Eysenck’s personality dimensions as predictors of male adolescent trajectories of physical aggression, theft and vandalism Miguel Carrasco a, * , Edward D. Barker b , Richard E. Tremblay b , Frank Vitaro b a Universidad Nacional de Educacio ´ n a Distancia (Madrid-Spain), Facultad de Psicologı ´a, Dto. Personalidad, Evaluacio ´ n y Tratamiento Psicolo ´ gicos, C/Juan del Rosal, n°10, 28040 Madrid, Spain b University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Received 29 November 2005; received in revised form 27 April 2006; accepted 8 May 2006 Available online 14 July 2006 Abstract The current study examined group-based trajectories of physical aggression, theft and vandalism and Eysenck’s personality dimensions in 868 adolescent boys. Results indicated, for boys following the high trajectories in physical aggression, theft and vandalism, the most important personality dimensions were the psychotic characteristics (i.e., Empathy and Impulsivity). Extravert characteristics (i.e., Energy and Venturesomeness) also discriminated, although to a lesser extent, between the persistent trajectory and low-declining trajectory for each behavior. In addition, the presence of Venturesomeness was associated with the persistent trajectories of vandalism and theft. These results provide considerable support for Eysenck’s hypothesis concerning personality combinations of (1) psychothic traits (Impulsivity and Empa- thy), and (2) Impulsivity and extravert traits as predictors of antisocial behavior. Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Eysenck’s personality dimensions; Trajectories; Antisocial behavior 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.05.005 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 91 39 88 231; fax: +34 91 39 86 298. E-mail address: [email protected](M. Carrasco). www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320
Transcript
www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320
Eysenck’s personality dimensions as predictors of maleadolescent trajectories of physical aggression, theft
and vandalism
Miguel Carrasco a,*, Edward D. Barker b, Richard E. Tremblay b, Frank Vitaro b
a Universidad Nacional de Educacion a Distancia (Madrid-Spain), Facultad de Psicologıa, Dto. Personalidad,
Evaluacion y Tratamiento Psicologicos, C/Juan del Rosal, n�10, 28040 Madrid, Spainb University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Received 29 November 2005; received in revised form 27 April 2006; accepted 8 May 2006Available online 14 July 2006
Abstract
The current study examined group-based trajectories of physical aggression, theft and vandalism andEysenck’s personality dimensions in 868 adolescent boys. Results indicated, for boys following the hightrajectories in physical aggression, theft and vandalism, the most important personality dimensions werethe psychotic characteristics (i.e., Empathy and Impulsivity). Extravert characteristics (i.e., Energy andVenturesomeness) also discriminated, although to a lesser extent, between the persistent trajectory andlow-declining trajectory for each behavior. In addition, the presence of Venturesomeness was associatedwith the persistent trajectories of vandalism and theft. These results provide considerable support forEysenck’s hypothesis concerning personality combinations of (1) psychothic traits (Impulsivity and Empa-thy), and (2) Impulsivity and extravert traits as predictors of antisocial behavior.� 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1310 M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320
1. Introduction
Eysenck (1997) suggested three personality dimensions were connected with antisocial behav-ior. In brief, these dimensions included Extraversion (E) Neuroticism (N), and Psychoticism(P). Eysenck (1977, 1997) and Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) stated E associated with difficult con-ditioning, N was believed to amplify behavioral antisocial tendencies, and P to be an expression ofegocentrism, lack of guilt and hostility. Empirical support, however, is mixed for these relations(Center & Kemp, 2002; Center, Jackson, & Kemp, 2005; Heaven, Newbury, & Wilson, 2004;Romero, Luengo, & Sobral, 2001). Specifically: (1) although a strong and clear relationship hasbeen reported between P and ASB (antisocial behavior), (2) a weaker relationship appears to existbetween N and ASB, and (3) the relationship between E and ASB remains unclear (Center &Kemp, 2002).
These results suggest that more research is needed in regards to the relations between person-ality components and ASB. Other potentially informative personality dimensions that have beenreported to associate to ASB (antisocial behaviors) include Empathy, Impulsivity and SensationSeeking. Empathy, defined as the tendency to identify feelings of another person, has been foundto inhibit aggression (Batson et al., 1991; Eisenberg, 2000; Loudin, Loukas, & Robinson, 2003).Impulsivity, defined as the tendency towards low self-control, has been reported to associateto insensitivity to punishment but a clear orientation towards immediate gratification(Colder & Chassin, 1997; Taylor, Chadwick, Heptinstall, & Danckaerts, 1996; White et al.,1994). Impulsive children also tend to exhibit sensation seeking behaviors (Arnett, 1996;Daderman, 1999; Gatzke-Kopp, Raine, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Steinhauer, 2002;Newcomb & McGee, 1991). Sensation seeking is defined as the need for varied, novel and complexexperiences and the willingness to take physical and social risks for the sake of such experiences(Zuckerman, 1979, p. 10).
It has been suggested that different combinations of personality components can favorably in-crease the probability of developing ASB. For example, Gray (1970) stated that the combinationof high Impulsivity and low Anxiety would increase the probability of ASB. Combined effects ofpersonality variables can also be examined within the context of Eysenck’s idea of broad impul-siveness. Broad impulsiveness was defined as consisting of two components: Venturesomeness(i.e., Extraversion) and impulsiveness (i.e., Psychoticism) (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985).Venturesomeness correlates more with Extraversion and impulsiveness more with Psychoticism(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978; Saklofske & Eysenck, 1983). From a longitudinal perspective, broadimpulsiveness may be particularly relevant. For example, using composite measures of ASB,Moffitt and colleagues (Moffit, 2003; Moffit, Caspi, Dickson, Silva, & Stanton, 1996; Moffit,Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002) reported at least two developmental patterns in boys and girls– the life-course persistent type (LCP) and the adolescent limited type (AL). The LCP, the moresevere type of antisocial youth, was reported to be higher in psychopathic personality traits (alien-ation, callousness, impulsivity) and negative emotionality traits (stress-reactive, aggressive) butlower on agreeable characteristics (less social closeness, more callousness). These results suggestLCP youth to have a combination of personality factors that exacerbate the likelihood for devel-oping ASB.
In spite of the large amount of research between Eysenck’s personality components and anti-social problems, no studies, to our knowledge, have examined the relationships between the devel-
M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320 1311
opment of different types of antisocial behavior and the different components of personalitydimensions. The present study was designed to explore whether persistent trajectories and low-de-cline trajectories in three types of ASB (physical aggression, theft and vandalism) can be discrim-inated on the basis of Eysenck’s personality components, and to examine which personalitycharacteristics have the most predictive value in each aspect of ASB. We utilized a large sampleof high-risk boys between the ages of 11 and 17. Such a sample should provide sufficient variancein ASB and complimentary personality components.
2. Method
2.1. Sample
This study was based on a Canadian longitudinal study that began in 1984. Personality vari-ables were measured during early adolescence whereas trajectories of antisocial behaviors wereestablished using data collected during adolescence. Eight-hundred and sixty-eight French-speak-ing boys (83.7%), with complete responses, were selected from an original sample 1037 boys in lowsocioeconomic areas of Montreal. The percentages of subjects excluded were 16.29%; their char-acteristics were not significantly different from the rest of the sample.
The boys selected were assessed when they were 13 years old and again at yearly intervals be-tween the ages of 13 and 17 years (i.e., 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17). Informed consent was obtainedannually from the parents and the boys. The mean score on the Canadian Socioeconomic Indexfor occupations in this sample was 38.03 (SD = 12.0) for mothers and 39.50 (SD = 13.0) forfathers. These scores corresponded to jobs such as file clerk, hospital attendant and unskilled fac-tory worker (Blishen, Carroll, & Moore, 1987).
2.2. Procedure
The boys were first assessed in 1984 with different measures, such as temperament, physicalaggression, behavior problems and family characteristics. Every year there was a follow up of thisassessment. The current research focuses on the period from 1995 to 2000, when the boys werebetween 11 and 17 years old. Between 11 and 17 years of age the boys self-reported on physicalaggression, theft and vandalism. At 13 years of age, the boys completed the Eysencks’ Junior Per-sonality Questionnaire (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975; Eysenck, Easting, & Pearson, 1984).
In 1995 at 11 years old, participants filled in a Self-reported Antisocial behaviors Questionnaire(SBQ; Tremblay, Pihl, Vitaro, & Dobkin, 1994). Three measures of antisocial behavior were in-cluded: physical aggression, theft and vandalism. These items were coded on a 4-point Likert scale(0 = never, 1 = once or twice, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often). Physical aggression was a seven-itemscale that included how often the child was involved in the following behaviors: threatening toattack someone, fist fighting, attacking someone innocent, gang fighting, throwing objects at peo-ple, carrying weapons and using weapons in a fight (Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.71 to 0.81).Theft, was comprised of eleven-items that included Behaviors such as, stealing from a store,stealing something worth less than $10, keeping valuable objects worth more than $10 at school,stealing something more than $100, entering an event without paying admission, stealing money
1312 M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320
from home, stealing a bicycle, stealing something worth between $10 and $100, buying stolengoods, being in an unauthorized place, and breaking and entering (Cronbach’s alpha ranged from0.76 to 0.87). Vandalism, included six-items such as, destroying or breaking music or sports equip-ment at school, destroying or breaking somebody else’s things, destroying or breaking windows atschool, destroying or breaking something that belongs to the parents, destroying or breakingparts of a car (aerials, tyres, etc.), and setting fire to something (Cronbach’s alpha ranged from0.59 to 0.77).
At 13 years of age, in 1997, the boys completed the Eysencks’ Junior Personality Questionnaire(Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975; Eysenck et al., 1984). In this present study, we used five items that hadthe highest factor loadings, as identified and in the following scales: (1) Anxiety (Cronbach’salpha, 0.50, e.g., ‘‘I’m a nervous person’’), (2) Energy (5 items Cronbach’s alpha, 0.51, e.g., ‘‘I liketo live quickly’’), (3) Venturesomeness (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha, 0.60, e.g., ‘‘Do you quite enjoytaking risks?’’), (4) Empathy (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha, 48; e.g., ‘‘Would you feel sorry for alonely stranger in a group?’’) and (5) Impulsivity (5 items, Cronbach’s alpha, 0.70 e.g., ‘‘Doyou generally do and say things without thinking?’’).
Follow-ups were done at one-year intervals from age 13 to 17 using the SBQ, previously de-scribed. During these follow-ups, subjects were asked to report on antisocial behavior, such asphysical aggression, theft and vandalism. The results below, were conducted after 1995 whenwe evaluated Eysenck’s personality traits and different antisocial behaviors (physical aggression,theft and vandalism).
2.3. Analysis
The analysis proceeded in two separate steps. First, models for the developmental trajectoriesof physical aggression, theft and vandalism were estimated with a semi-parametric mixture model(Jones, Nagin, & Roeder, 2001; Nagin, 1999). A developmental trajectory describes the progres-sion of a given behavior over time. The semi-parametric group-based method allows for the iden-tification of population heterogeneity in both the mean of the behavior at a given age, and in thedevelopment of the behavior over time (Jones et al., 2001; Nagin, 1999) (see Fig. 1).
For each trajectory group, the model defined the shape of the trajectory (i.e., stable, increasing,desisting) and the proportion of children belonging to each group. An important step in the modelselection is determination of the number of trajectory groups to include in the final model. Fol-lowing the lead of D’Unger, Land, McCall, and Nagin (1998), selection of the number of groupsto include in the preferred model was based on maximization of the Bayesian Information Criteria(BIC).1
In the second stage analysis of variance (ANOVA) and stepwise discriminant analysis wereperformed to examine the capacity of the personality factors to distinguish membership in thetrajectory groups for each type of ASB. The statistical package SPSS 12.0 was used for theseanalyses.
1 BIC is calculated as �2 log(L) + log(n) * k, where L is the model’s maximized likelihood, n is the sample size, and k
is the number of parameters in the group (Nagin, 1999).
02468
1012
11 12 13 14 15 16 17Age
Phys
ical
Agg
ress
ion
0123456
11 12 13 14 15 16 17Age
Vand
alis
m
0
5
10
15
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age
Thef
t
Low decline High persistent
Low decline High persistent
Low decline High persistent
Fig. 1. Developmental trajectories of physical aggression, vandalism and theft throughout adolescence.
M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320 1313
3. Results
3.1. Trajectories
Six trajectories for physical aggression, theft and vandalism were obtained (Lacourse et al.,2002). Table 1 illustrates the number and shape of the trajectories and the proportion of individ-uals estimated to follow each respective trajectory. The trajectories were: low 1 (comprised of boyswho rarely displayed antisocial behavior), low 2 (comprised of boys who sometimes displayedantisocial behavior), low rising (start at a relatively low level and steadily increase their rate ofantisocial Behaviors through adolescence), low declining (the initial level starts relatively low atage 11 and declines until age 17), medium declining (i.e., individuals who start with a high rateof antisocial behavior and tend to be relatively stable or slightly decline at age 17), and high rising(i.e., individuals with a high rate of antisocial Behaviors from 11 to 17 years old).
Table 1Number and percentage of subjects by group of trajectory
1314 M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320
Based on prior research (i.e., Nagin & Tremblay, 1999; Seguin, Nagin, Assaad, & Tremblay,2004), we decided to group the six trajectories for each type of ASB two trajectories: (1) a hightrajectory, and (2) a low trajectory. This was done for the following reasons: (1) to simplify theanalysis, (2) to compare individuals with lower versus higher levels of ASB, (3) to gain powerin the number of individuals in the trajectories, and (4) to focus on a persistent trajectory becauseit is the trajectory with more risk. Such a strategy was successfully used in the same sample byNagin and Tremblay (1999) and Seguin et al. (2004).
3.2. Differences between trajectory groups on personality variables
Group differences between the persistent trajectories and the low-declining trajectories are de-scribed in Table 2. For physical aggression, the groups did not differ in Venturesomeness but didso for the rest of the variables. Hence, boys following the persistent physical aggression trajectorywere significantly higher in self-reports of Impulsivity, Anxiety, Energy and also scored lower inEmpathy. Boys following the persistent theft trajectory report higher scores in Impulsivity, Ven-turesomeness and Anxiety than boys in the low/declining theft trajectory. Finally, boys on thepersistent vandalism trajectory scored significantly higher in Impulsivity, Venturesomeness,Energy and Empathy than boys in the low/declining trajectory.
3.3. Discrimination between groups on personality variables
In order to build a predictive model of group membership based on observed characteristics foreach individual, a discriminant analysis was performed with stepwise selection method (see Table3). The different functions for each dependent variable were statistically significant (Willk’s lamb-da). Standardized coefficients and structure coefficients of discriminant functions based on linearcombinations of the predictor variables of personality revealed that the best discrimination be-tween groups of physical aggression trajectories was composed of personality characteristics suchas Impulsivity (0.70; 0.80), Energy (0.37; 0.52) and Empathy (�0.49; �0.53). The best functionthat discriminated between trajectory groups for theft was Impulsivity (0.78; 0.85) and Venture-someness (0.53; 0.62). For vandalism, the persistent and low declining trajectories could be dis-criminated on the basis of Impulsivity (0.72; 0.78), Venturesomeness (0.44; 0.48) and Empathy(�0.48; �0.44).
Table 2Analysis of variance (one-way) for different trajectories
Wilks’ Lambda (Chi-square; Sig.) 0.96 (v2 = 30.46; p = 0.001) 0.98 (v2 = 13.93; p = 0.001) 0.97 (v2 = 22.78; p = 0.001)
Canonical correlation 0.185 0.126 0.160
% Cases correctly classified 66.9 62.3 68.1
1316M
.C
arra
scoet
al.
/P
erson
ality
an
dIn
divid
ua
lD
ifferen
ces4
1(
20
06
)1
30
9–
13
20
M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320 1317
In summary, boys who were more impulsive have a higher risk of developing antisocial behav-ior than those who were not impulsive. The combination of Impulsivity with personality compo-nents, as predicted, appears to associate with specific types of antisocial behavior. For example, ifimpulsive boys are highly energetic and at the same time less empathic, they are likely to developinto the trajectory of persistent physical aggression. On the other hand, boys who self-report highlevels of Impulsivity and Venturesomeness but are low in Empathy, have a higher likelihoodto follow a trajectory of persistent vandalism. Last, boys with high scores in Impulsivity andVenturesomeness are likely to follow a persistent theft trajectory.
4. Discussion
The results indicated that different combinations of personality components differentially pre-dicted the probability of following a high trajectory in physical aggression, theft and vandalism.For extravert characteristics (Energy and Venturesomeness), the higher scores of Energy wereassociated with boys in the persisting trajectory of physical aggression. Higher scores of Venture-someness, on the other hand, were associated to persistent vandalism and persistent theft. For thepsychotic characteristics (Empathy trait, Impulsivity trait), lower scores of Empathy were associ-ated only to boys who followed the physical aggression or vandalism trajectory, but not theft.Higher scores of Impulsivity was a trait associated to boys who show physical aggression, theftor vandalism persistent trajectory. Boys who belonged to physical aggression or theft persistenttrajectory reported higher scores in Anxiety. However, this variable did not differentiate betweentwo trajectories in the discriminant analysis. Therefore, in sum, the boys in persistent trajectoriesshowed higher scores in psychoticism, extraverted and neurotic general characteristics but eachtype of antisocial behavior trajectory reported a specific profile of personality.
Eysenck’s hypothesis was also supported in regards to the combined effects of personality vari-ables (Center & Kemp, 2002; Center et al., 2005) and the differential effects these combinations canhave on antisocial behavior (Keenan & Shaw, 2003; Moffit et al., 1996, 2002; Newcomb & McGee,1991). For example, the boys following the physical aggression persistent trajectory were predictedby psychoticism characteristics (Impulsivity and Empathy) and Energy. By contrast, the vandalismand theft persistent trajectories were predicted by Venturesomeness, and then the psychoticismcharacteristics. The difference between vandalism persistent trajectory and theft persistent trajec-tory was in Empathy variable: theft was not predicted by Empathy and vandalism was.
It is important to note the most essential predictor for all types of antisocial Behaviors wasImpulsivity. This supports prior research that has reported psychoticism characteristics as the pri-mary predictor of antisocial Behaviors, especially when compared to Neuroticism and Extraversion(Center & Kemp, 2002; Center et al., 2005; Furnham & Thompson, 1991; Romero et al., 2001;Sakloske & Eysenck, 1980). For example, Impulsivity has been identified as an important predictorof problems such as gambling, abuse of drugs, physical aggression and delinquency (Colder &Chassin, 1997; Taylor et al., 1996; Vitaro, Arseneault, & Tremblay, 1999; White et al., 1994).
The connection between Venturesomeness or Sensation Seeking with ASB has also previouslybeen reported, particularly in regards to rule breaking and traffic violations (Zuckerman, 1983,1994; Newcomb & McGee, 1991; Renner & Anderle, 2000). This could explain the differences wefound between physical aggression and theft or vandalism. For example, according to Newcomb
1318 M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320
and McGee (1991), the effects of sensation seeking on later deviant behavior and attitudes are spe-cific rather than general. That is, these researchers reported sensation seeking was closely relatedto delinquency and not to other ASB like physical aggression. As previous authors suggested (Ey-senck et al., 1984; Saklofske & Eysenck, 1983), the main difference between Impulsiveness andVenturesomeness is the recognitions of risk: Venturesomeness describes people who are awareof the risks they may run and decide to take the chance (i.e., theft or vandalism) whereas Impul-sivity describe people do not evaluate a situation in terms of risk and act on impulse (physicalaggression).
Although psychoticism characteristics (Impulsivity especially) discriminated the boys in thepersistent trajectories, these personality characteristics were not equivalent for each type of anti-social behavior. We found that Empathy (specifically the affective component evaluated) was therelevant variable in both physical aggression trajectory and vandalism but not in theft. This can beexplained according to the definition of theft and Empathy used here. The theft Behaviors used inthis study appear to be more along the lines of indirect aggression and do not involve forceful, orphysical theft, e.g., ‘‘Stealing a bicycle’’; ‘‘keeping objects worth at school.’’ This result is sup-ported by Kaukiainen et al. (1999) who found that Empathy correlated negatively less with indi-rect aggression than direct aggression (physical or verbal) and in 12 year-old children there was nocorrelation with indirect aggression. Likewise Sakloske and Eysenck (1980) show that toughmind-edness (Psychoticism) is associated with the most aggressive boys, but not with badly behaved orwell behaved boys.
In addition, the present results showed the differential link of personality variables on differentantisocial behavior trajectories in boys over a long period of time. Impulsivity, mainly increasedthe risk of developing every antisocial behavior persistent trajectory from 11 to 17 years old; how-ever, the combination of this variable with Empathy or extraverted characteristics (Energy orVenturesomeness) increased the probability of developing in a specific antisocial behavior persis-tent trajectory, such as the physical aggression persistent trajectory, theft persistent trajectory orvandalism persistent trajectory. This work contributes to Eysenck et al. (1985) reconsideration ofexamining different combinations of personality components to explain different types of antiso-cial Behaviors.
This study had limitations. Because it was restricted to a sample of French-speaking adolescentboys who were brought up in low socioeconomic areas of a large North-American city, replica-tions will be needed with other populations to verify the generality of the results. It will be espe-cially interesting to replicate the study with females as well as with subjects from other cultures.Because the data covered a limited range of development, the observed trajectories may changesubstantially in a study that would include observations from childhood and observations fromyoung adulthood (Nagin, 1999; Tremblay, 2003). Despite these limitations and other possible lim-itations, this study supports the links between Eysenck’s personality components. Especiallyimpulsivity and longitudinal trajectories of antisocial Behaviors.
Acknowledgements
This research has been supported by Quebec’s FQRSC and Canada’s SSHRC funding agen-cies, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the U.S. National Science Foundation
M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320 1319
(SES-9911370), the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health (RO1 MH65611-01A2), and theMolson Foundation. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations do not neces-sarily reflect the views of any particular funding agencies.
References
Arnett, J. J. (1996). Sensation seeking, aggressiveness and adolescent reckless behaviour. Personality and Individual
Differences, 20, 693–702.Batson, D., Batson, J., Slingsby, J., Harrell, K., Peekna, H., & Todd, M. (1991). Empathic joy and the Empathy-
altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 413–426.Blishen, B. R., Carroll, W. K., & Moore, C. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations in Canada.
Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 24, 465–488.Center, D., Jackson, N., & Kemp, D. (2005). A test of Eysenck’s antisocial behavior hypothesis employing 11–15 year
old students dichotomous for PEN and L. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 395–402.Center, D., & Kemp, D. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and Eysenck’s theory of personality: An evaluation.
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 49, 353–366.Colder, C. R., & Chassin, L. (1997). Affectivity and impulsivity: Temperament risk for adolescent alcohol involvement.
Psychology Addictive Behaviours, 11, 83–97.Daderman, A. M. (1999). Differences between severely conduct-disordered juvenile males and normal juvenile males:
The study of personality traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 26, 827–845.D’Unger, A., Land, K., McCall, P., & Nagin, D. (1998). How many latent classes of delinquent/criminal careers?
Results from mixed Poisson regression analyses of the London, Philadelphia, and Racine cohorts studies. American
Journal of Sociology, 103, 1593–1630.Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 665–667.Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Crime and personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Press.Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and the biosocial model of antisocial and criminal behaviour. In A. Raine, P.
Brennan, D. Farrington, & S. Mednick (Eds.), Biosocial bases of violence (pp. 21–37). New York: Plenum Press.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (Adult & Junior). San Diego:
Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. W. (1985). Personality and individual differences. New York: Plenum.Eysenck, S. B., Easting, G., & Pearson, P. (1984). Age norms for impulsiveness, venturesomeness and empathy in
children. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 315–321.Eysenck, S. B., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of
personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247–1255.Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism scale. Personality and
Individual Differences, 6, 21–29.Furnham, A., & Thompson, J. (1991). Personality and self-report delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences,
12, 585–593.Gatzke-Kopp, L. M., Raine, A., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Steinhauer, S. (2002). Serious delinquent
behavior, sensation seeking, and electrodermal arousal. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 477–486.Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion–extraversion. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 8,
249–266.Heaven, P., Newbury, K., & Wilson, V. (2004). The Eysenck Psychoticism dimension and delinquent behaviours among
non-criminals: Changes across the lifespan? Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1817–1825.Jones, B., Nagin, D. S., & Roeder, K. (2001). A SAS procedure based on mixture models for estimating developmental
trajectories. Sociological Methods and Research, 29, 374–393.Kaukiainen, A., Bjorkqvist, K., Lagerspetz, K., Osterman, K., Salmivalli, Ch., Rothberg, S., et al. (1999).
The relationships between social intelligence, empathy, and three types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 25,81–89.
1320 M. Carrasco et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 41 (2006) 1309–1320
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (2003). Starting at the beginning: Exploring the etiology of antisocial behaviour in the firstyears of life. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency
(pp. 153–181). NY: The Guildford Press.Lacourse, E., Cote, S., Nagin, D., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., & Tremblay, R. (2002). A longitudinal experimental
approach to testing theories of antisocial behaviour development. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 909–924.Loudin, J. L., Loukas, A., & Robinson, S. (2003). Relational aggression in college students: Examining the roles of
social anxiety and empathy. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 430–439.Moffit, T. E. (2003). Life-course persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, &
A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 49–75). NY: The Guildford Press.Moffit, T. E., Caspi, A., Dickson, N., Silva, P. A., & Stanton, W. (1996). Childhood onset versus adolescent onset
antisocial conduct in males: Natural history from age 3 to 18. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399–424.Moffit, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. (2002). Males on the life course persistent and adolescence-limited
antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 399–424.Nagin, D. S. (1999). Analyzing developmental trajectories. A semiparametric group-based approach. Psychological
Methods, 4, 139–157.Nagin, D., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Trajectories of boys’ physical aggression, opposition, and hyperactivity on the
path to physically violent and nonviolent juvenile delinquency. Child Development, 70(5), 1181–1196.Newcomb, M. D., & McGee, L. (1991). Influence of sensation seeking on general deviance and specific problem
behaviours from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 614–628.Renner, W., & Anderle, F. (2000). Venturesomeness and extraversion as correlates of juvenile drivers’ traffic violations.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 673–678.Romero, E., Luengo, M. A., & Sobral, J. (2001). Personality and antisocial behaviour: Study of temperamental
dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 329–348.Sakloske, D. H., & Eysenck, S. B. (1980). Personality and antisocial behavior in delinquent and non-delinquent boys.
Psychological Reports, 47, 1255–1261.Saklofske, D. H., & Eysenck, S. B. (1983). Impulsiveness and venturesomeness in Canadian children. Psychological
Reports, 52, 147–152.Seguin, J. R., Nagin, D. S., Assaad, J. M., & Tremblay, R. E. (2004). Cognitive-neuropsychological function in chronic
physical aggression and hyperactivity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113(4), 603–613.Taylor, E., Chadwick, O., Heptinstall, E., & Danckaerts, M. (1996). Hyperactivity and conduct problems as risk factors
for adolescent development. Journal of American Academic Child Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1213–1226.Tremblay, R. E. (2003). Why socialization fails: The case of chronic physical aggression. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt,
& A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Tremblay, R. E., Pihl, R. O., Vitaro, F., & Dobkin, P. L. (1994). Predicting early onset of male antisocial behavior from
preschool behavior. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 732–739.Vitaro, F., Arseneault, L., & Tremblay, R. E. (1999). Impulsivity predicts problem gambling in low SES adolescent
males. Addiction, 94, 565–575.White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bartush, D. J., Needles, D. J., & Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). Measuring
Impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 103, 192–205.Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Zuckerman, M. (1983). Biological bases of sensation seeking, impulsivity and anxiety. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers.Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioural expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge
