Kenethia L. McIntosh Fuller

More documents

Recommendations

Info

139Table 31Multinomial Logistic Regression of Personality Factors and Types of Offenders asCompared to Co-offendersIndependentVariables B SE WALD Exp(B) 95% CI.00 Intercept -5.525 1.241 19.831Sex -.165 .319 .268 .848 [0.453, 1.585]Race .267 .461 .336 1.306 [0.529, 3.225]Age .039 .018 4.939* 1.040 [1.005, 1.076]Openness -.013 .010 1.796 .987 [0.968, 1.006]Conscientiousness .041 .010 15.940*** 1.042 [1.021, 1.064]Extraversion -.002 .007 .054 .998 [0.985, 1.012]Agreeableness .020 .010 3.836 1.020 [1.000, 1.0414]Neuroticism .014 .008 3.005 1.014 [0.998, 1.029]1.00 Intercept -5.914 1.884 9.854*p
140Table 32Multinomial Logistic Regression of Personality Factors and Types of Offenders asCompared to Non OffendersIndependentVariables B SE WALD Exp(B) 95% CI1.00 Intercept -.388 1.953 .040Sex .210 .513 .168 1.234 [0.451, 3.375]Race .398 .648 .378 1.489 [0.418, 5.301]Age .031 .020 2.500 1.032 [0.993, 1.072]Openness .006 .016 .133 1.006 [0.975, 1.037]Conscientiousness -.006 .017 .136 .994 [0.962, 1.027]Extraversion -.017 .011 2.462 .983 [0.962, 1.004]Agreeableness -002 .017 .017 .998 [0.966, 1.031]Neuroticism -.012 .012 1.050 .988 [0.965, 1.011]-2 Log-likelihood = 507.234Model Chi-Square = 50.107***Cox and Snell R 2 = .153Nagelkerke R 2 = .182The beginning -2 log likelihood with no independent variables in the model is557.341. The -2 log likelihood with the independent variables in the model is 507.234.The difference between them is 50.107, which is the chi-square value. The nullhypothesis being tested is that all of the coefficients are equal to zero. Because the chisquarevalue is significant (p
Page 1 and 2:
PERSONALITY AND CRIME: AN EXAMINATI
Page 3 and 4:
iiiIndiana University of Pennsylvan
Page 5 and 6:
vThe results contribute to the body
Page 7 and 8:
viiDr. David Myers, I know you were
Page 9 and 10:
ixsupport me. You have made me feel
Page 11 and 12:
xiChapterPageMethods ..............
Page 13 and 14:
xiii21 OLS Regression Results Measu
Page 15 and 16:
2variables. Participants were also
Page 17 and 18:
4crime (Bartol & Holanchock, 1979;
Page 19 and 20:
6incarcerated, while everyone who i
Page 21 and 22:
8The Current StudyIn light of all t
Page 23 and 24:
10offending and review past researc
Page 25 and 26:
12brief examination of a few of the
Page 27 and 28:
14With the passing of time, it is n
Page 29 and 30:
16phenomenon, not a social problem.
Page 31 and 32:
18Goldberg (1981) examined the lexi
Page 33 and 34:
20when arousal is increased or decr
Page 35 and 36:
22Review of Relevant LiteratureThou
Page 37 and 38:
24results only reported on the diff
Page 39 and 40:
26conscientious, they were less lik
Page 41 and 42:
28While this study appeared to addr
Page 43 and 44:
30from the general community. The r
Page 45 and 46:
32higher conscientiousness scores.
Page 47 and 48:
34statistics were used in evaluatin
Page 49 and 50:
36separated based on their scale sc
Page 51 and 52:
38robbery convictions and no more t
Page 53 and 54:
40the study made use of a non-delin
Page 55 and 56:
42Sample 2 was comprised of 124 mal
Page 57 and 58:
44NeuroticismNumerous studies have
Page 59 and 60:
46review include a mix of data sour
Page 61 and 62:
48According to the data, solo offen
Page 63 and 64:
50with a crime. However, this did n
Page 65 and 66:
52In 1977, Erickson teamed up with
Page 67 and 68:
54of theft, burglary, and motor veh
Page 69 and 70:
56populations utilized in the resea
Page 71 and 72:
58discussed. The quantitative metho
Page 73 and 74:
60behavior, and lay the foundation
Page 75 and 76:
62Ha3: There is a significant, posi
Page 77 and 78:
64Ha6: Individuals with higher scor
Page 79 and 80:
66Table 2Hypothesized Relationship
Page 81 and 82:
68item are between 1-5 on a Likert
Page 83 and 84:
7016. Generates a lot of enthusiasm
Page 85 and 86:
72likely to be offended. Drunkennes
Page 87 and 88:
7433 true-false questions, asking a
Page 89 and 90:
76SampleIn a vast majority of prior
Page 91 and 92:
78(Appendix C). Once the survey was
Page 93 and 94:
80Finally, there is an issue of ano
Page 95 and 96:
82earlier, this model is the most w
Page 97 and 98:
84Phase 2In this phase of the resea
Page 99 and 100:
86While the six types of offending
Page 101 and 102: 88Since this statistic needed overa
Page 103 and 104: 90CHAPTER FOURRESULTSThe current re
Page 105 and 106: 92Table 4Comparison of Descriptive
Page 107 and 108: 94alpha reliabilities for the Big F
Page 109 and 110: 96observation, and further points o
Page 111 and 112: 98Extraversion. Extraversion refers
Page 113 and 114: 100further, the alpha if deleted ma
Page 115 and 116: 102Table 10Descriptive Statistics f
Page 117 and 118: 104personality research. As mention
Page 119 and 120: 106would actually be higher if this
Page 121 and 122: 108Offenses against persons. Offend
Page 123 and 124: 110Table 14Descriptive Statistics o
Page 125 and 126: 112only comprised of responses from
Page 127 and 128: 114Validity of the offending and co
Page 129 and 130: 116When looking at the correlations
Page 131 and 132: 118According to Lewis-Beck (1980),
Page 133 and 134: 120Ordinary least squares regressio
Page 135 and 136: 122independent variables are includ
Page 137 and 138: 124variables in the model, we fail
Page 139 and 140: 126negatively related to analogous
Page 141 and 142: 128Table 24OLS Regression Results M
Page 143 and 144: 130weight is openness (.115). The p
Page 145 and 146: 132additional variables caused a re
Page 147 and 148: 134Ha8: Individuals with higher sco
Page 149 and 150: 136offending than individuals with
Page 151: 138Phase ThreePhase 3 of the study
Page 155 and 156: 142offenders. Agreeableness also ap
Page 157 and 158: 144SummaryWhen comparing across gro
Page 159 and 160: 146CHAPTER FIVEDISCUSSION AND CONCL
Page 161 and 162: 148causing property damage (Laak et
Page 163 and 164: 150relationship between individual
Page 165 and 166: 152Ha1: There is a significant, pos
Page 167 and 168: 1542003). With this in mind, while
Page 169 and 170: 156was found to be significantly an
Page 171 and 172: 158significant relationships for co
Page 173 and 174: 160LimitationsWhile this study does
Page 175 and 176: 162well researched theories that ma
Page 177 and 178: 164Recommendations for Future Resea
Page 179 and 180: 166the solution to this problem. Cu
Page 181 and 182: 168
Page 183 and 184: 170Berman, T., & Paisey, T. (1984).
Page 185 and 186: 172revitalizing the group premise i
Page 187 and 188: 174Heaven, P. C. L. (1996). Persona
Page 189 and 190: 176offenders. British Journal of Cr
Page 191 and 192: 178psychology. Psychology, Crime &
Page 193 and 194: APPENDICES180
Page 195 and 196: 182SURVEY INITIAL EMAILHello,My nam
Page 197 and 198: 184SURVEY INVITATION EMAILHello,You
Page 199 and 200: APPENDIX C186
Page 201 and 202: 188Indiana University of Pennsylvan
Page 203 and 204:
190SURVEY THANK YOU EMAILHello,I wo
Page 205 and 206:
192Part ISURVEY QUESTIONNAIREHere a
Page 207 and 208:
194Part IIHere are a number of char
Page 209 and 210:
196How often in the past 12 months
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215:
202
show all

Kenethia L. McIntosh Fuller

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?