ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparison of personality profile of prison

criminals in the Yasooj Central Penitentiary and
noncriminals based on 16 personality factors

A B S T R A C T
Mahnaz Moghanloo Aims: The study was conducted to examine the personality profile of prisoners
in the Yasooj Central Penitentiary (YCP) according to Cattell’s 16 Personality
Department of Psychology,
Payam Noor University, Tehran,
Factors (PFs) Model. Settings and Design: In doing so, 50 prisoners were selected
Iran from among all 20–35‑year‑old male prisoners at YCP. Moreover, 50 people
were selected from the nonprison community to match with the prisoner group.
Subjects and Methods: In a causal–comparative study, both groups were matched
and were evaluated using two questionnaires: demographic information and Cattell’s
Address for correspondence: 16‑PF questionnaires. Statistical Analysis Used: The statistical method used to predict
Dr. Mahnaz Moghanloo, the distinguishing personality traits of the two groups, prisoners and nonprisoners,
Robat Karim Parand Payam was discriminant analysis. Results: The results indicated that from among Cattell’s
Noor University, Asaman, 16 factors, only 7 factors in the two groups were discriminant and predicting crime:
Parand, Tehran, Iran. Conservative, sober, expedient, self‑control, imaginative, reserved, and tough
E‑mail: [email protected]
mindedness. Conclusions: According to the results, 16 main factors of personality have
Received: 04 February 2021 the ability to predict crime.
Revised: 25 April 2021
Accepted: 16 July 2021 Keywords: 16‑factor personality model, crime, personality profile, prisoner
Published: 28 October 2021

O ne of the most original and enduring approaches in

studying criminal behavior is examining the relationship
between crime and personality traits.[1] The results of the
that three‑factor and five‑factor personality models predict
committing criminal acts.

studies before have identified that some personality traits can Psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism are the three
differentiate delinquent people from the nondelinquent ones. essential personality factors (PFs) in Eynseck’s PEN
Cal[2] concluded that personality predicts several significant Mode. This theory is one of the few theories that explicitly
life consequences such as committing crimes and antisocial relate personality traits to criminality. While high neuroticism
behavior. Particularly, high negative excitability (tendency to scores reflect emotional instability, impulsive, and antisocial
experience avoidable emotional states) and lack of behavioral behavior, psychoticism is usually defined by lack of
inhibition predict criminal behaviors in cross‑sectional and empathy, cruelty, hostility, psychopathy, aggressiveness, and
longitudinal studies.[1] Moreover, some significant outcomes socialization deficit.[6] Criminological literature also indicated
have been reported on the relationship between childhood that high scores on psychoticism and neuroticism were
temperament and subsequent delinquent violations and found to be associated with juvenile delinquency.[7] Several
behaviors.[3] The studies on the relationship between other studies[8,9] found juvenile delinquency to be positively
personality traits and criminal activity like Miller and
Lynam,[4] Wiebe,[5] and Kammaluddin et al.[6] have indicated This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License,
which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially,
Access this article online as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under
Quick Response Code: the identical terms.

Website: www.industrialpsychiatry.org For reprints contact: [email protected]

How to cite this article: Moghanloo M. Comparison of personality

profile of prison criminals in the Yasooj Central Penitentiary and
DOI: 10.4103/ipj.ipj_115_20
noncriminals based on 16 personality factors. Ind Psychiatry J
2021;30:316-22.

316 © 2021 Industrial Psychiatry Journal | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

 Moghanloo: Personality profile of prison criminals and noncriminals based on 16 personality factors

related with psychoticism and extraversion instead of noncriminal on 12 PFs of the 16 PFs. Singh studied on
psychoticism and neuroticism. Furthermore, characteristics 75 female prisoners convicted from murder and equal
of psychoticism such as aggressive, hostile, low in empathy, number of female prisoners convicted for other petty
and impulse are the common characteristics shared by crimes and found that criminals are significantly different
criminals and delinquents. Levin and Jackson concluded from noncriminals. He described that criminals had a
that impulsivity, the need for arousal, or sensation seeking, lower self‑esteem and social esteem, indicating a lack of
instead of Eysenck’s three personality traits, were a better self‑regard, thus exhibit neurotic traits such as anxiety,
predictor of delinquency.[10] Many psychologists have irritability, hostility, maladjustment, and insecurity. Sanyal[17]
used the five‑factor personality model to examine the conducted a study on 25 women convicted of murder
personality traits of delinquents. Among the personality of “Nari Bandi Niketan” in Lucknow. Sinha[18] indicated
traits of the five‑factor model, extroversion and neuroticism high scores on intelligence, impulsiveness, suspicion,
are positively associated with crime and can directly predict self‑sufficient, spontaneity, and self‑concept control
delinquent behaviors. Moreover, the results indicate that factors and very low scores on emotionally less stable
the scores of delinquent individuals in characteristics on Cattel’s 16 PFs scale in criminals as compared with
such as agreeableness, conscientiousness, and empathy are normal. Most of the studies in the background of criminal
significantly lower than nondelinquent individuals. Thus, personality research have been based on the five‑factor
agreeableness and conscientiousness are inversely related model and Eysenck’s three‑factor model, and no studies
to criminal activity.[11,12] Wiebe[5] noted that agreeableness have been conducted on the personality traits of criminals
and conscientiousness have been found to be predictive and delinquents in Iran or abroad using Cattell’s 16‑PF
of adult criminal behavior. In a longitudinal epidemiology model. The question of the present study is that what
study in the Baltimore area by Samuels,[13] 611 participants is the difference between the personality profile of the
from 1981 to 12–18 years later were examined and measured prisoners in the Yasooj Central Penitentiary (YCP) and the
by DSM‑IV criteria for personality disorders and NEO‑PI nonprisoner people in terms of Cattell’s 16 PFs?
personality traits. [14] Their results showed paranoid,
antisocial, and borderline personality disorders with higher
crime rates and higher neuroticism. In conscientiousness, SUBJECTS AND METHODS
especially in the subtrait, the criminals had a lower score,
and there were no differences in flexibility between the The study was descriptive with causal design. First, the
two groups. study groups were identified. Given the purpose of the
study, the study groups were two groups of prisoners
Several factor systems have been described for personality, of YCP and nonprisoners. The conditions for selecting
the most important of which was the 16‑factor personality individuals in the first group, YCP prisoners, were being
model developed by Cattell and his research team. The male, aged 20–35 years, and going through the sentence
main focus of Cattell’s theory is the distinction between period in 2016 in YCP. The prisoners group matched
two types of source and surface traits. Cattell has divided the non-prisoners group in terms of gender, age, and
the traits into three categories based on how they manifest education. Based on this, 50 non-prisoners were selected
themselves: (1) dynamic traits: the traits that move a and studied as volunteers from among the no prisoners
person toward a goal; (2) empowerment traits: the traits of the population (young boys 20-35 years old) in the
that show a person’s talent, capability, and ability to reach general park. In the case of prisoners, the questionnaires
a goal; and (3) mood traits: Traits that show characteristics were administered during office hours, and to have the
such as energy, emotional response, reaction speed prisoners cooperate and to motivate them, privileges such
and motivation speed, and strength.[15] For each of the as (face‑to‑face meeting and increasing call time) were
factors, he has considered two names (as opposite traits), given, and for the nonprisoners, they were promised to be
one for high scores and the other for low scores: informed of the test results by having their phone numbers.
Reversed‑outgoing, less intelligent‑more intelligent, In the next step, the needed data were collected using study
emotional‑stable, humble‑assertive, sober– happy‑go‑lucky, tools (demographic and Cattell’s 16‑factor personality
expedient‑conscientious, shy‑venturesome, tough‑ questionnaires). Discriminant statistical analysis method
minded‑tender‑minded, trusting‑suspicious, practical was used to examine the hypothesis, which will be briefly
imaginative, forthright‑shrewd, placid‑apprehensive, described. Discriminant analysis is one of the methods
conservative‑experimenting, group‑tied self‑sufficient, of cluster analysis, which is known as audit analysis as
casual‑controlled, and Relaxed– tensed.[15] well. In this analysis, each data are placed in one of the
clusters, and the researcher tries to determine whether a
Dayal[16] examined the association between crime and data are classified correctly or not. This analysis is similar
personality and reported that criminals differ from to multiple regressions, except that in multiple regressions,

Industrial Psychiatry Journal  317 Volume 30 | Issue 2 | July-December 2021

 Moghanloo: Personality profile of prison criminals and noncriminals based on 16 personality factors

the dependent variable is always a quantitative variable and matched in terms of education in the group of prisoners
has a normal distribution. However, here, the dependent and nonprisoners, and in both of the groups, those with
variable not only does not have a normal distribution, secondary studies and high school diploma had higher
but is a qualitative variable with limited levels. Logistic frequency. In terms of employment status, the highest
regression is used in a special case where the dependent frequency in both prisoner and nonprisoner groups was
variable has two values. However, discriminant analysis related to simple workers. According of frequencies of
method should be used if the dependent variable takes Chi square in Tables 1 and 2, none of differences between
more than two values. There are three types of discriminant prisoners and nonprisoners in age, gender, educational,
analysis: Direct, hierarchical, and step‑by‑step. In direct and employment statuses was significant. In other word,
discriminant analysis, all variables enter the equation the two groups matched well. According to Table 3, the
together. In hierarchical discriminant analysis, a statistical respondents were classified into 8 groups in terms of the
criterion (the third option mentioned above) determines cause of the conviction, with the highest frequency (80%)
the order in which variables enter the equation. This type in thieves group. According to Table 4, the respondents
of analysis is mainly used to group individuals within were classified into five groups in terms of the number
predefined separate and incompatible groups, so that of convictions, with nearly 62% without any previous
each individual is assigned exclusively to one of these convictions. The prisoners studied were classified into
groups and the likelihood of individuals being mistakenly five groups in terms of duration convictions, with about
attributed to unrelated groups is minimal. The objectives 26% serving 6–8 years in prison.
of the analysis can be described in detail as follows:
Studying the differences between existing and known Table 5 shows the mean scores and standard deviation
groups, studying the best way to separate groups in small between the two groups of prisoners and nonprisoners
quantities, eliminating the variables insignificant in group in Cattell’s 16 PFs. The results presented in Table 5
separation, grouping or arranging individuals within groups, show that among the 16 factors of Cattell, prisoners
and evaluating accuracy analysis. Here, one has to look for received scores of less than 5 in the following of
indices or criteria, based on which and the information components: Reversed‑outgoing, sober‑happy‑go‑lucky,
from the known groups the individuals are optimally expedient‑conscientious, tough‑minded‑tender‑minded,
attributed to the predetermined groups. Thus, one can state practical‑imaginative, and conservatism. Moreover,
the scores of the prisoners in several scales are clearly
that the purpose of this type of analysis is separation or
different from nonprisoners such as reserved‑outgoing,
differentiation and allocation.
reserved‑happy‑go‑lucky, expedient‑conscientious,
tough‑minded‑tender‑minded.
RESULTS
The results related to the value of Wilks’ lambda, showing
Tables 1‑5 show the demographic status of the sample the significance of the differential equation of prisoners
group in terms of age, educational status, marital status, and nonprisoners, are given in Table 6. As the Table 6
occupation, reason for conviction, history of conviction, shows, the equation for distinguishing the two groups has
and total sentence. According to Table 1, the respondents a Chi‑square value of 123.12, which is significant with a
examined in terms of gender in the prisoner and degree of freedom of 7% at 99% level. This shows the
nonprisoner groups were matched, and in both groups, proper significance and distinction of the discriminant
20–30 years of age group had the highest frequency (70%). function. Moreover, the number one in the function test
According to Table 2, the respondents examined were column shows the only discriminant function that has been

Table 1: The frequency of respondents in terms of age

Age group Frequency (%) Percentage of cumulative frequency χ2 Significance
Prisoners (years)
20-30 35 (70) 70
30-40 8 (16) 86
Over 40 7 (14) 100 0.09 0.95
Total 50 (100)
Nonprisoners (years)
20-30 35 (70) 70
30-40 8 (16) 86
Over 40 7 (14) 100
Total 50 (100) ꭔ

Volume 30 | Issue 2 | July-December 2021 318 Industrial Psychiatry Journal

 Moghanloo: Personality profile of prison criminals and noncriminals based on 16 personality factors

Table 2: The frequency of the respondents in terms of education and occupation separately for
prisoners and nonprisoners
Frequency (%) χ2 Significance
Education
Prisoners
Secondary 17 (34)
High school diploma 19 (38)
Associate’s degree 8 (16)
Bachelor’s 6 (12) 1.10 0.77
Total 50 (100)
Nonprisoners
Secondary 15 (30)
High school diploma 25 (50)
Associate’s degree 5 (10)
Bachelor’s 5 (10)
Total 50 (100)
Occupation
Prisoners
Unemployed 12 (24)
Private sector employee (simple worker) 21 (42)
Public sector employee 3 (6)
Small personal business 14 (28) 2.91 0.40
Total 50 (100)
Nonprisoners
Unemployed 14 (28)
Private sector employee (simple worker) 16 (32)
Public sector employee 9 (18)
Small personal business 11 (22)
Total 50 (100)

Table 3: The frequency of prisoner respondents Y = 0.385 sober + 0.391 expedient + 0.498 casual + 0.294
in terms of cause of conviction conser vatism + 0.333 tough‑minded + 0.543
Cause of conviction Frequency (%) Percentage of reserved + 0.345 imaginative
and type of crime cumulative frequency
Theft 40 (80) 80 Finally, by reexamining and separating the available data,
Drugs 3 (6) 86
it was found that these 7 factors have separated up to
Financial debt 3 (6) 92
Stick‑up 4 (8) 100
97% of the two mentioned groups.
Total 50 (100)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
obtained with two levels of the criterion variable, and the
degree of freedom shows the number of variables in the As the results indicated, the differentiating personality
discriminant function, which is equal to 7 variables. traits of prisoners and nonprisoners in the discriminant
analysis equation were conservative, sober, expedient,
On the other hand, Table 7 indicates the factors that self‑control, imaginative, reserved, and tough‑minded
entered the discriminant function out of 61 Cattell factors factors. As the results show, the “conservative” factor has
in 7 steps and distinguished the two groups. However, it has the highest F value, showing the high discriminant power
to be noted that here the variables are shown in the last step.
of this factor. The second highest factor is “sober,” and
As the table above shows, the conservative factor has the in order, the “expedient,” “casual,” “imaginative,” and
highest F level, which shows the high discriminant power “reserved” factors have lower discriminant power. The
of this factor. On the other hand, the lowest discriminant lowest discriminant power belongs to the “tough‑minded”
power belongs to tough‑minded factor. Finally, according to factor. The results are consistent with the predictions of
the values of nonstandardized coefficients, the discriminant Gray’s theory and consistent with the studies of Franken
regression equation of the two groups is: and Maurice.[19]

Industrial Psychiatry Journal  319 Volume 30 | Issue 2 | July-December 2021

 Moghanloo: Personality profile of prison criminals and noncriminals based on 16 personality factors

In explaining each of these factors, can be expressed that venturesome, diversity seeking, curiosity, extreme
“conservative” factor can be clearly seen in the feedback independence, emotional self‑destruction, and emotional
with a clear role in the overall character. Those who lack actions overcoming rational actions are of the behavioral
conservatism are more extroverted, less interested in problems that lead a person to dangerous situations and
basic events, and generally consider less rational issues. committing criminal acts.
Furthermore, Eysenck argues that criminal behavior is more
likely to occur in an emotional person than in introverts The second factor is “sober.” The most significant
as emotionality can force a person to engage in normal characteristic of these people is their being avoidant and
behaviors like an absorber. In other words, in the case of passive, so that it is the others who have to read them to
intense emotions, a person becomes vulnerable to his good themselves. On the other hand, their adaptation to the
or bad habits, and if he has developed antisocial habits, situation is slow; in other words, they are inflexible. They
his desire to do them will increase in emotional situations. are locked in their own habits. Thus, sober people are
Finally, such characters perform every experience, even aroused more than happy go lucky people due to emotional
if it is expensive for them, to show “self.” Emotionality, incentives. Sober trait includes anxiety, hysteria, obsession,
and excessive emotional reactions, and these people can
Table 4: The frequency of prisoner respondents hardly return to the normal state after being emotionally
in terms of the number of convictions and the aroused and always have physical symptoms such as
total conviction
headaches, backache, and mental problems such as anxiety,
Frequency (%) stress, and obsession.[20]
The number of convictions
None 31 (62) The third factor is “expedient,” and these people do not
Once 7 (14)
heed social demands and have expectation at the same
Twice 0
time, which can harmonize themselves with a certain flow
Three times 4 (8)
Four times and more 8 (16)
and bias in life, so that they can be more often attributed
Total 50 (100) to unstable characteristics. One of the most important
Total conviction (years) abilities of these people is self‑legitimacy, which can lead
Under 2 8 (16) to opposition to others in unconcerned, superficial, lazy,
2-4 7 (14) criminal, and nonserious people.
4-6 7 (14)
6-8 13 (26) The fourth factor is “casual.” One of the internal factors,
Over 8 15 (30) affecting the formation of human personality undeniably,
Total 50 (100)
is “will.” Will is significant as it is a parallel factor with

Table 5: Mean scores and standard deviation of the sub‑scales of Cattell’s 16‑factor questionnaire in
the prisoner group
Agent Factor Prisoner Nonprisoner
Mean SD Mean SD
A Reserved ‑ outgoing 4.9 1.06 6.3 1.34
B Less intelligent ‑ more intelligent 5.9 1.11 6.26 1.2
C Emotionally ‑ stable 5.3 1.42 5.3 1.07
E Humble ‑ assertive 5.8 1.11 5.64 1.35
F Sober ‑ happy‑go‑lucky 4.4 1.36 5.84 1.08
G Expedient ‑ conscientious 4.3 1.13 5.5 0.95
H Shy ‑ venturesome 5.4 1.11 5.94 1.19
I Tough‑minded ‑ tender‑minded 4.5 1.09 5.74 1.16
L Trusting ‑ suspicious 5.5 1.33 5.24 1.15
M Practical ‑ imaginative 4.8 1.76 6.28 1.64
N Forthright ‑ shrewd 5.6 2.12 6.28 1.64
O Placid ‑ apprehensive 4.9 1.04 4.96 0.95
Q1 Conservative 0 experimenting 4.1 1.23 6.12 1.45
Q2 Group tied ‑ self‑sufficient 5.1 0.91 5.02 0.94
Q3 Casual‑controlled 4.8 0.92 6.24 1.38
Q4 Relaxed ‑ tense 3.7 1.43 4.22 1.66
SD – Standard deviation

Volume 30 | Issue 2 | July-December 2021 320 Industrial Psychiatry Journal

 Moghanloo: Personality profile of prison criminals and noncriminals based on 16 personality factors

Table 6: The value of Wilk’s lambda equation distinguishing between two groups of prisoners and
nonprisoners
Examining functions Wilk’s lambda χ2 Degree of freedom Significant
1 0.272 123.12 7 0.000

Table 7: Distinctive personality traits of to others. Moreover, cold and unobtrusive silence along
prisoner and nonprisoner groups of Cattell’s 16 with their tension is sometimes caused by shyness. They
personality factors are very secretive and lack emotion and have favorite
Factor Wilk’s lambda F Bearing capacity people. On the other hand, there are some traces of being
Conservative 0.63 57.61 0.924 “reserved” are humiliating, greedy, straining, oppositional,
Sober 0.47 54.65 0.902 inflexible, suspicious, and violent. Reserved people care
Expedient 0.384 51.34 0.955 about nonabstract principles more than they do about
Casual 0.335 47.25 0.912 details. Moreover, their verbal capacity is superior to their
Imaginative 0.306 42.54 0.971 general intelligence, with these conditions and the stated
Reserved 0.287 38.48 0.926
characteristics showing that these behaviors provide a
Tough‑minded 0.272 35.22 0.853
platform for the person to be more inclined to commit
crimes because he sums up everything in himself.
the two factors of heredity and environment. In other
words, although hereditary possessions and environmental Finally, the seventh factor is “tough‑mindedness.” Being
factors may be effective in the severity and weakness in this range shows that the person with an interest in
of the will, the reality of the will as an important and group life, who tries to attract the attention of others.
determining factor is in the context of environmental The “gentleness” shown in Eysenck’s model could be
and hereditary factors, and this means that it is possible misleading, as gentleness in nonprisoner conversation
that by relying on one’s abilities and capabilities, one can shows love, whereas the “escape from reality” trait should
select a path different from what one has inherited and be considered about these people. They are like those
different from what the surrounding cultural and social people in “Killing” novel by Tolstoy’s, who weep over
environment needs, build one’s own future life and figure the pitiful reality that takes place on the stage whereas the
out the character the way he wants. Moreover, lack of carriage man is freezing outside to death. These idealistic
control of will causes the tendency of such people to people have social and political views against any kind of
commit crimes or to fall into the trap of environmental pure realism. These people are intuitive and irrelevant, full
or hereditary factors. of imagination and have beliefs that logically follow the
desires of childhood. Finally, show off in these people,
The fifth factor is “imaginative.” Dreams and fantasies related to being tough‑minded and venturesome, is very
are of the psychological needs in the essence of every valuable to these people, which leads them to turn to
human. This strength and talent exists in all humans, delinquency and satisfy their group solidarity.
yet the differences are in the intensity and weakness of
the type of processing and the degree to which human Limitations
ability is realized and turned into reality. In general, It has to be noted that the unisex nature of the sample due
imaginative people who live in dreams follow their own to administrative problems and conducting the present
path, regardless of the contract and the demands of study only on male prisoners, creates restrictions on the
collective life and remind their expectations of others possibility of generalization. Due to the nature of the
at the same time. On the other hand, the complexity samples, low cooperation ended in the nonseparation of
of their thoughts and the unwillingness to change their the type of criminal behavior and its examination was
beliefs cause them to be ruthless in their response, lack a general, causing the disapproval of some of the expected
sense of responsibility for practical things, and go after relationships between the variables.
the tasks likely to be considered very kosher by them.
These weaknesses and the absence of conditions for the Suggestion for future studies
realization of imagination in the real world lead to these It is suggested that the study should be conducted by
people to be more inclined to commit crimes to reach comparing personality traits in prisoners of both genders.
their dream from the shortest path. Furthermore, it is recommended that future studies
should examine and compare the relationship between
The sixth factor is “reserved” people. These people have 16 personality traits in each of the criminal behaviors
less interest in human society and are cold and indifferent (like criminal behaviors related to drug use and alcohol, sex,

Industrial Psychiatry Journal  321 Volume 30 | Issue 2 | July-December 2021

 Moghanloo: Personality profile of prison criminals and noncriminals based on 16 personality factors

physical conflict and violence, murder, and so on) separately antisocial behaviour: Study of temperamental dimensions.
Pers Individ Dif 2001;31:329‑48.
and separately in order to foreground the relationship 8. Aleixo PA, Norris CE. Personality and moral reasoning in
between the type of crime or personality traits. young offenders. Pers Individ Dif 2000;28:609‑23.
9. Heaven P. Personality and self reported delinquency: Analysis
Acknowledgment of the “Big Five” personality dimensions. Pers Individ Dif
The prisoners of YCP and the respectful employees of the 1996;20:47‑54.
10. Gudjonssen GH, Sigurdsson JF. Motivation for offending and
prison are appreciated for their collaboration in the study. personality. Legal Criminol Psychol 2007;9:69‑81.
11. Markey CN, Matrick MB, Ericksen AJ, Tinsley BJ,
Financial support and sponsorship Matthews G, Gilliland K. The personality theories of HJ
Nil. Eysenck and JA Gray: A comparative review. Pers Individ Dif
1999;26:583‑626.
12. Gullone E, Moore S. Adolescent risk‑taking and the five‑factor
Conflicts of interest model of personality. J Adolesc 2000;23:393‑407.
There are no conflicts of interest. 13. Samuels J, Bienvenu J, Cullen B, Costa, PT Jr., Eaton WW,
Nestadt G. Personality dimensions and criminal arrest. Compr
Psychiatry 2004;45:275‑80.
REFERENCES 14. Costa PT Jr., McCrae RR. NEO PI‑R Professional Manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992.
1. Burt SA, Donnellan M B. Personality correlates of aggressive 15. Seyed Mohammadi Y. “Personality Theories”, Translated by
and non‑aggressive antisocial behavior. Pers Individ Dif Schultz, Duan; Schultz, Sydney. Tehran: Ney Publications;
2008;44:53‑63. 2013. p. 89.
2. Cal EM. A quantitative review of the relations between the 16. Dayal S. Prosecuting force‑feeding: An assessment of
“Big 3” higher order personality dimensions and antisocial criminality under the ICC statute. J Int Crim Justice
behaviour. J Res Pers 2006;40:250‑84. 2015;13:693‑716.
3. Khademi A. New Approaches in the Psychology of Criminal 17. Sanyal S. Female Criminals in India. New Delhi: Uppal
Behavior. Tehran: Science Publications; 2010. p. 48. Publishing House; 1986.
4. Miller JD, Lynam DR. Psychopathy and the five‑factor model 18. Sinha S. Personality correlates of criminals: A comparative
of personality: A replication and extension. J Pers Assess study between normal controls and criminals, Ind Psychiatry
2003;81:168‑78. J 2016;25:41‑6.
5. Wiebe R. Delinquent behavior and the five factor model: Hiding 19. Franken IH, Muris P. BIS/BAS personality characteristics
in the adaptive landscape? Individ Dif Res 2004;2:38‑62. and college students’ substance use. Pers Individ Dif
6. Kammaluddin GM, Sharif NS, Othman A. Linking psychological 2006;40:1497‑503.
trait with criminal behaviour: A review. ASEAN J Psychiatry 20. Mattews G, Gilliand K. The personality theories of
2015;16:1‑13. H. J. Eysenck and J.A. Gray: A comparative review. Pers
7. Romero E, Luengo M, Sobral J. Angeles Personality and Individ Dif 1999;26:583‑626.

Volume 30 | Issue 2 | July-December 2021 322 Industrial Psychiatry Journal