Kenethia L. McIntosh Fuller

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ivTitle: Personality and Crime: An Examination of the Influence of the Five Factor Modelon Offending and Co-OffendingAuthor:Kenethia L. McIntosh FullerDissertation Chair:Dr. Dennis GieverDissertation Committee Members:Dr. John LewisDr. David MyersDr. Jennifer RobertsThe study was an effort to gain insight into the relationship between personalityfactors and offending. The personality factors included in the study were Openness,Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (OCEAN). It washypothesized that OCEAN would significantly impact offending and co-offending amongan adult sample of college students. Also, an effort was made to show that OCEANcould significantly differentiate between individuals who did not offend at all, individualswho offended alone, and individuals who participated in co-offending.Personality was measured using the Big Five Inventory, and offending wasmeasured using an adaptation of Elliott and Ageton’s (1980) self reported delinquencyscale. Various types of offending were examined. An online survey of 305 collegestudents provided the data for analysis. To test the hypotheses, a variety of statisticalmethods including OLS regression, logistic regression, ANOVA and multinomial logisticregression we applied. There was some support for the relationship between certainpersonality factors (conscientiousness and agreeableness) and offending.Agreeableness was the only factor shown to be significantly associated with cooffending.Agreeableness and conscientiousness were significantly able to differentiatebetween non offenders and co-offenders.
vThe results contribute to the body of knowledge by focusing on internalexplanations for offending, and by studying a wide variety of offenses rather than onespecific type of offending. The most unique aspect of this study was the comparison ofseveral different types of offenders (non offenders, solo offenders, and co-offenders).Future research should more closely examine the individual level explanations behindco-offending behaviors as well as including more mainstream criminological theories inthe analysis.
Page 1 and 2: PERSONALITY AND CRIME: AN EXAMINATI
Page 3: iiiIndiana University of Pennsylvan
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 and 152:
138Phase ThreePhase 3 of the study
Page 153 and 154:
140Table 32Multinomial Logistic Reg
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?