Incarcerated adolescent girls: personality, social competence, and delinquency.
ter Laak, Jan ; de Goede, Martijn ; Aleva, Liesbeth 等
There are several theories that try to explain juvenile
delinquency. The present study confines itself to investigating
personality traits and social competence as predictors of delinquency in
adolescent girls.
Personality Traits as Predictors of Delinquency
Eysenck (1964, 1976) and Eysenck and Eysenck (1985) suggested that,
compared to nondelinquents, delinquents are more extroverted, neurotic,
and tough-minded (psychoticism). The last factor can be seen as a
combination of low agreeableness and low conscientiousness, which,
together with extroversion, neuroticism, and openness to experience (or
autonomy), are known as the Big Five personality factors (Costa &
McCrae, 1992; Hendriks, 1997). Furnham and Thompson's (1991) study
on how personality correlates with crime indicated that there is a
relationship between delinquency and psychoticism. They found a lack of
consistency with respect to extroversion and neuroticism.
Heaven (1996), investigating the relationship between the Big Five
and delinquency, found that neuroticism and conscientiousness were
significantly associated with the level of delinquency in high school
students, while extroversion and openness were not. John, Caspi, Robins,
Moffit, and Stouthamer-Loeber (1994), examining delinquency in 12- to
13-year-old boys, found that a high level of delinquency was accompanied
by low levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness. A high level of
delinquency was also related to a high level of the sensation-seeking
facet of extroversion, while neuroticism and delinquency were not
related. Wit and Van Aken (1998) reported that incarcerated adolescent
boys who were treated in a residential institution scored higher on
conscientiousness and neuroticism, and lower on agreeableness, than did
a nondelinquent control group.
Elements of Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) general theory of
crime can be considered to support the position that personality traits
are predictive of delinquency. For example, the results of a
meta-analysis by Pratt and Cullen (2000) suggested that low self-control
was a good predictor of crime. Low self-control included the following
factors: lack of resistance to immediate gratification, impulsiveness,
insensitiveness, physical risk taking, shortsightedness, and being
unable to express problems. These low self-control factors were
described as stable individual characteristics. They also partly
resembled the description of a personality trait, and Pratt and
Cullen's meta-analysis found that a trait-opportunity or
trait-situation relationship was present. Inclusion of the situation or
opportunity improved the power of the control variable to predict
criminal behavior.
Social Competence in Delinquents
Psychologists often stress the fact that juvenile delinquents lack
the social skills needed to solve interpersonal problems. For example,
Gaffney and McFall (1981) found that delinquent adolescent girls
resolved their social problems less adequately than did a comparable
nondelinquent group. This and similar findings paved the way for the
inclusion of social skills training as part of rehabilitation programs
for juvenile delinquents (see Gendreau & Ross, 1987).
However, Eysenck (1976) indicated that some delinquents are more,
not less, socially competent than the average person. He distinguished
"criminals to their fingertips" from those "who simply
cannot get by in our complex society" (p. 115). Specifically,
successful delinquents need social, organizational, and computational
skills to estimate the risks involved in criminal acts (i.e., to
succeed, they must conduct a cost-benefit analysis of criminal
activities). This hypothesis is in accord with rational choice theory,
which suggests that criminals think rationally and strategically to
accrue the benefits of their crime (e.g., money, goods, excitement,
belonging to a group, respect of other criminals; see Cornish &
Clarke, 1986). This hypothesis has been contested; lack of self-control
and impulsiveness have been frequently observed in criminals and are
often elements in the criminal act (see, for example, De Haan &
Vos's study on mugging, 1993). Nevertheless, it is reasonable to
assume that some decision-making processes are involved in adolescent
criminality (Lavery, Siegel, Cousins, & Rubovits, 1993; Heimer &
Matsueda, 1994).
Hirschi (1986) tried to do justice to both hypotheses, suggesting
that rational choice was connected with criminal events and that control
was connected with the person's criminal involvement. One has to
estimate the possibility of success for a particular criminal act in a
specific situation, but the ease with which one is involved in such
behavior is influenced by one's self-control.
In this study, two components of social competence were
distinguished: intensity and frequency. By intensity we mean the level
of tension people experience in certain social situations, namely where
the performance of a special type of interpersonal behavior is required,
in particular self-assertion (i.e., negative assertion, expression of
personal limitations, initiating assertiveness, and positive
assertion-these behaviors are described in more detail in the Methods
section). By frequency we mean the extent to which, or the probability
that, incarcerated adolescent girls get involved in such situations.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
We formulated two research questions: (a) Is there a relationship
between delinquency and personality in incarcerated adolescent girls?
(b) Is there a relationship between delinquency and social competence in
incarcerated adolescent girls? A study of the empirical literature and
our interpretation of Gottfredson and Hirschi's control theory led
to the following hypotheses on the relationships between the
aforementioned five personality factors (De Raad, 2001) and delinquency.
Agreeableness refers to, on the positive side, characteristics such
as mild mannered, good-hearted, peaceful, tolerant, accommodating,
cordial, and avoiding conflict, and, on the negative side, to bossy,
autocratic, domineering, callous, demanding, egocentric, arrogant, and
hotheaded. People with a high level of agreeableness are sympathetic to
the needs and interests of others, while those with a low level are
insensitive to others' needs and interests. This leads to the first
hypothesis, H1.1: Agreeableness correlates negatively with delinquency.
Conscientiousness is linked to such characteristics as accurate,
careful, diligent, prompt, painstaking, industrious, precise, and
orderly on the positive side, and irresponsible, indolent, nonchalant,
frivolous, lax, lazy, reckless, scatterbrained, and immoral on the
negative side. A low level of conscientiousness indicates a lack of
internalized social rules. People with a low level of conscientiousness
do not stick to plans they have made with others, and do not perform
tasks they promised to do. Their behavior can be characterized as
opportunistic; they do what seems to be in their best interest from
moment to moment and from situation to situation. This leads to H1.2:
Conscientiousness correlates negatively with delinquency.
Extroversion is one pole of the bipolar extroversion-introversion
dimension. Extroverts are spontaneous, exuberant, cheerful, vivacious,
enthusiastic, candid, and uninhibited, while introverts are
uncommunicative, reserved, somber, shy, and timid. Extroverts are
inclined to take the lead in social situations. A characteristic of some
extroverted people is the feeling that there is not enough going on in
their own lives, and they therefore engage in sensation-seeking
behavior. They like tension, and this can lead to rule-breaking
behavior, such as delinquent activities. This leads to H1.3:
Extroversion, in particular the aspect of sensation-seeking behavior,
correlates positively with delinquency.
Neuroticism encompasses characteristics such as panicky, uncertain,
unstable, nervous, vulnerable, emotionally sensitive, and dependent. The
opposite feature--emotional stability--includes such terms as assured,
steady, stable, imperturbable, decisive, down-to-earth, resolute, and
calm. With respect to delinquency, a neurotic person will not often take
the initiative but be more of a follower. Eysenck (1964) expected
delinquents to be more neurotic compared with nondelinquents. Furnham
and Thompson (1991) reported inconsistent results on neuroticism, but
Heaven's (1996) and Wit and Van Aken's results (1998)
supported Eysenck's hypothesis. These inconsistent findings
regarding delinquency and neuroticism indicated that we should explore
the relationship further rather than formulate a hypothesis, leading to
E1.4: Is there a relationship between delinquency and neuroticism?
Openness (or autonomy; Hendriks, 1997) refers to characteristics
such as critical, versatile, unconventional, inventive, acute, deep,
progressive, and autonomous on the positive side, and uncritical,
docile, bourgeois, conservative, and servile on the negative side.
Heaven (1996) found no relationship between delinquency and openness.
Other studies did not include this personality feature. Therefore, we
sought to explore the relationship, leading to E1.5: Is there a
relationship between delinquency and openness?
Psychologists working with the incarcerated adolescent girls in
this study considered the lack of social competence--particularly social
anxiety in situations where self-assertion is relevant--as an important
characteristic. Based on their experience in the field, they assumed
that a high level of delinquency would be accompanied by a low level of
social competence (see also Gaffney & McFall, 1981; Gendreau &
Ross, 1987). This view is in line with the social deficit hypothesis,
leading to our second group of hypotheses, H2: There is a negative
relationship between delinquency and social competence.
Taking into account the two components of social competence
(intensity and frequency) and the four types of self-assertion (negative
assertion, expression of personal limitations, initiating assertiveness,
and positive assertion), the second hypothesis can be expanded into the
following subhypotheses: The more delinquent adolescent girls are, the
more tension or social discomfort they experience in social situations,
which are indicated successively by negative assertion (H2.1);
expression of, and dealing with, personal limitations (H2.2); initiating
assertiveness (H2.3); and positive assertion (H2.4). In the same way, we
can state: The more delinquent adolescent girls are, the less frequently
they get involved in social situations, which are indicated successively
by negative assertion (H2.5); expression of, and dealing with, personal
limitations (H2.6); initiating assertiveness (H2.7); and positive
assertion (H2.8).
For any of these subhypotheses we can formulate an alternative
subhypothesis from the viewpoint of delinquency as intentional, socially
competent behavior. Thus, a higher level of delinquency would be
accompanied by a higher level of social competence, leading to H3: There
is a positive relationship between delinquency and social competence.
Similar to the second hypothesis, we formulated subhypotheses, but
now in reverse: The more delinquent the girls' behavior, the less
tension or social discomfort they experience in difficult social
situations, as successively indicated above (H3.1-4). The same applies
to frequency: The more delinquent the girls, the more frequently they
become involved in these types of difficult social situations, as
indicated above (H3.5-8).
METHOD
Participants
The participants for this study were 33 girls incarcerated in one
correctional institution in the Netherlands. Their ages ranged from 12
to 18 years (M = 15.5 years, SD = 1.3 years). Incarceration in this
institution depended on the availability of spaces for girls, and the
distance between the institution and their home. Clearly, it was not a
random sample from the population of incarcerated adolescent girls, but
neither was it a self-selected sample. All the participants spoke Dutch,
although one-third of the girls had parents who were born abroad, mostly
in Morocco. They were incarcerated for a period of 5 to 62 weeks (M =
18.6 weeks, SD = 10.6 weeks).
Measures
Delinquency. We used the Self-Reported Delinquency Scale (Mak,
1993) to measure delinquency. This scale comprises 34 items about
cheating, status offenses, fighting, drugs, robbery, vandalism,
disturbing the peace, joyriding, and stealing cars, motorbikes, and
bicycles. The scale has been found to correlate significantly with
policere-gistered crimes (r = .49 for boys and r = .46 for girls), and
Cronbach's alpha was .88. We did not include use of alcohol and
soft drugs or watching pornographic movies because these behaviors are
not dealt with by Dutch legislation and consequently not considered
delinquent behavior. Moreover, it was considered highly unlikely that
these girls would force someone to have sexual intercourse, so this item
was not used. Psychologists working in the institution where we
conducted this research asked us to include some frequently committed
crimes in our study (e.g., carrying a gun, harassing a stranger). The
final scale consisted of 29 yes/no items, referring to eight types of
crime: causing damage (e.g., breaking windows, defacing street signs,
kicking holes in school walls); doing harm (making obscene phone calls,
threatening others); fighting (e.g., beating up someone); theft (e.g.,
shoplifting); status offenses (e.g., running away from home); cheating
(e.g., sneaking into a movie theater or onto a bus without paying);
joyriding (e.g., taking a car or motorbike without the owner's
consent); and using drugs (e.g., cocaine, heroin). Cronbach's alpha
for these items was .76.
Personality. We used the Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI;
Hendriks, 1997) to measure personality. High Cronbach's alphas for
the five factors have been reported (.83 to .89), and test-retest
correlations over a six-month period were good (.79 to .83). The FFPI
showed convergent validity with the NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae,
1992)--the most frequently used questionnaire to assess the Big Five
personality factors--on four of the five factors (agreeableness,
extroversion, conscientiousness, and openness/autonomy).
Social competence. We used the Scale for Interpersonal Behavior
(SIB) to determine social competence (see Arrindell, Greet, &
Walburg, 1984; Arrindell, Sanderman, & Rancher, 1990; Bijstra,
Bosma, Jackson, & van der Molen, 1993; Bijstra, Bosma, &
Jackson, 1994; Arrindell, Ende, Sanderman, Oosterhof, Stewart, &
Lingsma, 1999). Arrindell et al. (1999) reported excellent reliability
and factorial invariance for the SIB. This scale comprises four
subscales: (1) negative assertion, which refers to situations where it
is necessary to show negative feelings (e.g., confronting a friend who
refuses your request or asking someone to stop doing something that
annoys you); (2) expression of, and dealing with, personal limitations
(e.g., admitting that you are wrong or asking someone to explain
something you do not understand); (3) initiating assertiveness, which
refers to situations where it is necessary to give your opinion or take
the initiative (e.g., starting a conversation with a stranger or telling
a group of people about something you have experienced); and (4)
positive assertion, which refers to situations where showing positive
feelings is necessary (e.g., telling someone you like him/her or
acknowledging a compliment about your personal appearance) (see
Arrindell et al., 1999, p. 421).
The participants were asked to report the degree to which they
experienced tension in the above situations on a scale ranging from 1
(no tension) to 4 (a lot of tension). As previously noted, the extent of
social competence in situations where certain behaviors are indicated is
usually distinguished from its frequency. Thus, the participants were
asked to report how often (or how likely it is) they would behave in an
inadequate or unsuitable manner in the above situations on a 4-point
scale (never, seldom, often, always).
Social desirability. In order to check for social desirability
bias, four yes/no items were included: Did you lie last year? Did you
arrive at school too late last year? Did you do anything against your
parents' will last year? Did you ever break a promise last year?
Procedure
The 33 girls completed the questionnaires anonymously in groups of
four to eight. A researcher was present to answer any questions they had
and to clarify items when needed. For reasons of privacy, the
institution did not allow us to collect any other information (i.e.,
criminal records, family circumstances, or other socio-demographic
data).
Analysis
An overall score for delinquency was computed by counting the yes
responses. The scores on the 29-item questionnaire ranged from 3 to 24
(M = 16.30, SD = 5.73). The mean of the scores on the social
desirability items was low (M = .18, SD = .58), suggesting that the
girls generally answered the delinquency questions honestly. We
conducted principal components analysis (varimax rotation) on the eight
types of delinquency, which resulted in three factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. These factors explained 73% of the variance, and were
labeled aggression (causing damage, doing harm, fighting, and theft),
backing out of obligations (status offenses and cheating), and
excitement/sensation-seeking (joyriding and using drugs).
The hypotheses required the computation of correlation
coefficients. The variables did not appear to be normally distributed
according to the Shapiro-Wilks test, so Spearman's rank
correlations were computed.
RESULTS
Personality Traits as Predictors of Delinquency
We hypothesized a negative correlation between delinquency and
agreeableness (H1.1). The correlation coefficient was negative but
nearly zero (r = -.03, ns), therefore we must reject this hypothesis.
There is no relationship between delinquency and agreeableness.
We hypothesized a negative correlation between delinquency and
conscientiousness (H1.2). Girls with a higher level of conscientiousness
reported significantly fewer crimes (r = -.44, p = .00). Thus, this
hypothesis should be accepted.
Extroversion was positively correlated with delinquency (in line
with H1.3), but not significantly (r = .12, ns). Therefore we should
reject this hypothesis.
The relationships between delinquency and neuroticism (E1.4) and
openness (E1.5) were explored. The correlation between neuroticism and
delinquency approached statistical significance (r = .31, p = .08). The
correlation between delinquency and openness (autonomy) was significant
(r = .37, p = .04), which indicates that girls with a higher level of
openness/autonomy reported more crimes.
More specifically, there were significant correlations between four
of the five personality traits and four of the eight types of delinquent
behavior. Conscientiousness was negatively correlated with causing
damage (r = -.37, p < .05), fighting (r = -.42, p < .01), and
cheating (r = -.36, p < .05). Extroversion was positively correlated
with status offenses (r = .38, p < .05). Neuroticism was positively
correlated with causing damage (r = .35, p < .05). Openness was
positively correlated with fighting (r = .50, p < .01) and cheating
(r = .40, p < .01).
Social Competence and Delinquency
We formulated two hypotheses on the relationship between
delinquency and social competence that predicted opposite outcomes. One
stated that there will be a negative relationship between delinquency
and social competence (H2), while the other stated that there will be a
positive relationship (H3).
Contrary to the prediction in H2.1, but in line with H3.1,
delinquency correlated negatively with negative assertion, that is, the
level of tension in expressing situation-appropriate negative feelings
(r = -.33, p < .05). This result supported the view that delinquent
acts need a certain level of social competence. Expression of, and
dealing with, personal limitations (H2.2 and H3.2), initiating
assertiveness (H2.3 and H3.3), and positive assertion (H2.4 and H3.4)
correlated positively with delinquency (r = .25, .22, and .29,
respectively). These correlation coefficients were in the direction
predicted by the view that delinquents lack some social competencies,
but were not statistically significant.
Hypotheses 2.5-2.8 and 3.5-3.8 deal with the relationship between
delinquency and the frequency of showing relevant behaviors in difficult
social situations. Three of the four correlations were statistically
significant: negative assertion (r = .36, p < .05), initiating
assertiveness (r = .37, p < .05), and positive assertion (r = .37, p
< .05). The correlation for personal limitations (r = .22) was not
significant. These four correlation coefficients were in the direction
(i.e., positive) predicted by the view that assumes the presence of
social competence in delinquents.
DISCUSSION
Personality Traits as Predictors of Delinquency
Agreeableness was not correlated with the overall score for
delinquency or with any specific type of crime. Heaven (1996), however,
reported a negative correlation in a group of psychology students. Wit
and Van Aken (1998) reported a lower score on agreeableness for
delinquent boys receiving treatment in a residential institution than
for boys in a control group. However, there is an important difference
between these two studies and the present one: their participants were
delinquent and nondelinquent boys rather than incarcerated delinquent
girls. It is possibly more socially acceptable for boys to be bad and
consequently they may report delinquent acts and less agreeableness more
easily. The residential boys were being treated in a rather
confrontational program, which showed them the consequences of their
actions, in particular how their behavior and personality were evaluated
by others. It is possible that this affected their answers on the
agreeableness dimension.
Conscientiousness correlated negatively with delinquency, in
particular with fighting, but also with causing damage and cheating.
Conscientiousness refers to maintaining societal rules and standards,
and to planning and achieving in a way that is acceptable to, or
appreciated by, society. Barrick and Mount (1991) found this factor to
have the strongest correlation with company job performance compared
with the other four personality factors. Conscientiousness seems to play
a central role in accepting rules--in the family, at school, in the work
environment, and in society.
A low, nonsignificant correlation between extroversion and
delinquency in general was found. In terms of specific types of crime,
only status offenses correlated significantly with extroversion. The
sensation-seeking facet of extroversion has been found to be correlated
with delinquency in several studies (see Furnham & Thompson, 1991).
The status offenses of school truancy and running away from home might
also reflect this sensation-seeking aspect of extroversion.
Neuroticism correlated positively (but not quite attaining
statistical significance) with the general measure of delinquency.
Regarding specific types of crime, neuroticism was significantly
correlated with causing damage.
Openness (or autonomy) correlated with general delinquency, in
particular with two types of delinquency: cheating and fighting. For
these behaviors, some sophistication, initiative, and autonomy, as well
as rational choice and decisiveness, are probably needed. Another
interpretation of these results is that the more autonomous participants
were more willing to report their crimes. However, all the participants
talked easily and without reservation about their crimes--they had
already been sentenced--and also about crimes committed against them.
In line with the literature, the more crimes the adolescent girls
reported, the less conscientious, the more neurotic, and the more open
(or autonomous) they were. These personality characteristics have
predictive power for delinquency, and resemble to a certain extent the
self-control variable that was evident in Pratt and Cullen's (2000)
meta-analysis. In addition, the personality factors were related to the
more severe types of delinquent behavior (i.e., those falling into the
categories of aggression and backing out of obligations). The relatively
less serious forms of delinquent behavior, such as theft, doing harm,
joyriding, drug use and, to a certain extent, status offenses, did not
appear to be related to the personality factors.
We also interpreted the results from two different viewpoints.
First, we considered the 33 incarcerated girls as a population; second,
we dealt with these girls as a sample drawn from the population of
incarcerated adolescent girls in the Netherlands (see Table 1). From the
population viewpoint, the degree and direction of the correlations are
important, and less so the level of significance. From the sample
viewpoint, the significance levels of the correlations are also
important. However, in this study we are not dealing with a random
sample. We could characterize the selection of our subjects as a way of
exampling, but strictly speaking we cannot generalize the results of
this study to the population of incarcerated girls in the Netherlands or
elsewhere. On the other hand, we find it difficult to imagine that other
incarcerated girls--all things being equal--would show completely
different behavior. We will thus consider successively the direction of
the correlation coefficient, the probability or significance level, and
accepting or rejecting the hypothesis.
From the sample viewpoint, we conclude that the greater the
criminality of the incarcerated adolescent girls, the lower their
conscientiousness and the greater their neuroticism and openness
(autonomy). From the population viewpoint, four personality traits out
of five correlate more or less with delinquency. Only agreeableness is
not related to delinquency, at least not in our group of incarcerated
girls.
Delinquency and Social Competence
Table 2 presents an overview of the results regarding social
competence and delinquency. From the sample perspective, we can draw the
conclusion that a higher level of delinquency is accompanied by higher
social competence in situations where negative self-assertion is
required. In addition, a higher level of delinquency is accompanied by a
higher frequency of getting involved in three of the four types of
social situations that cause social discomfort (i.e., negative
assertion, initiating assertiveness, and positive assertion, but not
expression of, and dealing with, personal limitations). From the
population perspective, none of the subhypotheses can be rejected.
Despite the small number of participants and the specific character
of the sample, the results suggest that individual differences in
personality, especially in conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness
(autonomy), correlate with self-reported delinquency in incarcerated
girls. The results partly support and refine earlier findings and add
openness (autonomy) as a relevant characteristic to the prediction of
delinquency in adolescent incarcerated girls.
The results mainly support the assumption that delinquent girls
experience more situation-inappropriate or situation-inadequate feelings
of tension in the specific social situations described in the Scale for
Interpersonal Behavior. This tends to confirm lack of social competence
(i.e., social deficit theory) as a factor explaining delinquency in
young girls. However, more criminal acts (i.e., greater frequency)
appeared to be accompanied by less social discomfort in situations where
assertive behavior, in particular negative assertion, was appropriate.
Thus, our results partly support the view that criminal behavior can be
the outcome of rational decision-making.
In sum, our results suggest that some personality factors, as well
as social competence, can be predictive of delinquency. The results also
have implications for prevention programs. Social competence can be
changed. Much more attention should be paid to encouraging children and
adolescents to learn balanced social skills, with the ultimate goal of
having fewer young people incarcerated.
Table 1
Overview of the Results of Testing the Predictions Deduced from
Hypothesis 1
Accept Accept
Hypothesis Hypothesis
Delinquency with Predicted from Population from Sample
Personality Traits Direction Perspective Perspective
H1.1: Agreeableness yes no no
H1.2: Conscientiousness * yes yes yes
H1.3: Extroversion yes yes no
E1.4: Neuroticism NA -- --
E1.5: Openness * NA -- --
Note. NA = not applicable.
* p < .05
Table 2
Overview of the Results of Testing the Subhypotheses
Deduced from Hypotheses 2 and 3
Right Right
Direction: Direction:
Social Rational
Delinquency with Deficit Choice
Social Competence Theory Theory
Intensity
Negative assertion * H2.1 no H3.1 yes
Personal limitations H2.2 yes H3.2 no
Initiating assertiveness H2.3 yes H3.3 no
Positive assertion H2.4 yes H3.4 no
Frequency
Negative assertion * H2.5 no H3.5 yes
Personal limitations H2.6 no H3.6 yes
Initiating assertiveness * H2.7 no H3.7 yes
Positive assertion * H2.8 no H3.8 yes
Accept Accept
Hypothesis Hypothesis
Delinquency with from Population from Sample
Social Competence Perspective Perspective
Intensity
Negative assertion * yes yes
Personal limitations yes no
Initiating assertiveness yes no
Positive assertion yes no
Frequency
Negative assertion * yes yes
Personal limitations yes no
Initiating assertiveness * yes yes
Positive assertion * yes yes
* p < .05
REFERENCES
Arrindell, W. A., Ende, J., Sanderman, R., Oosterhof, L., Stewart,
R., & Lingsma, M. M. (1999). Normative studies with the Scale for
Interpersonal Behavior (SIB): I. Non-psychiatric social skills trainees.
Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 417-431.
Arrindell, W. A., Groot, P. M., & Walburg, J. A. (1984).
Handleiding Schaal voor Interpersoonlijk Gedrag, SIG [Guide to Scale for
Interpersonal Behavior: SIB]. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Arrindell, W. A., Sanderman, A., & Ranchor, A. (1990). The
Scale for Interpersonal Behavior and the Wolpe-Lazarus Assertiveness
Scale: A correlational comparison in a non-clinical sample. Personality
and Individual Differences, 11, 509-513.
Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The Big Five personality
dimensions and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-25.
Bijstra, J., Bosma, H., & Jackson, S. (1994). The relationship
between social skills and psycho-social functioning in early
adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 767-776.
Bijstra, J., Bosma, H., Jackson, S., & van der Molen, H.
(1993). Zelfwaardering en sociale vaardigheid bij adolescenten
[Self-esteem and social skills in adolescents]. Kind en Adolescent, 14,
161-172.
Clarke, R. V. (1995). Situational crime prevention. In M. Tonry
& D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Building a safer society: Strategic
approaches to crime prevention (pp. 91-151). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Clarke, R. V., & Felson, M. (1993). Routine, activity and
rational choice: Advances in criminal theory (Vol. 5). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning
criminal. New York: Springer Verlag.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO-PI: Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
De Haan, W., & Vos, J. (1993). De huilende rover en de
schaaamteloosheid van de rationele keuzebenadering [The crying robber
and the shamelessness of the rational choice approach to criminal
behavior]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 4, 351-377.
De Raad, B. (2001). The Big Five personality factors: History,
theory, procedures, models, and applications in the psycholexical
approach to personality. Gottingen: Hogrefe.
Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Crime and personality. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. J. (1976). The biology of morality. In T. Lickona
(Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research and social
issues (pp. 108-123). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, M. (1985). Personality and
individual differences: A natural science approach. New York: Plenum Press.
Furnham, A., & Thompson (1991). Personality and self-reported
delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 585-593.
Gaffney, L. R., & McFall, R. M. (1981). Social skills in
adolescent girls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49,
959-967.
Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivification of
rehabilitation: Evidence from the eighties. Justice Quarterly, 4,
463-489.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of
crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Heaven, P. L. C. (1996). Personality and self-reported delinquency:
Analysis of the Big Five personality dimensions. Personality and
Individual Differences, 20, 47-54.
Heimer, K., & Matseuda, R. L. (1994). Role-taking, role
commitment, and delinquency: A theory of differential social control.
American Sociological Review, 59, 365-390.
Hendriks, A. A. J. (1997). The construction of the Five-Factor
Personality Inventory. Doctoral thesis, University of Groningen, the
Netherlands.
Hirschi, T. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and
social control theories. In D. B. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The
reasoning criminal (pp. 105-119). New York: Springer Verlag.
John, O. P., Caspi, A., Robins, R., Moffit, T. E., &
Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994). The "little five": Exploring the
five factor model of personality in adolescent boys. Child Development,
65, 160-178.
Lavery, B., Siegel, A. W., Cousins, J. H., & Rubovits, D. S.
(1993). Adolescent risk-taking: An analysis of problem behaviors in
problem children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 55, 277-294.
Mak, A. S. (1993). A self-report delinquency scale for Australian
adolescents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 75-79.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of
Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta-analysis.
Criminology, 38(3), 931-964.
Wit, B. V. C., de, & Van Aken, M. A. G. (1998). Probleemgedrag,
persoonlijkheid en relationele ondersteuning van jongens in een RIJ [Behavioral problems, personality and relational support of incarcerated
boys]. Kind en Adolescent, 19, 310-328.
Reprint requests to Martijn de Goede, Department of Methodology and
Statistics, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Utrecht, P.O. Box
80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: m.degoede@fss.uu.nl