in decision-making processes and processes of self-
regulation, personality can be said to influence behavior in the very
moment of the occurrence of the behavior. For example, Patterson and
Newman (1993) have elucidated a four-stage model of response modula-
tion that posits the influence of different personality dimensions at each
stage of the process. Thus, Extraversion reflects the tendency to form an
initial dominant response set for rewards at stage 1, whereas Neuroticism
is manifest as increased arousal in the face of disruption of the initial set at
stage 2, and Constraint is embodied in a difficulty switching from an active
approach set to a more passive, information-gathering set at stage 3.
Again, future research can and should explore these possibilities.
In addition to specifying the way in which personality influences antiso-
cial behavior, more research on the relation between personality and anti-
social behavior needs to be conducted. First, more research using models
other than Eysencks PEN model is clearly warranted. Of the 59 studies
reviewed in the present meta-analysis, 37 were studies of the PEN model.
Although an important and long-lived model, there are other more com-
plete, structural models of personality that may better clarify the relations
between personality and antisocial behavior. Second, future studies would
benefit from greater specificity at the levels of personality and antisocial
behavior. At the level of personality, future studies would do well to work
at a lower order trait or facet level. For example, the FFM provides six
lower order facets for each dimension that may allow finer conclusions to
be drawn regarding which aspects of personality are most important to
ASB. In previous research using the facets of the NEO-PI-R, Miller et al.
(2001) found that the relation between psychopathy and Neuroticism was
complex such that psychopathy was related to low levels of anxiety,
depression, vulnerability, and self-consciousness but to high levels of angry
hostility and impulsiveness. Additionally, more specificity in the outcome
variable is also warranted in future research. Although some research sug-
gests that offending patterns are generally varied, other research suggests
the possibility that there is some specialization in offending (e.g., Stander
et al., 1989). Thus, it is possible that some aspects of personality may be
more strongly related to certain crimes.
MILLER AND LYNAM

WHAT DOES PERSONALITY BRING TO CRIMINOLOGY?

We believe, and the present results suggest, that the construct of person-
ality deserves broader application in the field of criminology. We also
believe that the construct of personality is complementary, not antitheti-
cal, to many theories of crime. For example, personality traits that relate
to interpersonal relatedness (i.e., Agreeableness) or to unconvcntionality
(i.e., Constraint) are relevant to control theories that posit that delin-
quency is the result of a lack of connectedness to others and a lack of
commitment to convention. Moreover, the construct of personality may
help to resolve some issues in the field. For example, personality may help
explain the relative stability of antisocial behavior (i.e., Sampson and
Laub, 1990). Longitudinal studies of the stability of personality also reveal
a great deal of continuity (e.g., Roberts and DelVecchio, 2000). For exam-
ple, McCrae and Costa (1990) examined 25 studies in which a self-report
measure of personality was given twice, at times varying from 3 to 30
years. They found that the median retest correlation for these studies was
.6S. McGue et al. (1993) found that the three factors of Tellegens Mul-
tidimensional Personality Questionnaire had a mean stability coefficient of
.59 over a 10-year period. Thus, antisocial behavior may be stable partly
because personality, a contributor to antisocial behavior, is relatively sta-
ble. Interestingly, there are changes in the absolute levels of certain traits
across time; McGue et al. (1993) found developmental changes in Con-
straint (increase) and Negative Emotionality (decrease) that correspond
roughly to developmental changes in offending. Additionally, to the
extent that some proportion of the variation in crime is heritable (Carey
and Goldman, 1997), personality may help to explain it, because upward
of 40% of the variation in the major dimensions of personality is heritable
(Tellegen et al., 1988). As noted by Carey and Goldman (1997). it defies
credulity to imagine that millions of years of primate and the hominid
evolution produced a sequence of DNA whose raison detre is to forge
checks or cheat on income taxes (p. 249). Rather than a specific tendency
to crime per se, what may be inherited is a broad disposition to think, feel,
and act in certain characteristic ways (i.e.. personality).
Finally,[personality, particularly an understanding of which dimensions
of personality are most strongly related to antisocial behavior, may con-
tribute to the preventionhntervention of antisocial behavior. First, the sta-
bility of personality and its early manifestation may help to identify
children at risk for later antisocial behavior. Second, personality informa-
tion may suggest not only who to target, but also how to target these inter-
ventions. For example, researchers have designed public service
announcements explicitly to appeal to individuals who are high in sensa-
tion seeking and therefore at risk for substance use (Palmgreen et al.,
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 785

1994). Third, knowing which personality traits are most strongly related to
antisocial behavior suggests what to target. If Constraint, a dimension
concerned with self-control, is strongly related to crime, it may be impor-
tant to develop interventions that teach at-risk children specific techniques
for increasing their self-control. On the other hand, if low Agreeableness
is involved, approaches for modifying interpersonal strategies may be
employed.
Finally, understanding that these personality dimensions are important
correlates of ASB, that personality is relatively stable, and that personality
transacts with the environment allows training of parents and teachers to
avoid the common evocative transactions that these types of individuals
provoke. That is, it may be important to teach parents and teachers of
these types of children and adolescents the importance of avoiding the use
of discipline that stems from anger or frustration. Similarly, intervention
may include teaching these primary adult figures that the common reac-
tion to these types of personalities is to withdraw but to emphasize the
importance of remaining active and engaged.]

LIMITATIONS

Despite our enthusiasm for the construct of personality and present


results, we must acknowledge several limitations. For several structural
models (i.e., Tellegens and Cloningers), relatively few studies were avail-
able, which reduces the stability of the results. Further, available studies
varied widely in terms of age and other demographic characteristics of the
samples employed. In the case of Eysencks PEN model, several studies
used different measures to assess the personality dimensions potentially
introducing variability. Finally, there was great variability in the outcome
measures employed; they differed in terms of source (e.g., self versus
other; unofficial versus official report) and method (e.g., APD rating
scales versus antisocial acts). Although we attempted to examine the
moderating effects of these differences, the small number of studies ham-
pered this effort. We would end by noting, however, that despite these
differences and shortcomings, the results were remarkably consistent,
which should inspire confidence. As Robins (1978) noted, the more the
populations studied differ, the wider the historical eras they span: the
more the details of the methods vary, the more convincing becomes that
replication (p. 611).

REFERENCES
Studies preceded by an asterisk were included in the meta-analysis.
786 MILLER AND LYNAM

Addad. Moshe and Avraham Leslau


1990 Immoral judgement, extraversion, neuroticism. and criminal behavior.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology
34:l-I 3.
Allport. Gordon W.
1937 Personality: A Psychological Interpretation. New York: Holt.
Almagor. Moshe, Auke Tellegen, and Neils Waller
1995 The big seven model: A cross-cultural replication and further exploration of
the basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology 691300-307.
American Psychiatric Association
1994 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). 4th ed.
Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Axelrod. Seth, Thomas Widiger. Timothy Trull, and Elizabeth Corbitt
1997 Relations of five-factor model antagonism facets with personality disorder
symptomatology. Journal of Personality Assessment 69:297-313.
*Ball, Samuel. Howard Tennen, James C. Poling, Henry R. Kranzler. and Bruce J.
Rounsaville
1997 Personality. temperament, and character dimensions and the DSM-IV per-
sonality disorders in substance abusers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology
106545-553.
*Bartol. Curt R. and Howard A. Holanchock
1979 Eysencks theory of criminality: A test on an American prisoner population.
Criminal Justicc and Behavior 6:245-249.
*Bayon. Carmen. Kent Hill, Dragdn Svrakic. Thomas R. Przybeck, and C. Robert Clon-
inger
1996 Dimensional assessment of personality in an outpatient sample: Relations of
the systems of Millon and Cloninger. Journal of Psychiatric Research
301341-352.
*Berman. Toby and Timothy Paisey
1984 Personality in assaultive and non-assaultive juvenile male offenders. Psy-
chological Reports 54527-530.
*Blais, Mark A.
1997 Clinician ratings of the Five-Factor model of personality and the DSM-IV
personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 185:388-393.
*Bogaert. Anthony F.
1993 Personality, delinquency, and sexuality: Data from three Canadian samples.
Personality and Individual Differences 15:353-356.
Bouchard, Thomas
1997 The genetics of personality. In Kenneth BIum and Ernest Noble (eds.).
Handbook of Psychiatric Genetics. pp. 273-296. Boca Raton. Fla.: CRC
Press. Inc.
Bouchard. Thomas J.. David T. Lykken, Matthew McGue. Nancy L. Segal. and Auke
Tellegen
1990 Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins
Reared Apart. Science 250:223-228.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 787

*Brooner. Robert, Jeffrey Herbst, Chester W. Schmidt. George E. Bigelow, and Paul T.
Costa
1993 Antisocial personality disorder among drug abusers. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease 181:313-319.
*Byravan, Anupama
1996 Structure of personality disorders from a Five Factor model perspective, and
the relative superiority of the MMPI-2 PSY-5, NEO-PI-R, and the 16 PF
Fifth Edition scales for predicting personality disorders. Ph.D. dissertation,
Southern Illinois University.
Cadoret, Remi, William Yates, Edward Troughton, George Woodworth. and Mark
Stewart
1995 Genetic-environmental interaction in the genesis of aggressivity and con-
duct disorders. Archives of General psychiatry 52:914-924.
Carey, Gregory and David Goldman
1997 The genetics of antisocial behavior. In David Stoff, James Breiling, and Jack
D. Maser (eds.), Handbook of Antisocial Behavior. New York: Wiley.
Caspi, Avshalom and Daryl Bem
1990 Personality continuity and change across the life course. In Lawrence
Pervin (ed.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York:
Guilford Press.
Caspi. Avshalom, Donald R. Lynam, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Phil Silva
1993 Unraveling girls delinquency: Biological, dispositional, and contextual con-
tributions to adolescent misbehavior. Developmental Psychology 29:19-30.
*Caspi, Avshalom, Terrie E. Moffitt, Phil A. Silva, Magda Stouthamer-Loeber. Robert
F. Krueger, and Pamela S. Schmutte
1994 Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crime rela-
tionship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology
32:163-195.
Church, A. Timothy
1994 Relating the Tellegen and five factor models of personality structure. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:898-909.
Cloninger, C. Robert
1987 A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality
variants. Archives of General Psychiatry 44:573-588.
Cloninger. C. Robert, Dragan M. Svrakic, and Thomas R. Przybeck
1993 A psychobiological model of temperament and character. Archives of Gen-
eral Psychiatry 50:975-990.
Coie. John D. and Kenneth A. Dodge
1998 Aggression and antisocial behaviour. In William Damon (Series Editor)
and Nancy Eisenberg (Volume Editor), Handbook of Child Psychology.
Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development. New York: Wiley.
Conley, James J.
1985 Longitudinal consistency of adult personality: Self-reported psychological
characteristics across 45 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
47~1325-1333.
*Coolidge, Frederick, Lee Becker. David DiRito, Robert Durham, Melanie Kinlaw,
and Peter Philbrick
788 MILLER AND LYNAM

1994 On the relationship of the Five Factor personality model to personality dis-
orders: Four reservations. Psychological Reports 75:ll-21.
*Corbitt, Elizabeth M.
1993 Exploring sex differences in personality disorders using the five factor
model of personality. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Ken-
tucky, Lexington.
Costa, Paul T. and Robert R. McCrae
1988 Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinal study of self-reports and
spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 542453463.
*1990 Personality disorders and the five-factor modcl of personality. Journal of
Personality Disorders 4:362-371.
1992 Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI) Professional Manual. Psychological Assessment
Resources. Inc.
1994 Set like plaster? Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In Todd
Heatherton and Joel L. Weinberger (eds.), Can personality change? (pp.
2140). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
199Sa Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised
NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment 64:2 1-SO.
199% Primary traits of Eysenck's P-E-N model: Three- and five-factor solutions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:308-317.
Dahlstrom, W. Grant, George Welsh, and Leona Dahlstrom
1972 An MMPI Handbook. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
*Deary, Ian J.. Alistair Peter, Elizabeth Austin, and Gavin Gibson
1998 Personality traits and personality disorders. British Journal of Psychology
891647-661.
De Fruyt. Filip, L. Van De Wiele, and C. Van Heeringen
2000 Cloninger's psychobiological model of temperament and character and the
five factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences
29441-452.
Deitsch. Sarah
1996 Structure of personality: An evaluation of alternative models. Ph.D. disser-
tation. University of Kentucky. Lexington.
*De la Rie, Simone, Inge J. Duijsens, and C. Robert Cloninger
1998 Temperament. character, and personality disorders. Journal of Personality
Disorders 12:362-372.
DeNeve, Kristina M. and Harris Cooper
1998 The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and subjec-
tive well-being. Psychological Bulletin 124:197-229.
Depue, Richard A.
1996 A neurobiological framework for the structure of personality and emotion:
Implications for personality disorders. In J. F. Clarkin and M. F.
Lenzenweger (eds.). Major Theories of Personality Disorder. New York:
Guilford Press.
De Raad. Boele. Marco Perugini. Martina Hrebickova. and Piotr Szarota
1998 Lingua franca of personality: Taxonomies and structures based on the
psycholexical approach. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29:212-232.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 789

Digman, John
1990 Personality structure: Emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review
of Psychology 41:417-440.
* D y e , Jamie A.
1996 Structure and correlates of personality disorders. M.S. thesis, University of
Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Eaves, Lindon J., Hans J. Eysenck, and N. G. Martin
1989 Genes, Culture, and Personality: An Empirical Approach. London, U.K.:
Academic Press.
Elliott, Delbert S., David Huizinga, and Suzanne Ageton
1985 Explaining Delinquency and Drug-Use. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
Eysenck, Hans J.
1967 The Biological Bases of Personality. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas.
1977 Crime and Personality. London, U.K.: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1990 Biological dimensions of personality. In Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver P.
John (eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 2d ed. New
York: Guilford Press.
*Eysenck, Sybil B. G. and Hans J. Eysenck
1970 Crime and personality: An empirical study of the three-factor theory. Brit-
ish Journal of Criminology 10225-239.
1977 Personality differences between prisoners and controls. Personality and
Individual Differences 40:1023-1028.
1978 Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system
of personality description. Psychological Reports 43:1247-1255.
Farrington, David P.
1992 Criminal career research in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Crimi-
nology 32521-536.
Feist, Gregory J.
1998 A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Review 2:290-309.
*Fonseca, Antonio C. and William Yule
1995 Personality and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: An enquiry
into Eysencks and Grays theories. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology
23:767-781.
*Furnham, Adrian
1984 Personality, social skills, anomie, and delinquency: A self-report study of a
group of normal non-delinquent adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 25:409-420.
*Furnham, Adrian and Julia Thompson
1991 Personality and self-reported delinquency. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences 12585-593.
*Gabrys, John B.
1983 Contrasts in social behavior and personality of children. Psychological
Reports 52:171-178.
790 MILLER AND LYNAM

Goldberg, Lewis R. and Tina K. Rosolack


1994 The big five factor structure as an integrative framework: An empirical com-
parison with Eysencks P-E-N model. In Charles Halverson, Gedolph
Kohnstamm, and Roy Martin (eds.), The Developing Structure of Tempera-
ment and Personality from Infancy to Adulthood. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
*Goma-i-Freixanet, Montserrat
1995 Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality. Personality and Individual
Differences 2:125-1 34.
Gosling, Samuel D.
2001 From mice to men: What can we learn about personality from animal
research? Psychological Bulletin 127:45-86.
Gottfredson, Michael and Travis Hirschi
1990 A General Theory of Crime. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
*Haapasalo, Jaana
1990 Sensation seeking and Eysencks personality dimensions in an offender sam-
ple. Personality and Individual Differences 11:81-84.
Halverson, Charles, Geldolph A. Kohnstamm, and Roy P. Martin
1994 The developing structure of temperament and personality from infancy to
adulthood. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Harkness, Allan R., Auke Tellegen, and Neils Waller
1995 Differential convergence of self-report and informant data for Multidimen-
sional Personality Questionnaire traits: Implications for the construct of
Negative Emotionality. Journal of Personality Assessment 64:185-204.
*Heaven, Patrick C. L.
1993 Personality predictors of self-reported delinquency. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences 14:67-76.
1994 Family of origin, personality, and self-reported delinquency. Journal of
Adolescence 17:445-459.
1996 Personality and self-reported delinquency: A longitudinal analysis. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 37:747-751.
Hoyle, Rick, Michelle C. Fejfar, and Joshua D. Miller
2000 Personality and sexual risk taking: A quantitative review. Journal of Per-
sonality 68:1203-1231.
*Huey, Stanley J. and John R. Weisz
1997 Ego control, ego resiliency, and the five factor model as predictors of behav-
ioral and emotional problems in clinic-referred children and adolescents.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology 106:400-415.
*Jamison, Robert N.
1980 Psychoticism, deviancy, and perception of risk in normal children. Personal-
ity and Individual Differences 1:87-91.
Jang, Kerry, Robert R. McCrae, Alois Angleitner, Rainer Riemann, and W. John Lives-
ley
1998 Heritability of facet-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a
hierarchical model of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology 74:1556-1 565.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 791

John, Oliver P.
1990 The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural
language and in questionnaires. In Lawrence Pervin (ed.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press.
John, Oliver P. and Sanjay Srivastava
1999 The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical per-
spectives. In Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver P. John (eds.), Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research. 2d ed. New York: Guilford Press.
Krueger, Robert F., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Phil A. Silva, and Rob 0.
McGee
1996 Personality traits are differentially linked to mental disorders: A multitrait-
multidiagnosis study of an adolescent birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 105:299-312.
*Krueger, Robert, Pamela Schmutte, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Kathleen
Campbell, and Phil A. Silva
1994 Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence
from a birth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103:328-338.
*Lane, David A.
1987 Personality and antisocial behavior: A long-term study. Personality and
Individual Differences 8799-806.
Lilienfeld, Scott O., James Wood, and Howard Garb
2000 The scientific status of projective techniques. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest 1:27-59.
Lykken, David T.
1995 The Antisocial Personalities. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Lynam, Donald R. and Joshua D. Miller
2001 The five factor model and antisocial behavior: An empirical examination.
In press.
Lynam, Donald R., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, Per-Olof Wikstrom, Rolf
Loeber, and Scott P. Novak
2000 The interaction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offend-
ing: The effects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology 109563-574.
Lytton, Hugh
1990 Child and parent effects in boys conduct disorder. Developmental Psychol-
ogy 26:683-697.
*Ma, Hing K., Daniel T. K. Shek, Ping C. Cheung, and Royce Y. Lee
1996 The relation of prosocial and antisocial behavior to personality and peer
relationships of Hong Kong Chinese adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psy-
chology 157:255-266.
Maccoby, Eleanor E. and Carol N. Jacklin
1983 The person characteristics of children and the family as environment. In
David Magnusson and Vernon L. Allen (eds.), Human Development: An
Interactional Perspective. San Diego, Calif.: Academic Press.
McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Costa
1990 Personality in Adulthood. New York: Guilford Press.
MILLER AND LYNAM

McGue, Matthew, Steven Bacon, and David Lykken


1993 Personality stability and change in early adulthood: A behavioral genetic
analysis. Developmental Psychology 29:96-109.
Miller, Joshua D., Donald R. Lynam, Thomas Widiger, Carl Leukefeld, and Richard
Clayton
2001 Personality disorders as an extreme variant of common personality dimen-
sions: Can the Five Factor Model represent psychopathy. Journal of Person-
ality 69253-276.
Moffitt, Terrie E.
1993 Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A devel-
opmental taxonomy. Psychological Review 100:674-701.
Moffitt, Terrie E., Robert F. Krueger, Avshalom Caspi, and Jeffrey Fagan
2000 Partner abuse and general crime: How are they the same? How are they
different? Criminology 38:199-232.
Olweus, Daniel
1980 Familial and temperamental determinants of aggressive behavior in adoles-
cent boys: A causal analysis. Developmental Psychology 16544460.
Osgood, D. Wayne, Lloyd D. Johnston, Patrick M. OMalley, and Jerald G. Bachman
1988 The generality of deviance in late adolescence and early adulthood. Ameri-
can Sociological Review 53:81-93.
Palmgreen, Philip, Elizabeth P. Lorch, Lewis Donohew, Nancy G. Harrington, Mar-
garet DSilva, and David Helm
1994 Reaching at-risk populations in a mass media drug abuse prevention cam-
paign: Sensation seeking as a targeting variable. Drugs and Society 8:29-45.
Patterson, Mark C. and Joseph P. Newman
1993 Reflectivity and learning from aversive events: Toward a psychological
mechanism for the syndromes of disinhibition. Psychological Review
100:716-736.
Piquero, Alex, Raymond Paternoster, Paul Mazerolle, Robert Brame, and Charles
Dean
1999 Onset age and offense specialization. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 36275-299.
Plomin, Robert and Avshalom Caspi
1999 Behavioral genetics and personality. In Lawrence Pervin and Oliver John
(eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. 2d ed. New York,
N.Y.: Guilford Press.
*Powell, Graham E.
1977 Psychoticism and social deviancy in children. Advancements in Behavior
Research and Therapy 1:27-56.
*Powell, Graham E. and Robert A. Stewart
1983 The relationship of personality to antisocial and neurotic behaviors as
observed by teachers. Personality and Individual Differences 4:97-100.
*Rahman, Anisur
1992 Psychological factors in criminality. Personality and Individual Differences
13:483-485.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 793

Roberts, Brent and Wendy DelVecchio


2000 The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age:
A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin
126:3-25.
Robins, Lee
1978 Sturdy childhood predictors of adult antisocial behaviour: Replications from
longitudinal studies. Psychological Medicine 8:611422.
Robins, Lee, Jayson Tipp, and Thomas Przybeck
1991 Antisocial personality. In Lee N. Robins and Darrel A. Regier (eds.), Psy-
chiatric Disorders in America. New York: Free Press.
Rosenthal, Robert
1995 Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin 118:183-192.
*Rushton, J. Philippe and Roland D. Chrisjohn
1981 Extraversion, Neuroticism, Psychoticism and self-reported delinquency:
Evidence from eight separate samples. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences 2:ll-20.
*Saklofske, Donald H.
1977 Antisocial behavior and Psychoticism in adolescent schoolboys. Psychologi-
cal Reports 41 :425-426.
Sampson, Robert J. and John Laub
1990 Crime in the Making. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Schuessler. Karl F. and Donald R. Cressey
1950 Personality characteristics of criminals. American Journal of Sociology,
551476-484.
*Shapland, Joanna and J. Philippe Rushton
1975 Crime and personality: Further evidence. Bulletin of British Psychology
and Sociology 28:66-68.
Shiner, Rebecca L.
1998 How shall we speak of childrens personalities in middle childhood? A pre-
liminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin 124308-332.
*Silva, Fernando, Carmen Martorell, and Antonio Clemente
1986 Socialization and personality: Study through questionnaires in a preadult
Spanish population. Personality and Individual Differences 7:355-372.
Stallings, Michael C., John K. Hewitt, C. Robert Cloninger, Andrew Heath, and Lindon
Eaves
1996 Genetic and environmental structure of the Tridimensional Personality
Questionnaire: Three or four temperament dimensions. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 70:127-140.
Stander, Julian, David P. Farrington, Gillian Hill, and Patrick M. Altham
1989 Markov chain analysis and specialization in criminal careers. British Journal
of Criminology 29:317-335.
Sulloway, Frank J.
1995 Birth order and evolutionary psychology: A meta-analytic review. Psycho-
logical Inquiry 6:75-80.
*Svrakic, Dragan M., Cynthia Whitehead, Thomas R. Przybeck, and C. Robert Clon-
inger
794 MILLER AND LYNAM

1993 Differential diagnosis of personality disorders by the seven-factor model of


temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry 50:991-999.
Tellegen. Auke
1985 Structures of mood and personality and their relevance to assessing anxiety
with an emphasis on self-report. In A. Hussain Tuma and Jack D. Maser
(eds.). Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders. Hillsdale. N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Tellegen, Auke, David Lykken, Thomas Bouchard. Kimberly Wilcox. Nancy Segal. and
Stephen Rich
1988 Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 54:1031-1039.
Tennenbaum, David J.
1977 Personality and criminality: A summary and implications of the literature.
Journal of Criminal Justice 5:22S-235.
*Tranah, Troy, Paul Harnett. and William Yule
1998 Conduct disorder and personality. Personality and Individual Differences
61741-745.
*Trull, Timothy J.
1992 DSM-111-R Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality:
An empirical comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 101:553-560.
Trull, Timothy J. and Kenneth J. Sher
1994 Relationship between the five factor model of personality and axis I disor-
ders in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 103:350-360.
Waldo. Gordon P. and Simon Dinitz
1967 Personality attributes of the criminal: An analysis of research studies.
1950-1965. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 4:185-202.
Wiggins. Jerry S. and Aaron L. Pincus
1992 Personality: Structure and assessment. Annual Review of Psychology
43:473-504.
1993 Personality structure and the structure of personality disorders. In Paul T.
Costa and Thomas A. Widiger (eds.). Personality Disorders and the Five-
Factor Model of Personality. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Wright, Bradley, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt. Richard Miech. and Phil A. Silva
1999 Reconsidering the relationship between SES and delinquency: Causation
but not correlation. Criminology 37:175-194.
*Yeung, Albert, Michael Lyons, Christine Waternaux. Stephen Faraone, and Ming
Tsuang
1993 The relationship between DSM-111 personality disorders and the five factor
model of personality. Comprehensive Psychiatry 34:227-234.
*Zeiger. Elizabeth A.
1996 The NEO Five Factor Inventory: Validity considerations. Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Wyoming.
Zuckerman. Marvin D.
1995 Good and bad humors: Biochemical bases of personality and its disorders.
Psychological Science 6:325-332.
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 795

Joshua Miller is a Ph.D. candidate in Psychology at the University of Kentucky. His


research interests include personality and its relation to deviant behaviors such as anti-
social behavior, risky sex, and substance use. In addition, he has published on the role
of personality in understanding psychopathy. He is currently preparing a dissertation
that examines the proximal mechanisms by which personality influences deviant behav-
ior. He has published in the Journal of Personality and the Journal of Substance Use.
Direct correspondence to Joshua Miller, Department of Psychology, University of Ken-
tucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0044(e-mail: jdmill3@pop.uky.edu).
Donald Lynam is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Kentucky.
His research interests include developmental models of antisocial behavior, the role of
individual differences in crime causation, early identification of chronic offenders, and
psychopathy. His most recent work has focused on identifying the constituent elements
of psychopathy and examining how the relations between individual differences and
offending may be conditional on context. He has published in Criminology, as well as
the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and the Journal of Personality.
796 MILLER AND LYNAM

Appendix.
Study N Model Domain Outcomes

Addad and Leslau (1990) 285 Eysenck E.N Criminals versus controls
Axelrod et al. (1997) 89 Five-Factor N.E.0,A.C MMPI scales and PDQ-
Revised (Symptom count)
Ball et al. (1997) 363 Five-Factor N.E.0,A.C DSM-IV APD (Symptom
count)
(355) Cloninger NS,HA,RD. DSM-IV APD (Symptom
P,SD,C,ST count)
Bartol and Holanchock 585 Eysenck P,E,N Criminals versus controls
(1979)
Bayon et al. (1996) 103 Cloninger NS.HA,RD, MCMI-I1 APD (Self-
P,SD.C,ST report)
Berman and Paisey (1984) 60 Eysenck P,E.N Violent versus nonviolent
criminals
Blais (1997) 100 Five-Factor N,E,O,A,C DSM-IV APD (Clinicians
ratings)
Bogaert (1993)
Study 1 211 Eysenck P,E,N Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 2 73 Eysenck P.E,N Delinquency (Self-report)
Brooner et al. (1993) 155 Five-Factor N.E.0.A.C DSM-111-R APD
diagnoses versus control
Byravan (1996) 258 Five-Factor N.E,O.A,C PACL-Aggressive PD
(Symptom count)
Caspi et al. (1994) 37X Tellegen PE, NE. C Delinquency (Self.
teacher, parent report)
Coolidge et al. (1994) 180 Five-Factor N.E.0.A.C DSM-111-R APD
(Symptom count)
Corbitt (1993) 50 Five-Factor N.E.0.A.C DSM-111-R APD
(Symptom count)
Costa and McCrae (1990) 297 Fivc-Factor N.E.0.A.C MMPI-2 APD (Self.
spouse. peer ratings)
Deary et al. (1998) 400 Eysenck P,E,N DSM-111-R APD
De la Rie et al. (1998) 148 Cloninger NS.HA,RD. DSM-111-R APD
P,SD.C,ST (Symptom count)
Dyce (1996) 659 Five-Factor N,E,O.A,C MCMI-APD (Self-report)
Eysenck and Eysenck 1745 Eysenck P,E.N Prisoners versus controls
(1970)
Eysenck and Eysenck 4512 Eysenck P,E.N Prisoners versus controls
(1977)
Fonseca and Yule (1995)
Study 1 64 Eysenck P,E.N Delinquents versus
controls
Study 2 50 Eysenck P,E,N Conduct disordered versus
controls
Furnham ( 1984) 210 Eysenck P,E.N Delinquency (Self-report)
Furnham and Thompson 1OU Eysenck P.E.N Delinquency (Self-report)
(1991)
PERSONALITY AND ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOR 797

Gabrys (1983) 232 Eysenck P.E,N Antisocial Behavior


(Teacher ratings)
Goma-i-Freixanet (1995) 633 Evsenck P,E,N Prisoners versus controls
Haapasalo (1990) 429 Eysenck Prisoners versus controls
Heaven (1993)
Study 1 267 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 2 388 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Heaven (1994) 282 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Heaven (1996) 235 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Heaven (1996) 216 Five-Factor Delinquency (Self-report)
Huey and Weisz (1997) 116 Five-Factor Problem Behavior (Self.
teacher ratings)
Jamison (1980) 1282 Eysenck Antisocial Behavior (Self-
report)
Krueger et al. (1994) 857 Tellegen Delinquency (Self and
informant ratings, police.
contacts, convictions)
Lane (1987)
Study 1 120 Eysenck Prisoners versus controls
Study 2 120 Eysenck Problem Behavior (School
records)
Lynam and Miller (2001) 475 Five-Factor APD (Symptom count)
Ma et al. (1996) 425 Eysenck Antisocial Behavior (Self-
report)
Powell (1977)
Study 1 394 E ysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 2 414 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Powell and Stewart (1983) 808 E ysenck Antisocial Behavior
(Teacher ratings)
Rahman (1992) 636 Eysenck Prisoners versus controls
Rushton and Chrisjohn
(1981)
Study 1 17 E ysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 2 124 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 3 31 E ysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 4 42 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 5 31 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 6 25 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 7 41 E ysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Study 8 128 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
Saklofske (1977) 80 Eysenck Antisocial Behavior (Self-
report)
Shapland and Rushton 54 Eysenck Delinquency (Self-report)
(1975)
Silva et al. (1986) 357 E ysenck Antisocial Behavior (Self-
report)
Svrakic et al. (1993) 136 Cloninger DSM-Ill-R APD
(Symptom count)
Tranah et al. (1998) 40 Eysenck Conduct disordered versus
controls
Trull (1992) 54 Five-Factor N.E.O,A,C DSM-111-R APD
(Symptom count)
798 MILLER AND LYNAM

Yeung et al. (1993) 224 Five-Factor N,E.O.A.C DSM-I11 APD (Symptom


count)
Zeiger (1996) 1460 Five-Factor N.E.O.A,C MMPI-2/MCMI-II APD
(Self-report)

Ahhrcviation guide:
Cloninger's model Eysenck's model Five-Factor Model Tellegen's model
NS - Novelty Seeking P - Psychoticism N ~ Neuroticism PE - Positive Emotionality
HA - Harm Avoidance E - Extraversion E - Extraversion NE - Negative Emotionalily
R D Reward Dependence
~ N Neuroticism
~ 0 - Opennebs C - Constraint
P - Persistcnce A - Agreeahleness
SD Self-Directedness
~ C - Conscientiousness
C - Cooperativeness
ST - Self-Transcendence