Explaining the Relationship Between Age and Crime Contributions From The

Clinical Psychology Review 30 (2010) 89–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Clinical Psychology Review

Explaining the relationship between age and crime: Contributions from thedevelopmental literature on personality

Daniel M. Blonigen ⁎Center for Health Care Evaluation, Department of Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System and Stanford University School of Medicine, USA

⁎ Veteran Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPark, CA 94025, USA. Tel.: +1 650 493 5000x27828; fax

E-mail address: [email protected].

0272-7358/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevierdoi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.001

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 17 February 2009Received in revised form 12 August 2009Accepted 2 October 2009

Keywords:Personality developmentAgeCrimeAntisocial behaviorEmerging adulthood

The robust link between age and crime has received considerable inquiry. However, the etiology of thisassociation remains elusive. The present exposition provides a review of seminal theories on age and crimeand discusses potential contributions from personality psychology in explaining this relationship.Specifically, personality development is highlighted with emphasis on patterns of change in traits from lateadolescence to early adulthood in order to address the misconception within the age–crime literature thatpersonality is only relevant to stability in antisocial behavior over time. It is theorized that age-relateddeclines in antisocial behavior reflect normative change in key dimensions of personality. Findings from thedevelopmental literature on personality are integrated with past biological and sociological perspectives onthe age–crime curve to articulate a theory that emphasizes the co-development of personality and antisocialbehavior from late adolescence to early adulthood. It is concluded that changes in personality undergird thedevelopment of antisocial behavior during this formative stage of the life-course and that personalitydevelopment represents a viable theoretical framework for understanding the link between age and crime.

PD), 795 Willow Road, Menlo: +1 650 617 2736.

Ltd.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Contents

1. The age–crime curve: desistance in crime from late adolescence to early adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.1. Early observations on the age distribution of crime at the aggregate level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 901.2. Individual-level variability in the developmental course of criminality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

2. Perspectives from criminology on the role of personality and individual differences in the relationship between age and crime . . . . . . . . 913. Incorporating personality development into the age–crime literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 914. Trait models of personality: definition and structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 915. Personality correlates of crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 926. Personality development: stability and change over the life-course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 937. Mean-level change in personality from late adolescence to early adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 938. Individual-level changes in personality: correspondence with developmental typologies of crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 949. Gender differences in personality change from late adolescence to early adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

10. Mechanisms of change in the co-development of personality and crime: integrating the developmental literature on personality with pastetiological theories of the age–crime curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9510.1. Sociological mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9610.2. Biological mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

11. Future directions: untangling the co-development of personality and crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9711.1. Latent growth models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9711.2. Behavioral genetic methodology: capturing the covariation and interplay among etiologic factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

12. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Unquestionably, crime and antisocial behavior exact a consider-able toll on individuals as well as society more generally. In recog-nition of this, many scholars have attempted to delineate the causalfactors in the initiation and development of antisocial behavior over

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.001

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02727358

Fig. 1. A graphical representation of the age–crime curve. Note. This graph of the agedistribution of crime was reproduced fromMoffitt (1993; p. 675), which was originallypresented by Blumenstein, Cohen and Farrington (1988) in “Criminal Career Research:Its Value for Criminology” — Criminology (p. 11), and depicts arrest rates by ageaccording to the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation.

90 D.M. Blonigen / Clinical Psychology Review 30 (2010) 89–100

the life-course. Emerging from this line of research is what Nagin andLand (1993) described as “the most important empirical regularity incriminology” (p. 331) — the age–crime curve, which entails theobservation that there is a sharp increase in the rate of crime andother deviant behaviors in mid-adolescence followed by an equallysharp decrease in these rates in early adulthood. With few exceptions,this trend has been consistently observed in bothmen andwomen, formost types of crimes, and across several nations and historical periods(Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983). Despite the ubiquity of this trend, theprocesses underlying this phenomenon are poorly understood.

The aim of this essay is to review the empirical and theoreticalliterature on the age–crime link and discuss the contributions from thedevelopmental literature on personality in explaining the normativetrend of desistance in crime from late adolescence to early adulthood(i.e., “emerging” adulthood; Arnett, 2000). First, early observations ofthe age–crime curve are given including description of the aggregate(mean) and individual-level trends as well as discussion of themisconception within the criminological literature that personalitytraits aremerely static risk factors that can only account for stability inantisocial behavior over time. Next, contemporary research and theoryon the structure of normal personality are discussed, with particularemphasis on personality correlates of crime and their patterns ofchange from late adolescence to early adulthood. Specifically, it istheorized that declines in antisocial behavior during this develop-mental stage reflect normative changes in key dimensions of per-sonality that have robust associations with criminality. Finally, thesenormative trends in personality are integrated with sociological andbiological models of the age–crime curve to describe potential causalmechanisms that may account for the co-development of personalitytraits and antisocial behavior during this period. It is concluded thatthe principles of personality development represent a viable theoret-ical framework for understanding the course of crime and antisocialbehavior during emerging adulthood.

1. The age–crime curve: desistance in crime from late adolescenceto early adulthood

The age–crime curve refers to the observation that when plottingaggregate rates of crime against age, there is a sharp increase in criminalactivity in mid-adolescence followed by an equally sharp decline inthese rates in early adulthood. The shape of this curve encompasses fourcomponents: (1) a rapid increase in mid-adolescence, (2) a peak in thecurve in late adolescence, (3) a precipitous decline in early adulthood,and (4) a gradual,monotonic decline thereafter and throughout the life-course (see Fig. 1). Each of these components is integral to a compre-hensive understanding of the phenomenon. However, relative to otherperiods in the life-course, normative changes in personality are mostprominent during the transition into adulthood (Roberts, Walton, &Viechtbauer, 2006). Thus, the present review is primarily focused on thethird component involving desistance from criminal activity during thetransition from late adolescence to early adulthood— a developmentalepoch commonly referred to as “emerging adulthood” (Arnett, 2000).This developmental stage, roughly covering the late teens through the20s with a focus on ages 18 to 25, is a distinct period in the life-coursemarked by a host of demographic and psychological changes, identityexploration, and adoption of new social roles (e.g., starting a family,entering theworkforce; Rindfuss, 1991; Shanahan, 2000). The turbulentnature of this period, as reflected by the number of significant andclosely spaced life changes, provides an ideal developmental context inwhich to investigate the link between age and crime.

1.1. Early observations on the age distribution of crime at the aggregatelevel

Initial observations of a strong association between age and crimecan be traced back several centuries (Neison, 1857; Quetelet, 1831). In

his seminal monograph, The English Convict, Goring (1913) provided athorough statistical account of the age–crime distribution and wasamong the first to assert that age represents an important etiologicalfactor in crime. Importantly, Goring suggested that some process orcovariate of age, rather than age itself, represents the causal factor inthis relationship. Building on these early observations, Hirschi andGottfredson (1983) provided data on the age–crime distribution fromseveral Western nations spanning nearly 150 years and concludedthat the distribution is invariant across an array of factors includingtime, place, demographics (e.g., gender, race), as well as offense type.

Although many scholars have noted the robust nature of theaggregate curve, others have contended that important variations inthe parameters of this distribution (e.g., modal and mean age,variance) do exist across socio-demographics and offense type (e.g.,Greenberg, 1985; Laub, 1983; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1995). Forexample, Steffensmeier, Allan, Harer, and Streifel (1989) reported thatthe curve is somewhat flatter for violent (“person”) offenses anddeclines more slowly in adulthood. While such findings suggest thatstrict invariance in the parameters of the curve may be overstated, theshape or form of the age distribution of crime appears to be invariant.In an effort to reconcile prior research with the invariance position ofHirschi and Gottfredson (1983), Britt (1992) analyzed age-specificarrest data for the United Sates from 1952 to 1987. Although therewas significant variability in parameters of the age distributionof crime for offense type or cohort, a single class of mathematicalfunctions was able to approximate the distribution across theseconditions (i.e., mathematical form invariance). Hence, variations inparameters of the age distribution of crime do not belie the generalform of the aggregate curve, which demonstrates that regardless ofoffense type or socio-cultural conditions, the mean level of crimebegins to decline in early adulthood.

1.2. Individual-level variability in the developmental course of criminality

Beyond the age distribution of crime in the aggregate, severallongitudinal studies have noted substantial heterogeneity within andbetween individuals in their rate of offending over time. Thisobservation of significant individual-level variability has led someresearchers to suggest the possibility of distinct developmentalsubtypes of offenders underlying the aggregate trend (Blumenstein,Cohen & Farrington, 1988; Farrington, 1986; Loeber & Le Blanc, 1990).For example, in a longitudinal study ofmale participants from ages 8 to32, Nagin and Land (1993) reported evidence for four developmental

91D.M. Blonigen / Clinical Psychology Review 30 (2010) 89–100

subtypes: high-rate chronics, characterized by elevated rates ofoffending throughout adolescence and early adulthood; adoles-cence-limited offenders, whose offending history is largely confinedto adolescence; low-rate chronics,markedbyminimal, yet stable, ratesof offending from adolescence through early adulthood; and non-offenders, who exhibit virtually no antisocial behavior over time.

With some variations, similar developmental subtypes haveemerged in other investigations (e.g., Broidy et al., 2003; Nagin,Farrington, & Moffitt, 1995; Patterson & Yoerger, 2002). Most notably,Moffitt (1993) theorized the existence of two developmental subtypesin her taxonomy of antisocial individuals — one comprising a smallgroup of individuals marked by persistent antisocial behavior fromchildhood through adulthood (life-course persistent antisocials), theother encompassing a larger group of individuals who initiate theirdelinquent careers in mid-adolescence but desist in early adulthood(adolescence-limited antisocials) and resemble the normative course ofantisocial behavior during this period. Interestingly, the life-coursepersistent trajectory is marked by higher rates of violent crime(Moffitt, Caspi, Harrington, & Milne, 2002; Odgers et al., 2008) — afinding consistent with the assertions of Steffensmeier et al. (1989)that the age–crime curve is somewhat flatter for these types ofoffenses. Collectively, these studies highlight the significant variabilityamong individuals in criminal behavior over time and suggest that aviable personality-based model of the age–crime curve must accountfor the aggregate (mean-level) trend as well as the individual-levelvariability and putative developmental subtypes that have beentheorized to underlie the aggregate curve.

2. Perspectives from criminology on the role of personality andindividual differences in the relationship between age and crime

Although largely focused on social factors, individual differencestheories of criminal behavior have been proposed in the field ofcriminology. Wilson and Herrnstein (1985) posited that crime is dueto individual differences in impulsivity, poor conscience, condition-ability, and other temperamental characteristics. Similarly, Gottfred-son and Hirschi (1990) theorized that individual differences inoffending reflect the influence of a single higher-order construct oflow self-control. However, a critical assumption among these indi-vidual differences theories is that variation in one's “criminal poten-tial” is established early in life and represents stable and enduringcharacteristics over the life-course. Consequently, most theorists –

including Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) and their model of criminalpropensity – dismiss personality traits as explanations for desistancein crime in early adulthood.

To the extent that individual differences have been incorporatedinto theories on the relationship between age and crime, suchconstructs have been described as only able to account for stabilityin antisocial behavior over time (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993). That is, alarge body of research has noted moderate to large test–retestcorrelations in antisocial behavior from childhood through adulthood(Caspi & Moffitt, 1995; Loeber, 1982; Olweus, 1979; Robins, 1966).This specific pattern of developmental continuity is referred to asrank-order stability in the sense that it involves the observation that,relative to one another, the most antisocial individuals in childhoodtend to be themost antisocial individuals in adulthood. Moreover, thisform of continuity may entail expression of either the same behaviorsover time (homotypic stability) or conceptually similar manifesta-tions of deviance (heterotypic stability; Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987).From a criminological perspective, these patterns of stability arebelieved to be a product of stable individual differences in the pro-pensity to engage in criminal behavior as well as the cumulative andattenuating effect that such behavior may have on the social bondslinking individuals to society. In other words, these theories posit thattime-invariant individual differences in a criminal propensity (e.g.,low self-control) set forth a process by which commission of criminal

acts weakens bonds to social institutions and ensnares one in alifestyle of crime such that opportunities for a prosocial lifestyle beginto diminish (Nagin & Paternoster, 2000). Moreover, such theoriescontend that “turning points” related to marriage, employment, andother critical life events occur independently of dispositional factorssuch that ostensibly stable individual differences cannot account forthe normative desistance in crime in early adulthood (Laub &Sampson, 2003). Thus, the criminological view of traits is that theyare largely “static” predictors of crime — a misconception, however,and a critical obstacle to the incorporation of personality traits intotheories of the age distribution of crime.

3. Incorporating personality development into theage–crime literature

Several issues are revealed by the foregoing review on therelationship between age and crime from the criminological literature.First, there is a broad consensus that the general shape of the curve isubiquitous across historical contexts, geography, offense type, and ahost of socio-demographics. Second, there exists meaningful hetero-geneity around the mean curve in the form of significant individual-level changes in the course of criminal behavior including the potentialexistence of developmental subtypes of antisocial individuals. Third,criminological theories have conceptualized personality and individ-ual differences as fixed attributes that are established early in life andcannot account for mean (aggregate) level changes in criminality overtime.

In the remaining sections, contemporary perspectives on thestructure and development of normal personality are discussed alongwith a review of changes in personality traits that have been linked tocriminal behavior. The principal theoretical position asserted is thatpersonality traits are dynamic constructs that can account for bothstability and change in crime and antisocial behavior over the lifespan.Specifically, the normative decrease in crime during emergingadulthood reflects a normative decrease in key personality dimen-sions such that changes in these constructs should be conceptualizedwithin a theoretical framework that emphasizes their co-developmentduring this period. These normative trends in personality will beintegrated with past etiological theories of the age–crime curve fromthe criminological literature to specify potential causal mechanisms ofthis phenomenon including transactions between traits and varioussociological and biological factors. It is suggested that the develop-mental literature on personality should be integrated with the crimi-nological literature on the age–crime curve, and that personalitydevelopment represents a viable theoretical framework for under-standing the course of antisociality during emerging adulthood.

4. Trait models of personality: definition and structure

In contrast with criminological approaches, the field of psychologyhas typically examined crime and deviance through a lens ofpersonality and individual differences. Contemporary psychologicaltheories define personality as an individual's characteristic patterns ofthinking, feeling, and behaving across situations and time (Kenrick &Funder, 1988). Moreover, such theories place emphasis on the con-cept of traits as “inferred psychobiological structures” that underlie afamily of behavioral dispositions beyond their trait content (Meehl,1986; Tellegen, 1991) and can predict health-risk behaviors (Bogg &Roberts, 2004; Caspi et al., 1997), mental disorders (e.g., antisocialpersonality disorder; Krueger, 2000), and a range of consequentialoutcomes (e.g., mortality, divorce, occupational attainment; Ozer &Benet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg,2007). From this standpoint, traits represent underlying causalentities that are inherently explanatory. Structurally, personalitytraits are organized in a hierarchy such that latent traits, inferredfrom correlations among observed indicators, covary themselves with


other similar traits to form broad, high-order dimensions (for a reviewsee Watson, Clark, & Harkness, 1994). This hierarchical structurerepresents a comprehensive assessment of individual differences inbehavior as it affords both breadth of coverage (i.e., bandwidth) at ahigher-order level of the trait hierarchy and detailed coverage (i.e.,fidelity) via lower-order traits.

Big Three and Big Five models represent the most well-validatedstructural models in the personality literature. Based on the work ofEysenck and Eysenck (1975), the Big Three model encompasses broadfactors of Extraversion (vs. Introversion), Neuroticism (vs. EmotionalStability), and Psychoticism (a dimension of Disinhibition vs.Constraint). Tellegen and Waller (2008) proposed a similar three-factor model, operationalized via the Multidimensional PersonalityQuestionnaire (MPQ), which consists of broad factors of PositiveEmotionality (PEM) — a tendency to experience positive emotionsresulting from achievement and engagement in one's environment;Negative Emotionality (NEM) — a propensity to experience aversiveemotional states related to anxiety, anger, and alienation; andConstraint (CON) — a proclivity for being cautious and behaviorallyrestrained as reflected in the avoidance of dangerous activities andadherence to social norms (for an alternative structural model ofpersonality, see Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993).

Big Five models, developed from a lexical approach (John &Srivastava, 1999; Goldberg, 1982), are typically operationalized viathe NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) andconsist of broad factors of Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientious-ness, Agreeableness, and Openness to Experience. Extraversioncaptures a propensity towards sociability and agency, and is akin tothe PEM factor from the MPQ. Neuroticism is analogous to aspects ofMPQ-NEM that reflect tendencies to worry or be easily upset.Conscientiousness is a dimension of impulse control and adherenceto social norms; conceptually similar toMPQ-CON. Agreeableness tapstrustworthiness and concern for others, and overlaps primarily withlow Aggression and Alienation from MPQ-NEM along with someelements of MPQ-CON (Church, 1994; Tellegen & Waller, 2008).Openness to Experience, a domain of intellectual curiosity andinterest in novel activities, is related to aspects of MPQ-PEM. Fig. 2provides a graphical depiction of relations among the Big Three andBig Five models based on the work of Church (1994) and Markon,Krueger, and Watson (2005). Despite differing on the number ofessential higher-order dimensions in the structure of personality,these models are largely congruent in their content coverage and

Fig. 2. A graphical depiction of relations among the Big Three and Big Five models of personaonly includes relations among the higher-order factors of structural models of personality. Tamong thesemodels at the lower-order (primary) scale level. In addition, see Church (1994) fCON= Constraint; PEM= Positive Emotionality; N= Neuroticism; A = Agreeableness; C =

diverge primarily in terms of how they organize the factor spaceacross different levels of the trait hierarchy (Church & Burke, 1994;Markon et al., 2005).

In terms of contributing to the age–crime literature, structuralmodels of personality possess several attributes that make it anappealing theoretical framework in which to conceptualize andinvestigate the relationship between age and crime. First, thehierarchical framework of structural models allows for an assessmentof higher-order trait dimensions that may underlie changes in crimeand antisocial behavior as well as specific (lower-order) traits andfacets, which have greater predictive validity (Paunonen & Ashton,2001; Reynolds & Clark, 2001). Second, both normal and abnormalpersonality can be subsumed under a single, unified framework withabnormal manifestations of personality representing extreme end-points on dimensions of normal personality (Widiger & Costa, 1994).Hence, such models can account for maladaptive configurations ofmultiple traits associated with antisocial behavior (Miller, Lynam,Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001). This perspective is distinct from theexclusively undimensional models of criminal propensity described inthe criminological literature (cf. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Third,structural models of personality have replicated across a range ofpopulations (Digman, 1990) as well as cross-culturally (McCrae &Allik, 2002; McCrae, Costa, Del Pilar, Rolland, & Parker, 1998; Rolland,2001) and thus offer a universal scheme for describing individuals'dispositions and behavioral tendencies. This attribute is particularlynoteworthy given the ubiquity of the age distribution of crime acrosscultural and national boundaries. Finally, and perhaps most impor-tant, structural models of personality capture a rich nomologicalnetwork in the sense that there is a large body of research on thedevelopment (Roberts & DelVecchio, 2000; Roberts, Walton, &Viechtbauer, 2006), heritability (Finkel & McGue, 1997; Loehlin,McCrae, Costa, & John, 1998; Tellegen et al., 1988), molecular genetics(Ebstein et al., 1996; Jang et al., 2001), and neurobiological correlatesof traits (Corr et al., 1995; Lesch, 2003). The collective knowledgebase from this burgeoning literature can be adopted and used as atheoretical context in which to conceptualize and investigate thedevelopment of antisocial behavior over the life-course.

5. Personality correlates of crime

Beginning with the pioneering work of Eysenck (1977), Zucker-man (1989), and Cloninger (1987), psychology has long espoused

lity. Note. This illustration was modified and reproduced from Markon et al. (2005) andhe reader is referred to Bouchard and Loehlin (2001) for a comparison of the relationsor empirical comparisons between the NEO-PI andMPQ. NEM=Negative Emotionality;Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion; O= Openness to Experience; P = Psychoticism.


trait-based theories on links between personality and crime. Bycontrast, criminology has not traditionally embraced the study ofpersonality, with many critics expressing concerns over the mea-surement of traits, particularly issues of predictor-criterion overlapamong indices of personality and crime (Tennenbaum, 1977). Withinthe last two decades, several scholars have endeavored to bridge thegap between criminology and psychology by addressing these criti-cisms and examining antisocial behavior within a structural frame-work of personality.

With respect to Big Threemodels of personality, theMPQ profile ofhigh NEM and low CON has been a robust predictor of crime andantisocial behavior across several large and independent studies (e.g.,Elkins, Iacono, Doyle, & McGue, 1997; Krueger et al., 1994; Moffitt,Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000). Consistent findings have also emergedfrom Eysenck's Big Threemodel (Cale, 2006) aswell as Big Fivemodels(Miller & Lynam, 2001), which suggest that all personality dimensionswith significant associations with antisocial behavior reflect elementsof either low Agreeableness (a la high NEM) or low conscientiousness(a la low CON). Thus, traits connoting a heightened sensitivity toaversive emotional states (i.e., high NEM), an indifference towardsothers (i.e., low Agreeableness), and proclivities towards disinhibition(i.e., low CON, low Conscientiousness) are consistent predictors ofcriminality.

A review of the trait-based literature on personality and crimereveals several other noteworthy findings that address the criticismsfrom criminologists. First, associations between crime and traits of lowCON/Conscientiousness and high NEM/disagreeableness have beenshown to be robust across a range of socio-demographics (e.g., gender,race, nationality; Caspi et al., 1994; Moffitt, Caspi, Silva, & Stouthamer-Loeber, 1995) and over different developmental periods includingchildhood (Raine, Reynolds, Venables, Mednick, & Farrington, 1998),adolescence (Lynam et al., 2000) and adulthood (Krueger et al., 1994).Second, these associations do not appear sensitive to themeasurementof either personality or deviant behavior as comparable results havebeen obtained across different methods of assessment for bothpersonality (e.g., self- and parent reports) and antisocial behavior(e.g., police contacts, court convictions, and other objective indices ofcrime). Furthermore, these relationships persist even after controllingfor overlapping item content between indices of personality anddeviance (Krueger et al., 1994). Third, in contrast with individualdifferences theories from criminology that focus exclusively on theconstruct of low self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), thefindings for high NEM and low Agreeableness suggest that there maybe at least two distinct personological correlates of antisocial behavior.

6. Personality development: stability and change over thelife-course

Among both criminologists and psychologists, personality traitswere traditionally conceptualized as stable and enduring constructs—i.e., established early in life and becoming increasingly solidifiedthroughout the lifespan (James, 1890/1981). However, currentperspectives have redefined these constructs as inherently develop-mental such that they evince both stability and change across thelifespan (Caspi, Roberts, & Shiner, 2005). The concept of change itself,however, is a multi-level process and is by no means mutuallyexclusive with the notion of stability over the course of development.Broadly, longitudinal studies of personality have examined threelevels of change as a means of comprehensively assessing personalitydevelopment over time: rank-order stability, mean-level change, andindividual-level change.1

1 Ipsative continuity, denoting stability in the configuration of traits withinindividuals over time, and structural continuity, entailing stability in the correlationalstructure among traits over time, are additional indices of change but have receivedcomparatively less attention within the developmental literature on personality.

Rank-order stability refers to consistency in the relative orderingof individuals in a population over time and is typically indexed viatest–retest correlations. In general, most personality measures haveshown remarkable rank-order stability across a range of populations,measures, assessment procedures, and age-cohorts (Block, 1971;Carmichael & McGue, 1994; Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1988;Helson & Moane, 1987; Johnson, McGue, & Krueger, 2005; McGue,Bacon, & Lykken, 1993; Stein, Newcomb, & Bentler, 1986). In theirmeta-analysis of rank-order consistency in personality, Roberts andDelVecchio (2000) noted that regardless of the trait domain, test–retest coefficients tended to increase with age, with average stabilitycoefficients reaching .31 in early childhood and peaking at .74 in lateadulthood (ages 50 to 70). For the periods of adolescence and earlyadulthood, these authors reported mean test–retest coefficients of .43and .54, respectively — impressive figures considering the number oftransitions and life changes that accompany emerging adulthood.However, these estimates are also far from unity and indicate thatchanges in personality also exist at the rank-order level.

While ostensibly lending credence to the notion of personality asstable and enduring and thus irrelevant to the age distribution ofcrime, a key point that is often overlooked or neglected is that rank-order stability does not reflect stability in an absolute sense. Rather, itindicates the degree to which individuals maintain their ordinalposition within a population over time, and is thus distinct frommean-level change. For example, an individual who engages indelinquent acts once per week in adolescence and once per month inearly adulthood has decreased, in an absolute sense, on his or her rateof deviance. However, this individual may still rank first among his orher peers at both time points and would therefore be characterized asstable in a relative sense. As such, patterns of rank-order stability inpersonality traits are independent of mean-level changes. Conse-quently, rank-order stability of personality traits may not sufficientlycapture the role of personality development in the age distribution ofcrime at the aggregate (mean) level.

7. Mean-level change in personality from late adolescence toearly adulthood

A more comprehensive evaluation of the role of personalitydevelopment in the age distribution of crime requires an examinationof mean-level change, which refers to change in the quantity or levelof some attribute or behavior over time and is commonly indexed atthe group-level (for a review see Roberts et al., 2006). To the extentthat the majority of individuals in a population change in the samedirection, mean-level change reflects normative alterations in theaverage amount of a trait in a population over time and may reflectmaturational or historical processes common to that population.Significant mean-level change has been observed for several traitdimensions over the life-course. Notably, the greatest amount ofchange occurs during the transition from late adolescence to earlyadulthood. Among the earliest studies of mean-level personalitychange during this period, Block (1971) reported declines in rebel-liousness from high school to early adulthood for male participantsfrom the Berkeley Longitudinal Studies, while Stein et al. (1986)reported increases in traits of law abidance, congeniality, diligence,generosity, and orderliness in a school-based sample of men andwomen followed from adolescence to young adulthood.

A comparable pattern of mean-level change is observed fromstudies employing structural models of personality (i.e., Big Three andBig Five). Table 1 lists the effect sizes from these longitudinalinvestigations of personality development during the period of lateadolescence to early adulthood. Although the effect sizes from thistable are presented for broad (“higher-order”) trait constructs, themean-level changes for each study (with the exception of Littlefield,Sher, &Wood, 2009) were based on change scores at themanifest traitlevel rather than the latent level. From a Big 5 perspective, Robins,

Table 1Mean-level change from longitudinal studies of personality development from lateadolescence to early adulthood based on Big Three and Big Five models of personality.

d-scores

Studies N Measures Ages NEM NA N A CON C

McGue et al.(1993)

254 MPQ 20–30 −.48 – – – .38 –

Robins et al.(2001)

270 NEO-PI 18–22 – – −.49 .44 – .27

Roberts et al.(2001)

921 MPQ 18–26 −.30 – – – .24 –

Vaidya et al.(2002)

392 NEO-PI;PANAS

18–21 – −.41 −.05 .10 – .51

Donnellan et al.(2007)

432 MPQ 18–27 −.95 – – – .56 –

Blonigen et al.(2008)

910 MPQ 17–24 −.77 – – – .52 –

Vaidya et al.(2008)

299 NEO-PI;PANAS

18–24 – −.78 −.22 .26 – .42

Littlefield et al.(2009)

483 EPQ 18–29 – – −.53 – .66 –

Note. MPQ = Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire; NEO-PI = NEO-PersonalityQuestionnaire; PANAS = Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale; EPQ = EysenckPersonality Questionnaire. NEM = Negative Emotionality, CON = Constraint; N =Neuroticism; NA = Negative Affect, A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness. Effectsizes in bold are significant at p<.05. The effect size for CON from Roberts et al. (2001)refers to the primary scale of Self-Control. The effect size for CON from Littlefield et al.(2009) refers to reverse-scored items from the EPQ (i.e., Psychoticism) and otherindices of Disinhibition.


Fraley, Roberts, and Trzesniewski (2001) reported moderate to strongmean-level increases in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness, anddeclines in Neuroticism in a sample of men and women at thebeginning and end of college (see also Vaidya, Gray, Haig & Watson,2002; Vaidya, Gray, Haig, Mroczek & Watson, 2008). From a Big 3perspective, Littlefield et al. (2009) demonstrated large declines inNeuroticism and large increases in CON using the EPQ.2 Using theMPQ, Roberts, Caspi, and Moffitt (2001) observed moderate mean-level declines in NEM and its primary scale referents of Alienation andAggression, and moderate increases in CON and its lower-orderindicator of Self-Control from ages 18 to 26 in a representative birthcohort from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health & DevelopmentStudy (Silva & Stanton, 1996). Recently, Donnellan, Conger, andBurzette (2007) and Blonigen, Carlson, Hicks, Krueger and Iacono(2008) replicated these findings with the MPQ in community samplesfrom Iowa and Minnesota, respectively. Interestingly, these twostudies reported mean-level changes nearly twice as large as theDunedin sample, which Donnellan et al. (2007) speculated may bedue to variation in the social contexts of the two samples (i.e., slowerentrance into adult social roles for Dunedin participants; see Robertset al., 2001).

This difference in magnitude notwithstanding, there is clear con-gruence in the patterns of change in personality across a number ofindependent samples, which demonstrates moderate to large mean-level declines in Neuroticism, NEM, and Disagreeableness, and mod-erate to large increases in traits related to Conscientiousness and Self-Control (a la CON) from late adolescence into early adulthood. Thisnormative pattern was described long ago by Allport (1937) andsuggests that the majority of individuals undergo extensive psycho-logical growth during this formative developmental stage— a patternreferred to as the maturity principle (Caspi et al., 2005). Most relevantto the present discussion is the fact that these developmental trendsin personality mirror the normative desistance in crime over thisperiod. Such parallels are striking given that the traits in question are

2 In the study by Littlefield et al. (2009), the CON dimension was measured as“Impulsivity” with items drawn from the EPQ and another three-factor personalitymeasure. This scale was reverse-scored to provide consistency in the direction ofchange for this dimension relative to the other studies listed in Table 2.

the most consistent predictors of criminal behavior. Echoing thesentiments of Adams (1997) and Roberts et al. (2001), thesecoincident developmental patterns suggest that age-related changesin crime in emerging adulthood may derive, in part, from normativechanges in key facets of personality. Further support for thiscontention is also evident in the continual increase in Agreeablenessand Conscientiousness and concomitant declines in Neuroticismthroughout adulthood (Helson & Moane, 1987; Helson & Kwan,2000; Roberts, Robins, Caspi, & Trzesniewski, 2003; Roberts et al.,2006), which in turn parallels the gradual decline in criminalitythroughout the life-course. In sum, the available evidence demon-strates that personality traits are not simply time-invariant phenom-enon, but rather dynamic constructs that change with age and parallelchanges in crime during emerging adulthood. Accordingly, a theoret-ical framework that highlights the co-development of personality andcrime is necessary to properly conceptualize and investigate the agedistribution of crime.

8. Individual-level changes in personality: correspondence withdevelopmental typologies of crime

Although patterns of mean-level change in personality correspondto the age distribution of crime in the aggregate, such group-levelchanges cannot account for variability across individuals in theirtrajectories of antisociality over time. Therefore, scholars in this areamust venture beyond group analyses to investigate individual-levelchange in traits over time. Although intertwined with mean-levelchange, individual-level change represents a meaningful index asgroup analyses can potentially mask salient patterns of individualchange that do not follow the normative trend. For example, within apopulation there may be a subgroup of individuals increasing sig-nificantly on a given trait over time as well as a subgroup that isdecreasing significantly on this trait. In effect, these groupsmay canceleach other out resulting in relatively little mean-level change, yetsubstantial change at the individual-level.

Within the developmental literature on personality, severallongitudinal studies (Blonigen et al., 2008; Donnellan et al., 2007;Roberts et al., 2001; Robins et al., 2001; Vaidya et al., 2002) havemeasured individual-level change from late adolescence to earlyadulthood. Table 2 provides the findings of individual-level changefrom these studies from late adolescence to early adulthood. Thesestudies each utilized the Reliable Change Index (RCI; Christensen &Mendoza, 1986), which assesses whether the amount of changeexhibited by a given individual on a trait is greater thanwhatwould beexpected by chance. Across these studies, the percentage of individualsthat exhibited a reliable increase or decrease on a trait was highlycongruent with the mean-level trend. For example, the proportion ofindividuals increasing on measures of Agreeableness and Conscien-tiousness from late adolescence to early adulthoodwas larger than theproportion decreasing on these measures (Robins et al., 2001).However, a small, albeit significant, proportion of individuals alsoexhibited reliable change on several personality dimensions that wasopposite of the normative trend. For example, in the study by Robertset al. (2001), although over 20% of the sample decreased on NEM fromages 18 to 26, 7% of the sample (a percentage exceeding the levelexpected by chance) nonetheless increased over this period. Similarly,Robins et al. (2001) reported that 6% of their sample decreased onConscientiousness over a 4-year period, despite the normativeincrease in this trait at the mean level. Thus, much like the significantvariation in individual trajectories of offending that underlies theaggregate age–crime curve, there is significant variation in personalitydevelopment at the individual-level that does not conform to thenormative trend.

A more explicit link between individual-level changes in thecourse of personality and crime is illustrated via comparison of thedevelopmental typologies that have emerged from these literatures.

Table 2Individual-level change from longitudinal studies of personality development from lateadolescence to early adulthood based on Big Three and Big Five models of personality.

NEM/N A CON/C

Studies Measures − Same + − Same + − Same +

Roberts et al.(2001)

MPQ 21% 72% 7% – – – 7% 78% 10%

Robins et al.(2001)

NEO-PI 23% 73% 4% 2% 84% 14% 6% 81% 13%

Vaidya et al.(2002)

NEO-PI 10% 83% 7% 6% 84% 9% 1% 86% 13%

Donnellan et al.(2007)

MPQ 47% 50% 3% – – – 6% 61% 34%

Blonigen et al.(2008)

MPQ 50% 45% 5% – – – 4% 66% 30%

Note. −, Same, and + refer to the percentage of individuals who decreased, remainedthe same, and increased on these traits, respectively, as indexed via the Reliable ChangeIndex. If change were due to chance alone, the expected distribution would be 2.5%decreasing, 95% staying the same, and 2.5% increasing. MPQ = MultidimensionalPersonality Questionnaire; NEO-PI = NEO-Personality Inventory; NEM = NegativeEmotionality, CON = Constraint; N = Neuroticism; A = Agreeableness; C =Conscientiousness. Percentages in bold highlight the direction of the greatestindividual-level change in these traits.


Typologies are person-centered approaches involving the classifica-tion of individuals into subtypes based on their distinct profiles acrossmultiple traits or behaviors. In a longitudinal design, typologies allowfor an examination of variation between individuals in change overtime and are useful for capturing developmental trajectories thatdeviate from the normative trend. Block (1971)was among the first topropose a developmental typology of personality. Utilizing Q-sortratings on men and women from adolescence (ages 14–17) toadulthood (ages 30–37), he derived five personality types, two ofwhich resemble well-validated developmental types of criminaloffenders. Belated-Adjusters were defined as a group high on traits ofhostility and negativistic attitudes in adolescence but decreasing onthese traits as they entered adulthood — a pattern of maturationconsistent with the normative desistance in antisocial behavior overthis period. In contrast, Unsettled Undercontrollers evinced a highdegree of rebelliousness and hostility that was stable from adoles-cence to adulthood — analogous to a subgroup of individuals whopersist rather than desist in their antisocial behavior into adulthood.

Several recent studies have provided more direct tests of the linkbetween developmental typologies of personality and antisocialbehavior. In a population-based sample of girls ages 14 to 24, Johnson,Hicks, McGue and Iacono (2007) used growth mixture modeling ofMPQ primary scales related to NEM and CON to identify threetrajectory groups. The first two groups, labeled “alright” and “growingup,” generally exhibited normative decreases in NEM and increases inCON, whereas the “troubled” group was largely characterized bycontinuity in these traits and was highest among all groups in adultantisocial behavior and substance use. In a longitudinal cluster analysisof personality measures whose trait structures resembled the MPQ(i.e., Disinhibition, NEM, Extraversion/PEM), Morizot and Le Blanc(2005) derived four developmental subtypes of personality from ages14 to 40. Communals and agentics both exhibited “normativematuration” in personality as reflected by declines in Disinhibitionand NEM and decreased substantially in their criminal activity in earlyadulthood — akin to an adolescence-limited antisocial trajectory (cf.Moffitt, 1993). Overcontrollers increased in NEM and decreased inDisinhibition from adolescence to adulthood and increased in theirantisociality over emerging adulthood — analogous to late-onsetantisocial trajectories from the criminological literature (Tweed et al.,1994). Undercontrollers were marked by high scores on Disinhibitionand NEM in adolescence and exhibited the highest rates of antisocialbehavior in both late adolescence and early adulthood among alldevelopmental subtypes. Similar to Block's undercontrollers and the

“troubled” group from Johnson et al. (2007), these individuals arecomparable toMoffitt's (1993) life-course persistent antisocials yet alsodeclined in criminal activity in adulthood. This pattern of “delayedmaturation” resembles the life-course persistent antisocial trajectory,which (relative to the adolescent-limited trajectory) is characterized bya higher rate of violent crime (Odgers et al., 2008). Together, thesepatterns are consistent with the observation of Steffensmeier et al.(1989) of a slower rate of decline in person (i.e., violent) offenses inearly adulthood, suggesting that maladaptive developmental personal-ity types may account for the age distribution of violent criminaloffenses. Although somewhat speculative, the general conclusion to bedrawn from these studies is that developmental changes in personalitytraits correspond to not onlymean-level changes in criminal behavior inemerging adulthood but also significant individual-level changes anddevelopmental typologies that have been theorized to underlie the age–crime curve in the aggregate.

9. Gender differences in personality change from late adolescenceto early adulthood

Mean gender differences in antisociality (i.e., higher rates of crimeand other forms of externalizing behavior for men than women)typically begin in mid-adolescence and persist into early adulthood(Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001). However, evidence from boththe criminological (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983) and psychologicalliteratures (Hicks et al., 2007) suggests that men and women displaylargely similar patterns of mean-level change in antisocial behaviorfrom late adolescence to early adulthood. A similar pattern is evidentin the personality literature. That is, men tend to be higher on NEM(specifically the primary scales of Aggression and Alienation) andlower on CON in both late adolescence and early adulthood (Blonigenet al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2001); however, gender does not typicallymoderate mean-level changes in these traits over this period (Robertset al., 2006; Robins et al., 2001).

Significant interactions between gender and time have emerged,however, in a few studies of personality development during emergingadulthood. The most consistent findings have been observed for CONand its primary scales of Control and Harm Avoidance in the form ofgreater increases in these traits over time for women than men(Blonigen et al., 2008; Donnellan et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2001).Nevertheless, the effect sizes for these interactions are quite small.Moreover, as with the age distribution of crime across gender, there isclear convergence in the general pattern of decline in CON across menand women in all studies of personality development during thisperiod. In other words, while men tend to engage in more exter-nalizing behaviors and are generally more disinhibited, aggressive,and alienated than women in late adolescence and early adulthood,such differences do not translate into substantial gender differences inthe developmental course of crime or personality over this period.Thus, gender differences appear to play a minimal role in the presentdiscussion regarding personality change.

10. Mechanisms of change in the co-development of personalityand crime: integrating the developmental literature on personalitywith past etiological theories of the age–crime curve

In the present review, it is theorized that changes in antisocialbehavior from late adolescence to early adulthood are underpinned bynormative changes in dimensions of personality that reflect a liabilitytowards criminality. It is important to note, however, that this posi-tion does not necessarily imply that changes in personality have adirect (causal) impact on the normative pattern of desistance in crimeduring this period. Rather, it is simply meant to draw attention to theco-development of personality and crime during the turbulent periodof emerging adulthood. Nevertheless, it is important to theorize aboutpossible third-variable mechanisms that may contribute to change in


both personality traits and crime during this period. The followingsection integrates the developmental literature on personality withpast etiological theories of the age–crime curve and, in turn, seeks toprovide a more nuanced theoretical framework for understandinghow various sociological and biological mechanisms may explain theage distribution of crime.

10.1. Sociological mechanisms

Sociological explanations have attained substantial footing amongetiological theories of the age–crime curve. At the forefront of theseperspectives are social control theories, which posit that crime anddeviance are more likely when an individual's bond to society istenuous. Sampson and Laub's (1993) age-graded theory of socialcontrol is among the more well validated of these theories (see alsoElder, 1985; Greenberg, 1985). These authors argue that informalsocial controls deriving from investments in social institutions (e.g.,family, education, work) modify pathways to criminal behaviorindependent of one's delinquent background such that transitionsinto age-graded social roles underlie desistance in crime in earlyadulthood. In their re-analysis of Glueck and Glueck's (1968) classiclongitudinal study of 500 delinquent and 500 non-delinquent males,marriage and employment were found to predict desistance fromcriminal activity even after controlling for individual differences incriminal propensity (e.g., IQ, personality). Moreover, it has beensuggested that the quality or strength of these bonds (e.g., a “good”marriage) rather than the timing of the event itself is the key factor inthe association between social bonds and desistance (Laub& Sampson,2003).

These processes from social control theory have also been found tohave a substantial impact on personality development throughout thelife-course. Universal life tasks that accompany emerging adulthood(e.g., marriage, careers) carry with them a range of environmentalcontingencies that can shape personality functioning (Caspi & Roberts,2001; Roberts & Jackson, 2008). Specifically, the social roles associatedwith these life tasks involve a “press” from the environment and callfor individuals to modify their behavior in a way that may contrastwith how they typically act. Such contingencies may be explicit in theform of concrete feedback regarding one's behavior, particularly innew social roles (Stryker & Statham, 1985), or implicit in the form ofexpectations that accompany these roles (e.g., expectations of anemployee to be diligent and conscientious). Notably, these mechan-isms are particularly active from late adolescence to early adulthoodgiven that identity explorations, with respect to love and work, are soprominent during this developmental period (Arnett, 2000; Roberts &Caspi, 2003).

Although the mechanisms and processes from social controltheories are not novel among developmental and personality scholars,their specific application as third-variable explanations for the co-development of personality and antisocial behavior during emergingadulthood has not been explicitly articulated. Furthermore, as aconsequence of the misconception that traits are time-invariantconstructs, the notion of a reciprocal relationship between traits andsocial roles has not been acknowledged in past etiological theories ofthe age–crime curve from the criminological literature. However,when addressing this issue within the context of the developmentalliterature on personality, a transactional relationship between traitsand social roles is revealed. For example, work experiences related tojob satisfaction and mobility have been found to increase autonomyover time, while measures of occupational success have been asso-ciated with increases in traits of Dominance, Conscientiousness, andEmotional Stability (Elder, 1969; Mortimer & Lorence, 1979; Roberts,1997). A critical finding from this research is the observation that thetraits that change the most in relation to work experiences are thetraits that are most predictive of these outcomes (Roberts, Caspi, &Moffitt, 2003). In other words, self-selection and social influence are

“corresponsive” in their effect on personality such that social rolesserve to accentuate features of an individual's personality that werealready present. Importantly, this process is not likely to be randombut may instead reflect a “niche-picking” process in which individualschoose roles consistent with their personality make-up (Scarr &McCartney, 1983). A similar corresponsive process may also be at playin the association between relationship quality, transitions inpartnership, and personality (Neyer & Asendorpf, 2001; Roberts &Chapman, 2000; Robins, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2002) and highlights thenotion that personality traits change within interpersonal contexts.

10.2. Biological mechanisms

The relative invariance of the age distribution of crime across anarray of social and historical contexts has been interpreted by some asevidence for a biological process underlying the relationship betweenage and crime (Hirschi & Gottfredson, 1983). Changes in physicalprowess, which increase during adolescence and decline throughoutthe course of adulthood, is one such perspective (Gove, 1985).Hormonal changes such as increases in testosterone levels have alsoreceived attention given the link between testosterone and antisocialbehavior among both adolescent (Olweus, Mattsson, Schalling, & Low,1980) and adult males (Dabbs & Morris, 1990). Most recently,Kanazawa (2003) contended that fluctuating levels of testosterone,which decrease when men get married and have children, representthe “biochemical foundation” for patterns of desistance in crime inearly adulthood. Although these biological perspectives are intriguinggiven their potential to account for the ubiquity of the age–crime link,they do not account for the invariance of the age–crime curve acrossgender, and are incompatible with the general shape of the curve asphysical fitness and testosterone levels do not peak until the late 20sand remain at or near their peak levels until mid-life (Bassey, 1997;Sternbach, 1998).

One potential biological mechanism that has received compara-tively less attention in past theories of the age–crime curve is theextensive neurological change that accompanies the transition fromlate adolescence to adulthood. Neurobiological maturation is highlycharacteristic of the developing adolescent brain and correspondsconceptually and temporally to age-related declines in personalityand crime. A review by Collins (2004) noted that excitatory andinhibitory neurotransmitters associated with antisocial behavior inanimals and humans (e.g., serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine,acetylcholine) exhibit linear age-related declines over the life-course.Moreover, these neurotransmitters have been linked to impulsivity,aggression, and other personality correlates of antisocial behaviorthroughout development (Coccaro & McNamee, 1998; Manuck et al.,1998; Siever & Trestman, 1993). Thus, it is conceivable that changes inneurochemistry underlie normative changes in personality, which inturn may facilitate desistance from crime in early adulthood.

Structural maturation of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) representsanother plausible biological mechanism that may account for thecorrelated changes in personality and antisocial behavior during thisdevelopmental stage. Multiple regions of the PFC have been linked toantisocial and aggressive behavior across different periods in the life-course (Ishikawa & Raine, 2003). In terms of development, convergingevidence from fMRI, electrophysiological, neuropsychological, andbiochemical studies reveal that the orbital, ventromedial, anddorsolateral subdivisions of the PFC do not reach structural maturityuntil early adulthood (Casey, Giedd, & Thomas, 2000; Giedd et al.,1999; Segalowitz&Davies, 2004; Sowell, Thompson, Holmes, Jernigan,& Toga, 1999; Webster, Weickert, Herman, & Kleinman, 2002).Notably, some scholars have postulated that these regions representputative neurobiological correlates of disinhibitory forms of psycho-pathology (e.g., antisocial behavior, substance use; Blair, 2004) as wellas several higher-order functions embodied by trait constructs of CON(e.g., cognitive control, decision-making, behavioral inhibition; Berlin,


Rolls, & Kischka, 2004;Hooper, Luciana, Conklin, & Yarger, 2004;Miller& Cohen, 2001; Spinella, 2004). Thus, normative declines in disin-hibitory personality traits related to CON may be partly mediated byneurodevelopment and maturation of the PFC.

With regard toNEM, trait indicators of this dimension (e.g., anxiety,aggression) have been tied more directly to subcortical (limbic)structures such as the amygdala (Davis, 1998), which have been foundto develop considerably earlier than the PFC (i.e., pre-adolescence; LeDoux, 1995). However, the PFC is integral to emotion regulation(Ochsner & Gross, 2007) and may exert top-down control ofsubcortical substrates linked to NEM and antisocial behavior (David-son, Putnam, & Larson, 2000). From this perspective, it is plausiblethat normative declines in NEM in the form of greater affect regulationare also mediated by maturation of the PFC during early adulthood.Although these hypotheses are plausible, it must be kept in mind thatbrain–behavior relationships are complex and multifaceted and likelyentail an interactive process that encompasses other factors such ashormonal and neurochemical changes. Nonetheless, a direct compar-ison of changes in neurobiology, personality, and antisocial behaviorwithin the same design would provide a compelling test of whethermaturation of the PFC during emerging adulthood is a possible third-variable explanation for the co-development of personality and crimeover this period.

11. Future directions: untangling the co-development ofpersonality and crime

The present review has highlighted the dynamic nature ofpersonality constructs and argued that the age–crime curve, particu-larly the normative trend of desistance in crime during emergingadulthood, reflects a normative decrease in key personality traits,suggesting that changes in these constructs should be conceptualizedwithin a theoretical framework that emphasizes their co-developmentduring this critical stage of the life-course. While the parallels in thedevelopmental trends of these constructs are striking,more research isneeded to untangle their intertwined trajectories. In particular, it issuggested that future studies should (a) employ analytic proceduresthat jointly test the strength of the co-development of personalitytraits and indices of antisocial behavior over time and incorporatethird-variable explanations thatmaymediate these co-developmentalpatterns (i.e., biological and sociological mechanisms), and (b) usegenetically-informative data to disentangle transactions between per-sonality traits and socio-contextual factors in order to better under-stand the interplay between genes and environments in the etiology ofantisociality.

11.1. Latent growth models

A principal shortcoming of many prospective studies on therelationship between age and crime has been the failure toconcurrently assess antisocial behavior and relevant personalitycorrelates within the same design. More important, such studieshave typically neglected to assess personality change— thus failing toconceptualize traits as dynamic predictors or correlates of change inantisocial behavior (but see Morizot & Le Blanc, 2005). Rather, studiesexploring relations between antisocial behavior and individualdifferences in personality have been mostly limited to cross-sectionalanalyses or modeled traits as static predictors of future antisocialbehavior. An adequate assessment of the present theory calls formultiple assessments of antisocial behavior and personality traitswithin the same study in order to directly test whether the devel-opmental trajectories of these constructs are interrelated.

Latent growth models (LGMs; Bollen & Curran, 2006) represent ananalytic approach that is uniquely suited to address these questions(see Vaidya et al., 2008). Using random effects models conceptualizedas continuous latent intercepts and growth factors, LGMs allow for an

assessment of individuals over time on multiple outcomes of interestand require at least three time points of data. Such models have anumber of advantages including the ability to model non-linearpatterns of change in personality and crime as well as model patternsof missing data. Moreover, LGMs entail a multi-level analysis at boththe population and individual levels and are, therefore, well suited tothe investigation of aggregate and individual-level changes inpersonality and antisocial behavior over time. Curran et al. reviewedthe application of LGMs to the study of developmental psychopathol-ogy (Curran & Hussong, 2003; Curran & Willoughby, 2003). Theseauthors specified a Fully Multivariate LGM that involves estimation oflatent trajectories for two variables over time and examines thecovariation of their slope factors, which reflects the extent to whichthe variables change together over time. Notably, a variation of thismodel – termed the Autoregressive LGM – is similar to the FullyMultivariate model but allows for bidirectional relations between twovariables at each time point. Such a model, particularly in a cross-lagged design, would permit investigation of the temporal precedentamong changes in personality, criminal behavior, and putative third-variable mechanisms across time (e.g., relationships; Neyer &Asendorpf, 2001).

Recently, Littlefield et al. (2009) utilized the analytic framework ofLGMs to examine the degree of correlated change in personality traits(i.e., Neuroticism, Impulsivity) and problematic alcohol use— a highlycomorbid condition of antisocial behavior (Krueger et al., 2002).Results indicated that both normative and individual-level changes inalcohol use occurred between ages 18 and 35, and that these changescovaried with changes in Neuroticism and Impulsivity. In addition,these authors modified the LGM framework to include interveningvariables of marital and parental role statuses to test third-variableexplanations of the associated changes in problematic alcohol use andpersonality. Interestingly, in this investigation, marital and parentalrole statuses did not account for the correlated change in theseconstructs. Nevertheless, as suggested by Littlefield et al. (2009), thequality or satisfaction in these social roles, as opposed to role statusitself, may be a more tenable third-variable explanation of the co-development of personality and externalizing behaviors from lateadolescence to early adulthood.

11.2. Behavioral genetic methodology: capturing the covariation andinterplay among etiologic factors

A key component in the theoretical framework of this review is thenotion that traits and social factors have a reciprocal – “corresponsive” –relationship in their development over time. Given the possibility ofsocial roles as third-variable explanations of the co-development ofpersonality and crime, models that systematically examine the covar-iation and interplay over time among these constructs offer the potentialfor greater clarityon the causal relationsamongpersonality traits, crime,and socio-contextual processes.

There are considerable advantages to investigating the develop-mental relations between personality traits, antisocial behavior, andsocio-contextual variables from a biometric framework. In longitudi-nal designs, such studies can yield estimates of the relative influenceof genetic and environmental factors to variance in the trajectories ofa specific phenotype over time. More important, within the frame-work of multivariate models that estimate latent trajectories for traits,antisocial behavior, and other relevant socio-contextual variables,biometric designs afford an assessment of whether genetic and envi-ronmental variance to stability and change in these trajectories iscorrelated between the phenotypes. Among the longitudinal-behav-ior genetic studies in the literature, only a few have explored geneticand environmental contributions to stability and change in eitherantisocial behavior (Malone, Taylor, Marmorstein, McGue, & Iacono,2004) or personality (Blonigen et al., 2008; Dworkin, Burke, Maher, &Gottesman, 1976; McGue et al., 1993) during the formative transition


into emerging adulthood, and none has explicitly tested transactionsbetween traits and either socio-contextual phenotypes or crime inthis developmental framework.

Recent advances in behavioral genetic methodology offer apromising avenue for disentangling the etiological relations amongthese constructs by testing for both gene–environment interactions(G×E) and gene–environment correlations (rGE) within the samemodel (Purcell, 2002). G×E entails the notion that the impact of anindividual's genotype is contingent upon (or moderated by) certainaspects of the environment. G ×E exists in many forms (for a review,see Rutter, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2006). In quantitative forms of G×E (i.e.,biometricmoderation), the heritability of a given trait varies accordingto level of exposure to an environmental variable known to have animpact on that trait. With regard to rGE, genes and environments aretheorized to correlate in systematic ways such that individuals mayactively seek out, create, or be passively exposed to environmentsthat are consistent with their genetic endowments. Evidence for rGEhas been noted in several twin and adoption studies that observedputative measures of the environment to contain significant geneticvariance when treated as phenotypes in a biometric analysis (e.g.,Plomin & Bergeman, 1991). Recently, Johnson (2007) reviewed theutility of thismodel – termed the Full Quantitative Gene–EnvironmentInterplay Model – to articulate and test transactions betweenantisocial behavior and social forces by modeling both G×E and rGE.Such a model offers a powerful means of disentangling genetic andenvironmental contributions to the corresponsive relationship be-tween personality traits and putative socio-contextual variables (e.g.,marriage, parenthood), and offers an appealing analytic framework inwhich to study the co-development of personality and crime duringemerging adulthood.

12. Summary and conclusions

The aimof this reviewwas to integrate past etiological perspectiveson the age–crime distribution with contemporary findings from thedevelopmental literature on personality. The position advanced here isthat the age–crime curve, specifically the component of desistancefrom late adolescence to early adulthood, derives from normativematuration in personality traits linked to antisocial behavior, and thatchanges in these constructs should be conceptualized within atheoretical framework that emphasizes their co-development duringthis critical stage in the life-course. Such a dynamic perspective ofpersonality clearly contradicts traditional conceptions of traits assimply time-invariant constructs that aremerely applicable to stabilityin crime and other forms of deviance.

Although this theoretical framework does not speak directly to thecausal associations among changes in personality and crime, thedevelopmental model offers a more nuanced understanding of howvarious biological and sociological mechanisms may account for theco-development of personality and antisociality. From a biologicalstandpoint, the present theory highlights the dearth of research onneurobiological maturation in regulatory systems such as the PFC as apotential third-variable explanation of correlated changes in person-ality and antisocial behavior during emerging adulthood. Furthermore,integration of the developmental literature of personality within theage–crime curve literature helps to advance transactional perspectivesof the age–crime link by highlighting that personality traits mayoperate in a corresponsive manner with age-graded social roles.

Finally, beyond its potential to elucidate these causal mechanisms,the present personality-based perspective on the relationship be-tween age and crime places this phenomenon within the large andwell-validated nomological network of structural models of person-ality. This contribution notwithstanding, the present theory is notintended to suggest that personality development can wholly accountfor the relationship between age and crime, as it is likely that theetiology of this phenomenon is multifactorial. Moreover, it must be

acknowledged that the evidence for correlated changes in personalityand crime during emerging adulthood is largely indirect and requiresconsiderably more research and direct investigation. Nonetheless, theavailable evidence suggests that normative changes in personalitymayplay a significant role in desistance from crime and antisocial behaviorduring the transition from late adolescence to early adulthood. Hence,personality development represents a useful heuristic and viabletheoretical framework in which to conceptualize the robust link be-tween age and crime.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to William G. Iacono, Brian M. Hicks, Robert F.Krueger, and Christopher J. Patrick for their helpful comments onearlier versions of this work, and to M. Brent Donnellan for his inputon the revision.

References

Adams, K. (1997). Developmental aspects of adult crime. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.),Developmental theories of crime and delinquency. Advances in criminological theory,Vol. 7 (pp. 309–342). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens

through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480.Bassey, E. J. (1997). Physical capabilities, exercise, andaging. Reviews in ClinicalGerontology,

7, 289–297.Berlin, H. A., Rolls, E. T., & Kischka, U. (2004). Impulsivity, time perception, emotion, and

reinforcement sensitivity in patients with orbitofrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 127,1108–1126.

Blair, R. J. R. (2004). The roles of orbital frontal cortex in the modulation of antisocialbehavior. Brain and Cognition, 55, 198–208.

Block, J. (1971). Lives through time. Berkeley, CA: Bancroft Books.Blonigen, D. M., Carlson, M. D., Hicks, B. M., Krueger, R. F., & Iacono, W. G. (2008).

Stability and change in personality traits from late adolescence to early adulthood:A longitudinal-twin study. Journal of Personality, 76, 229–266.

Blumenstein, A., Cohen, J., & Farrington, D. P. (1988). Criminal career research: Its valuefor criminology. Criminology, 26, 1–35.

Bogg, T., & Roberts, B. W. (2004). Conscientiousness and health-related behaviors: Ameta-analysis of the leading behavioral contributors to mortality. PsychologicalBulletin, 130, 887–919.

Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bouchard, T. J., Jr., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, personality, and evolution. BehaviorGenetics, 31, 243–273.

Britt, C. L. (1992). Constancy and change in the U.S. age distribution of crime: A test ofthe “invariance hypothesis”. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 175–187.

Broidy, L. M., Tremblay, R. E., Brame, B., Fergusson, D., Horwood, J. L., Laird, R., Moffitt, T. E.,Nagin, D. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Loeber, R., Lynam, D. R., & Pettit, G. S. (2003).Developmental trajectories of childhood disruptive behaviors and adolescentdelinquency: A six-site, cross-national study. Developmental Psychology, 39, 222–245.

Cale, E. M. (2006). A quantitative review of the relations between the “Big 3” higher orderpersonality dimensions and antisocial behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 40,250–284.

Carmichael, C.M., &McGue,M. (1994). A longitudinal family study of personality changeand stability. Journal of Personality, 62, 1–20.

Casey, B. J., Giedd, J. N.,& Thomas,K.M. (2000). Structural and functional braindevelopmentand its relation to cognitive development. Biological Psychology, 54, 241–257.

Caspi, A., Begg, D., Dickson, N., Harrington, H., Langley, J., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A.(1997). Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood:Evidence from a longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,1052–1063.

Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., Jr., & Bem, D. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-coursepatterns of explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308–313.

Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). The continuity of maladaptive behavior: Fromdescription to explanation in the study of antisocial behavior. In D. Cicchetti & D. J.Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology (vol. 2, pp. 472–511). New York:Wiley.

Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Silva, P. A., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Krueger, R. F., & Schmutte, P. S.(1994). Are some people crime-prone? Replications of the personality-crimerelationship across countries, genders, races, and methods. Criminology, 32, 163–195.

Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality development across the life course: Theargument for change and continuity. Psychological Inquiry, 12, 49–66.

Caspi, A., Roberts, B. W., & Shiner, R. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability andchange. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453–484.

Christensen, L., &Mendoza, J. L. (1986). Amethod of assessing change in a single subject:An alteration of the RC index. Behavior Therapy, 17, 305–308.

Church, A. T. (1994). Relating the Tellegen and Five-Factor models of personalitystructure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 898–909.


Church, A. T., & Burke, P. J. (1994). Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Fiveand Tellegen's three- and four-dimensional models. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 66, 93–114.

Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classificationsof personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.

Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model oftemperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.

Coccaro, E. F., & McNamee, B. (1998). Biology of aggression: Relevance to crime. InA. E. Skodol (Ed.), Psychopathology and violent crime. Review of psychiatry series(pp. 99–128). Washington D.C: American Psychiatric Press.

Collins, R. E. (2004). Onset and desistance in criminal careers: Neurobiology and theage–crime relationship. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39, 1–19.

Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait–multi-method–multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,1266–1282.

Corr, P. J., Wilson, G. D., Fotiadou, M., Kumari, V., Gray, N. S., Checkley, S., & Gray, J. A.(1995). Personality and affective modulation of the startle reflex. Personality andIndividual Differences, 19, 543–553.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). Personality in adulthood: A six-year longitudinalstudy of self-reports and spouse ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 853–863.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) andNEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: PsychologicalAssessment Resources.

Curran, P. J., & Hussong, A. M. (2003). The use of latent trajectory models in psycho-pathology research. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 526–544.

Curran, P. J., &Willoughby, M. T. (2003). Implications of latent trajectory models for thestudy of developmental psychopathology. Development and Psychopathology, 15,581–612.

Dabbs, J., & Morris, R. (1990). Testosterone and antisocial behavior in a sample of 4,462men. Psychological Science, 1, 209–211.

Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitryof emotion regulation: A possible prelude to violence. Science, 289, 591–594.

Davis, M. (1998). Are different parts of the extended amygdala involved in fear versusanxiety? Biological Psychiatry, 44, 1239–1247.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. AnnualReview of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Donnellan, M. B., Conger, R. D., & Burzette, R. G. (2007). Personality development fromlate adolescence to young adulthood: Differential stability, normative maturity, andevidence for the maturity–stability hypothesis. Journal of Personality, 75, 237–263.

Dworkin, R. H., Burke, B. W., Maher, B. A., & Gottesman, I. I. (1976). A longitudinalstudy of the genetics of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,510–518.

Ebstein, R. P., Novick, O., Umansky, R., Priel, B., Osher, Y., Blaine, D., Bennett, E. R.,Nemanov, L., Katz,M., & Belmaker, R. H. (1996). DopamineD4 receptor (D4DR) exonIII polymorphism associated with the human personality trait of novelty seeking.Nature Genetics, 12, 78–80.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1969). Occupational mobility, life patterns, and personality. Journal ofHealth and Social Behavior, 10, 308–323.

Elder, G. H., Jr. (1985). Perspectives on the life-course. In G. H. Elder Jr. (Ed.), Life coursedynamics: Trajectories and transitions, 1968–1980 (pp. 23–49). Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press.

Elkins, I. J., Iacono, W. G., Doyle, A. E., & McGue, M. (1997). Characteristics associatedwith the persistence of antisocial behavior: Results from recent longitudinalresearch. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2, 101–124.

Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Crime and personality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975).Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire.

San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Farrington, D. P. (1986). Age and crime. In N. Morris &M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice

(pp. 189–250). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Finkel, D., & McGue, M. (1997). Sex differences and nonadditivity in heritability of the

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire scales. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 929–938.

Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., Paus, T.,Evans, A. C., & Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood andadolescence: A longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861–863.

Glueck, S., &Glueck, E. (1968).Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Goldberg, L. R. (1982). From Ace to Zombie: Some explorations in the language ofpersonality. In C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personalityassessment (Vol. 1) (pp. 203–234). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Goring, C. (1913). The English convict. Montclair, NJ: Patterson-Smith.Gottfredson, M. G., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.Gove, W. R. (1985). The effect of age and gender on deviant behavior: A biopsychosocial

perspective. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Gender and the life-course (pp. 115–144). New York:Aldine.

Greenberg, D. F. (1985). Age, crime, and social explanation. American Journal of Sociology,91, 1–21.

Helson, R., & Kwan, V. S. Y. (2000). Personality development in adulthood: The broadpicture and processes in one longitudinal sample. In S. Hampson (Ed.), Advances inpersonality psychology (Vol. 1) (pp. 77–106). London: Routledge.

Helson, R., & Moane, G. (1987). Personality change in women from college to midlife.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 176–186.

Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., Kramer, M., Krueger, R. F., Patrick, C. J., Iacono, W. G., &McGue, M. (2007). Gender differences and developmental change in externalizing

disorders from late adolescence to early adulthood: A longitudinal-twin study.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 433–447.

Hirschi, T., & Gottfredson, M. G. (1983). Age and the explanation of crime. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 89, 552–584.

Hooper, C. J., Luciana, M., Conklin, H. M., & Yarger, R. S. (2004). Adolescents' performanceon the Iowa Gambling Task: Implications for the development of decisionmaking andventromedial prefrontal cortex. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1148–1158.

Ishikawa, S. S., & Raine, A. (2003). Prefrontal deficits and antisocial behavior: A causalmodel. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder andjuvenile delinquency (pp. 277–304). New York: Guilford Press.

James, W. (1890/1981). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Riemann, R., Vernon, P. A., Hu, S., Angleitner, A., et al. (2001).Covariance structure of neuroticism and agreeableness: A twin and moleculargenetic analysis of the role of the serotonin transporter gene. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81, 295–304.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook ofpersonality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.

Johnson, W. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on behavior: Capturing allthe interplay. Psychological Review, 114, 423–440.

Johnson, W., Hicks, B. M., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2007). Most of the girls are alright,but some aren't: Personality trajectory groups from ages 14 to 24 and someassociations with outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 266–284.

Johnson, W., McGue, M., & Krueger, R. F. (2005). Personality stability in late adulthood:A behavioral genetic analysis. Journal of Personality, 73, 523–551.

Kanazawa, S. (2003). Why productivity fades with age: The crime–genius connection.Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 257–272.

Kenrick, D. T., & Funder, D. C. (1988). Profiting from controversy: Lessons from theperson–situation debate. American Psychologist, 43, 23–34.

Krueger,R. F. (2000). Personality traits in late adolescencepredictmental disorders inearlyadulthood: A prospective-epidemiological study. Journal of Personality, 67, 39–65.

Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B., Patrick, C. J., Carlson, S. R., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2002).Etiologic connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, andpersonality: Modeling the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,111, 411–424.

Krueger, R. F., Schmutte, P. S., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Campbell, K., & Silva, P. A. (1994).Personality traits are linked to crime among men and women: Evidence from abirth cohort. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 328–338.

Laub, J. H. (1983). Urbanism, race, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,20, 183–198.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys toage 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Le Doux, J. E. (1995). Emotion: Clues from the brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 46,209–235.

Lesch, K. P. (2003). Neuroticism and serotonin: A developmental genetic perspective. InR. Plomin, J. C. DeFries, I. W. Craig & P. McGuffin (Eds.), Behavioral genetics inthe postgenomic era (pp. 389–423). Washington, DC, US: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Littlefield, A. K., Sher, K. J., & Wood, P. K. (2009). Is “maturing out” of problematicalcohol involvement related to personality change? Journal of Abnormal Psychology,118, 360–374.

Loeber, R. (1982). The stability of antisocial child behavior: A review. Child Development,53, 1431–1446.

Loeber, R., & Le Blanc, M. (1990). Toward a developmental criminology. In N. Morris &M. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and justice (pp. 375–437). Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Loehlin, J. C., McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & John, O. P. (1998). Heritabilities of common andmeasure-specific components of the Big-Five personality factors. Journal of Researchin Personality, 32, 431–453.

Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Wikström, P. O., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000). Theinteraction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: Theeffects of impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of AbnormalPsychology, 109, 563–574.

Malone, S. M., Taylor, J., Marmorstein, N. R., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2004). Geneticand environmental influences on antisocial behavior and alcohol dependence fromadolescence to early adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 16, 943–966.

Manuck, S. B., Flory, J. D., McCaffery, J. M., Matthews, K. A., Mann, J. J., & Muldoon, M. F.(1998). Aggression, impulsivity, and central nervous system serotonergic respon-sivity in a non-patient sample. Neuropsychopharmacology, 19, 287–299.

Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., &Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal andabnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 88, 139–157.

McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (2002). The Five-Factor model of personality across cultures. NewYork: Kluwer.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Del Pilar, G. H., Rolland, J. P., & Parker,W.D. (1998). Cross-culturalassessment of the five-factor model: The Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journalof Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 171–188.

McGue, M., Bacon, S., & Lykken, D. T. (1993). Personality stability and change in earlyadulthood: A behavioral genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology, 29, 96–109.

Meehl, P. E. (1986). Trait language and behaviorese. In T. Thompson, &M. D. Zeiler (Eds.),Analysis and integration of behavioral units (pp. 315–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex functions.Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202.

Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation toantisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39, 765–793.


Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders asextreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor modeladequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69, 253–276.

Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course persistent antisocial behavior:A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100, 674–701.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Silva, P.A., & Stouthamer-Loeber,M. (1995). Individualdifferences inpersonality and intelligence are linked to crime: Cross context evidence from nations,neighborhoods, genders, races, and age-cohorts. In J. Hagan (Ed.), Current perspectiveson aging and the life cycle (pp. 1–34). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and generalcrime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199–232.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., & Silva, P. A. (2001). Sex differences in antisocialbehavior: Conduct disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin LongitudinalStudy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Harrington, H., & Milne, B. (2002). Males on the life-coursepersistent and adolescent-limited antisocial pathways: Follow-up at age 26 years.Development and Psychopathology, 14, 179–206.

Morizot, J., & Le Blanc, M. (2005). Searching for a developmental typology of personalityand its relations to antisocial behavior: A longitudinal study of a representativesample of men. Journal of Personality, 73, 139–182.

Mortimer, J. T., & Lorence, J. (1979). Occupational experience and the self-concept: Alongitudinal study. Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 307–323.

Nagin, D. S., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (1995). Life-course trajectories of differenttypes of offenders. Criminology, 33, 111–139.

Nagin, D. S., & Land, K. C. (1993). Age, criminal careers, and population heterogeneity:Specification and estimation of a nonparametric, mixed Poissonmodel. Criminology,31, 327–362.

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rationalchoice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467–496.

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (2000). Population heterogeneity and state dependence:State of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of QuantitativeCriminology, 16, 117–144.

Neison, F. G. P. (1857). Contributions to vital statistics. London: Simpkin & Marshall.Neyer, F. J., & Asendorpf, J. B. (2001). Personality-relationship transaction in young

adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1190–1204.Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). The neural architecture of emotion regulation. In J. J.

Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 87–109). New York: Guilford Press.Odgers, C. L., Moffitt, T. E., Broadbent, J. M., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H.,

Poulton, R., Sears, M. R., Thomson, W. M., & Caspi, A. (2008). Female and maleantisocial trajectories: From childhood origins to adult outcomes. Development andPsychopathology, 20, 673–716.

Olweus, D. (1979). Stability of aggressive reaction patterns in males: A review. Psycholo-gical Bulletin, 86, 852–875.

Olweus, D., Mattsson, A., Schalling, D., & Low, H. (1980). Testosterone, aggression,physical, and personality dimensions in normal adolescent males. PsychosomaticMedicine, 42, 253–269.

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequentialoutcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.

Patterson, G. R., & Yoerger, K. (2002). A developmental model for early- and late-onsetdelinquency. In J. B. Reid, G. R. Patterson,& J. Snyder (Eds.),Antisocial behavior in childrenand adolescents: A developmental analysis and model for intervention (pp. 147–172).Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big five factors and facets and the prediction ofbehavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influences on“environmental” measures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 373–427.

Purcell, S. (2002). Variance components models for gene–environment interaction intwin analysis. Twin Research, 5, 554–571.

Quetelet, A. (1831). Research on the propensity for crime at different ages. Brussels: Hayez.Raine, A., Reynolds, C., Venables, P. H., Mednick, S. A., & Farrington, D. P. (1998). Fearlessness,

stimulation-seeking, and large body size at age 3 years as early predispositions tochildhood aggression at age 11 years. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 745–751.

Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder fromdomains and facets of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199–222.

Rindfuss, R. R. (1991). The young adult years: Diversity, structural change, and fertility.Demography, 28, 493–512.

Roberts, B. W. (1997). Plaster or plasticity: Are work experiences associated withpersonality change in women? Journal of Personality, 65, 205–232.

Roberts, B. W., & Caspi, A. (2003). The cumulative continuity model of personalitydevelopment: Striking a balance between continuity and change in personalitytraits across the life course. In U. Staudinger & U. Lindenberger (Eds.), Under-standing Human Development: Lifespan Psychology in Exchange with Other Disciplines(pp. 183–214). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic.

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., &Moffitt, T. E. (2001). The kids are alright: Growth and stabilityin personality development from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 81, 670–683.

Roberts, B. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Work experiences and personalitydevelopment in young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,582–593.

Roberts, B.W., & Chapman, C. (2000). Change in dispositional well-being and its relationto role equality: A 30-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 34,26–41.

Roberts, B.W., & DelVecchio,W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality fromchildhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. PsychologicalBulletin, 126, 3–25.

Roberts, B. W., & Jackson, J. J. (2008). Sociogenomic personality psychology. Journal ofPersonality, 76, 1523–1543.

Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N., Shiner, R. N., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. (2007). The power ofpersonality: A comparative analysis of the predictive validity of personality traits,SES, and IQ. Perspectives in Psychological Science, 2, 313–345.

Roberts, B. W., Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Trzesniewski, K. (2003). Personality traitdevelopment in adulthood. In J. Mortimer & M. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of thelife course (pp. 579–598). New York: Kluwer Academic.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level changein personality traits across the life-course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies.Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.

Robins, L. (1966). Deviant children grown up. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Robins, R. W., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2002). It's not just who you're with, it's who you

are: Personality and relationship experiences across multiple relationships. Journalof Personality, 70, 925–964.

Robins, R.W., Fraley, R. C., Roberts, B.W., & Trzesniewski, K.H. (2001). A longitudinal studyof personality change in young adulthood. Journal of Personality, 69, 617–640.

Rolland, J. P. (2001). Intercultural validity of the five-factor model of personality. Psy-chologie Francaise, 46, 231–249.

Rutter, M., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Gene–environment interplay andpsychopathology: Multiple varieties but real effects. Journal of Child Psychology andPsychiatry, 47, 226–261.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning pointsthrough life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theoryof genotype to environment effects. Child Development, 54, 424–435.

Segalowitz, S. J., & Davies, P. L. (2004). Charting the maturation of the frontal lobe: Anelectrophysiological strategy. Brain and Cognition, 55, 116–133.

Shanahan, M. J. (2000). Pathways to adulthood in changing societies: Variability andmechanisms in life-course perspective. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 667–692.

Siever, L., & Trestman, R. L. (1993). The serotonin system and aggressive personalitydisorder. International Clinical Pharmacology, 8(Suppl 2), 33–39.

Silva, P. A., & Stanton, W. (Eds.). (1996). From child to adult: The Dunedin study.Auckland, New Zealand: Oxford University Press.

Sowell, E. R., Thompson, P. M., Holmes, C. J., Jernigan, T. L., & Toga, A. W. (1999). In vivoevidence for post-adolescent brainmaturation in frontal and striatal regions.NatureNeuroscience, 2, 859–861.

Spinella, M. (2004). Neurobehavioral correlates of impulsivity: Evidence of prefrontalinvolvement. International Journal of Neuroscience, 114, 95–104.

Steffensmeier, D. J., & Allan, E. A. (1995). Age-inequality and property crime: Theeffects of age-linked stratification and status-attainment processes on patternsof criminality across the life course. In J. Hagan & R.D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime andinequality (pp. 95–115).

Steffensmeier, D. J., Allan, E. A., Harer, M. D., & Streifel, C. (1989). Age and thedistribution of crime. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 803–831.

Stein, J. A., Newcomb, M. D., & Bentler, P. M. (1986). Stability and change in personality:A longitudinal study from early adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Researchin Personality, 20, 276–291.

Sternbach, H. (1998). Age-associated testosterone decline in men: Clinical issues forpsychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 1310–1318.

Stryker, S., & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction role theory. In G. Lindzey & E.Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 311–378). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Tellegen, A. (1991). Personality traits: Issues of definition, evidence, and assessment. InW. M. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology (pp. 10–35).Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Tellegen, A., Lykken, D. T., Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Wilcox, K. J., Segal, N. L., & Rich, S. (1988).Personality similarity in twins reared apart and together. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54, 1031–1039.

Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction:Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G.Matthews & D.H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and testing:Personality measurement and assessment, vol. II. (pp. 261–292)London: Sage.

Tennenbaum, D. (1977). Personality and criminality: A summary and implications ofthe literature. Journal of Criminal Justice, 5, 225–235.

Tweed, J. L., George, L. K., Blazer, D., Swartz, M., et al. (1994). Adult onset of severe andpervasive antisocial behavior: A distinct syndrome. Journal of Personality Disorders,8, 192–202.

Vaidya, J. G., Gray, E. K., Haig, J. R., & Watson, D. (2002). On the temporal stability ofpersonality: Evidence for differential stability and the role of life experiences.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1469–1484.

Vaidya, J. G., Gray, E. K., Haig, J. R., Mroczek, D. K., & Watson, D. (2008). Differentialstability and individual growth trajectories of Big five and affective traits duringyoung adulthood. Journal of Personality, 76, 267–304.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and theirrelevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 18–31.

Webster, M. J., Weickert, C. S., Herman, M. H., & Kleinman, J. E. (2002). BDNF mRNAexpression during postnatal development, maturation and aging of the humanprefrontal cortex. Developmental Brain Research, 139, 139–150.

Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (1994). Personality and personality disorders. Journal ofAbnormal Psychology, 103, 78–91.

Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Zuckerman,M. (1989). Personality in the third dimension: A psychobiological approach.Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 391–418.

Documents

Explaining the Relationship Between Age and Crime Contributions From The