In 1996 Heaven carried out a study to see if psychoticism, extraversion, or self-esteem levels affected delinquency.
Important Terms and Definitions:
^Delinquency - Actions that go against accepted standard laws.
^Cross-sectional study - A study carried out at one point in time and comparing distinct groups of people.
^Longitudinal study - A study carried out over a period of time looking at the same group of people.
^Self-esteem - How much an individual values themselves.
^Delinquency - Actions that go against accepted standard laws.
^Cross-sectional study - A study carried out at one point in time and comparing distinct groups of people.
^Longitudinal study - A study carried out over a period of time looking at the same group of people.
^Self-esteem - How much an individual values themselves.
Aim
He aimed to find out if psychoticism, extraversion, or self-esteem affected delinquency.
He aimed to find out if psychoticism, extraversion, or self-esteem affected delinquency.
Hypothesis
Heaven hypothesised that all three predicted delinquency.
Heaven hypothesised that all three predicted delinquency.
Sample
The participants of this study were from two independent catholic schools in New South Wales, Australia. He had 282 adolescents in total (146 females and 136 males) with their ages ranging from thirteen to fifteen. All the students were tested, and after having the option, none of them withdrew.
The participants of this study were from two independent catholic schools in New South Wales, Australia. He had 282 adolescents in total (146 females and 136 males) with their ages ranging from thirteen to fifteen. All the students were tested, and after having the option, none of them withdrew.
Procedure
Heaven had three questionnaires for each participant to fill out and the first step he took was to check all three had internal reliability (stayed consistent) and, apart from the psychoticism scale, they all scored well.
Participants were followed up after two years and 80% of participants responded. All questionnaires were answered anonymously with a number on to help with the follow-up. Even with this, students were assured that their answers were completely confidential and their results wouldn't go to the school authorities.
Heaven had three questionnaires for each participant to fill out and the first step he took was to check all three had internal reliability (stayed consistent) and, apart from the psychoticism scale, they all scored well.
Participants were followed up after two years and 80% of participants responded. All questionnaires were answered anonymously with a number on to help with the follow-up. Even with this, students were assured that their answers were completely confidential and their results wouldn't go to the school authorities.
Results
The mean delinquency scores for males and females are shown below.
The mean delinquency scores for males and females are shown below.
This shows that males were more likely to engage in delinquent behaviour both times.
The table below shows the correlation between delinquency and the personality variables tested at both times.
The table below shows the correlation between delinquency and the personality variables tested at both times.
This shows a positive correlation between delinquency and psychoticism at both times. Extraversion had a positive correlation with delinquency only the second time and it was a weak correlation. The results Heaven received generally supported other cross-sectional studies completed previously. These studies had shown strong correlations between psychoticism and varying forms of anti-social or criminal behaviour.
The data was analysed further to test if psychoticism, extraversion or self-esteem in time 1 predicted delinquency in time 2. These further results showed that psychoticism was the best predictor for delinquency but it wasn't as prominent as Heaven had hoped it would be.
The data was analysed further to test if psychoticism, extraversion or self-esteem in time 1 predicted delinquency in time 2. These further results showed that psychoticism was the best predictor for delinquency but it wasn't as prominent as Heaven had hoped it would be.
Criticisms
- The sample was culturally biased in more ways than one. The sample only used children from Roman catholic schools and religion can have a strong impact of moral behaviour. Heaven included no students with a different religion or with no religion. In addition to this, they were both fee-paying schools, meaning that they all probably came from well-off families. Studies have also shown links between criminals and income, so the study would have been better had Heaven included some poorer participants. Finally, the study shows the patterns in Australia but that isn't to stay other nationalities would be the same.
- The results could have been affected by age bias. The average age of participants was fourteen the first time round and sixteen the second, this could mean they were too old to show signs of delinquency. Behaviour such as vandalism, violence and theft is usually shown earlier in life if the child is to show signs of delinquency.
- Heaven lost 20% of his participants for the second time round, this could have biased the results. As well as Heaven did with getting his participants back for a second test, those people he lost could have represented certain types of people; this could include youth who had been involved in many cases of criminal activity and did not want to report it, or people who had self-esteem so low they didn't want to continue with the study. These factors would have an impact of the overall validity of the results.
- The use of self-report could lead to incorrect data. Due to social desirability, participants may not have been completely honest in their questionnaires. This could include things like how low their self esteem is, or how much delinquent behaviour they were included in. Self-report methods have to rely on people's own insight, meaning people could have been unaware of how much these traits were apart of them when answering questions.
- This study could possibly lack construct validity as only closed questions were used. Critics have said how using simple answers and rating scales to measure complex constructs is inappropriate and could lead to inaccurate results. Using quantitative data hides the deep ways each of the different factors are connected.