volume 2, issue 2

www.rjdsp.ro

DIFFERENCES ON THE PERSONALITY LEVEL BETWEEN TEENAGE

DELINQUENTS AND NON-DELINQUENTS
Cristina Andreea BUNEA
University of Bucharest , Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Departament of
Psychology
ABSTRACT
The current study explores the differences on the personality level between teenage
delinquents and nondelinquents. The personality traits explored were: empathy, narcisism,
machiavellianism and impulse control. 120 students volunteered for this study, 60 of them
were delinquents (Tichileti Teenage and Minors Penitentiary) and the other 60 were
nondelinquents (Grigore Moisil National Highschool of Bucharest and Nicolae Iorga
Theoretical Highschool and by publishing online the questionnaire by using Google Docs).
Subjects are aged between 16 and 21 years, the delinquents registering a mean of
age of 18.90, with a standard deviation of 1.23, while the nondelinquents registered a
mean of age of 18.42 and a standard deviation of 1.59. The subjects had to complete a
personality questionnaire consisting of 4 scales: Empathy scale adapted from the
Jackson Personality Inventory, Impulse control scale adapted from Cloningers
Temperament and Character Inventory, Machiavellianism adapted from the Jackson
Personality Inventory and Narcisism adapted from the California Psychological
Inventory. The data obtained was processed using SPSS 18. Thus, statiscally significant
differences were found between the two groups, the delinquents and nondelinquenst,
regarding the 4 personality traits explored. By this, the current study opened new
opportunities for research.
For the future, the researchers wish to take into account the number of the subjects,
a more consistent personality questionnaire, also a correlation between the personality
traits and more variables, such as self esteem, agresivity and behaviour disorder.
KEYWORDS : personality, delinquency, narcisism, machiavellianism, impulse control

1. INTRODUCTION
Lately, juvenile delinquency has grown nationwide, determining many
researchers to explore the explanations and predictions of deviant behavior and
also, to explore teenage delinquency. In Romania, both statistical data and the
mass media registered a growth tendency in delinquency amongst teenagers, fact
that can be explained through the individuals incapacity of adapting himself to

67

the norms imposed by the country he lives in, as well as through the low living
standards, social inequality, family and educational abandonment and, of course,
unemployment, along with some other factors that can be of biological,
psychological or social nature. The effects delinquency has on teenagers and
minors have affected the society as a whole, bringing losses both in psychosocial
climate and in the individuals personality structure.
Official data regarding the number of arrests and condemnations shows that
the crime rate is substantially much higher in teenagers and young people. During
1991-2007, Romanian minors represented 4.5% to 8% of the total of investigated
people by the police and 7% to 11% of the total of condemned people by the
higher courts (fluctuations have existed from year to year) (National Institute of
Statistics, 2009). Also, it is estimated that the rate of investigated/condemned
minors by the police from the total of the population is around 10% (Vasile, 2010,
p.12).
During the first years of life, the family is responsible for the way the childs
personality develops, experts considering that the family is at fault for the
appearance of the delinquency phenomena. During puberty, children go through
a rough time of their development, going through a personality crisis as experts
say; a period of time in which childrens personalities can be easily influenced by
their peers. Thus, each and everyones behavior is influenced by the way their
personalities manifest. The interaction between man and society directly
influences the development of a personality type in a person.
Klineberg considers that peoples personalities along with the environment
are linked to one another, and when one of the two concepts suffers a change,
their relationship will also suffer a change (Mitrofan, Zdrenghea, Butoi, 1992,
p.49). Thus, the concept of personality can not be separated from the
environment and the person, and also the society and the environment play an
important role in separating delinquents from the innocent.
During adolescence, a big number of young people turn into delinquents
(Stattin & Magnusson, 1995; Stattin, Magnusson & Reichel, 1989). Adolescence
also represents a period of time governed by vulnerability and in which certain
antisocial behaviors are considered serious offences and it is o much importance
to find the reasons for which adolescents reproduce such behaviors.
The delinquent behavior in adolescents is associated with many risk factors.
Amongst the psychological factors, many personality dimensions have been
associated with delinquency in teenagers and young people.
Regarding the existing literature on the association between delinquency and
personality traits, there has been found evidence regarding certain personality
traits, such as: empathy, machiavellianism, narcissism and impulse control.
It is important to explore the way in which these risky personality traits are
connected to delinquent and antisocial behaviors, provoking sufferance, because
they tend to ruin the lives of their peers (Moffit et al, 2001; Olweus, 2011).

68

Until now, the concept of Machiavellianism was pretty much neglected in the
literature regarding adolescents, Christie and Geis (1970), described
machiavellianism as an intrapersonal disposition to manipulate and exploit others
for personal interests. People who present machiavellianism are considered
cynical (for example, they consider people weak and unreliable), are characterized
as being unaffectionate (emotional detachment), lack of conventional morality
and are concentrated on realistic objectives.
Two important characteristics of this concept are the planned ahead
manipulative behavior and the powerful wish for energy. People with
machiavellianism always obtain what they strive for by using manipulation, lie and
by using people weaker than them. They have a dark image when it comes to
people and work very hard in order to obtain success and power.
Andreou (2004), considered that adolescents that present
machiavellianism are associated with a higher level of aggressive behavior, lack of
empathy for their victims, general belief that people can be easily manipulated
and with a strong wish for social success, being always oriented towards their
goal.
Studies have shown the people who present machiavellianism tend to engage
themselves in antisocial behaviors, exactly as the people with high levels of
narcissism do, but the behavior of the narcissistic people is less impulsive and its
based on the situation, which implies more strategy and the use of less severe
methods in order to reach their goal.
Even though there are a lot of studies that treat these personality traits
separately, few studies treated them simultaneously, associating personality traits
with aggressive behavior and antisocial behavior in teenagers and young people.
Lau and Marsee (2013), consider that machiavellianism is associated with a
number of dysfunctional behaviors, such as indirect aggression (for example,
manipulation and exploit), difficulties in controlling emotions (for example,
emotional instability or moments of sudden fury) and delinquency. Yet, there are
studies that show exact the contrary, finding that there is a necessary relationship
between Machiavellianism traits and behavior dysfunctions. This finding suggests
that adolescents that are characterized through various traits of machiavellianism
have a less impulsive behavior compared to narcissistic adolescents. Yet, those
with narcissistic traits showed a higher level of association with an emotional and
behavioral dysfunction. To be more exact, studies have shown that young people
characterized by narcissistic traits tend to be more impulsive, whereas young
people characterized by traits of machiavellianism tend to be able to control their
impulses. This capacity to control impulses of the machiavellic people can act as a
protective factor against aggressive and delinquent behavior.
An interesting observation is the fact that machiavellianism, compared to
psychopathy, is negatively correlated with impulsivity. This means that even
though machiavellic people tend to have problems controlling their emotions,

69

they are capable of controlling their behavior. Also, in a study based on scholars,
results showed that those scholars were very focused on reaching that goal,
regardless of the method they used. Thus, machiavellianism is negatively
correlated with impulsivity, but is in a strong relationship early age behavior
problems.
Baumeister et al. (2000) and Thomaes et al. (2008) considered that the
associations between narcissism, emotional and behavioral dysfunctions suggest
that young people characterized by narcissistic traits are especially predisposed to
act impulsively and irresponsibly, with a strong wish of experimenting intense
emotions (fury, worry) and to have issues in controlling their emotions. Narcissism
is characterized by a feeling of grand importance, superiority and excessive need
of admiration (Raskin & Terry, 1988).
Recent literature shows that narcissism, a personality construct characterized
by a feeling of grand importance, a need of attention and admiration,
hypersensitivity to critics, is associated with a series of social psychological
adaptive problems and symptoms of internalization in teens (Lau et al. apud
American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Also, people with a rich personality in
narcissistic traits are motivated and preoccupied to maintain unrealistic levels of
self esteem and an attitude of superiority towards others.
Vazire and Funder (2006) discovered that people who present narcissistic
traits are impulsive and also suggested that this type of people tend to engage in
auto-destructive behaviors, such as praise used a mechanism to maintain a
certain level of self esteem, or even aggression for defense.
In specialized literature, narcissism was linked with the level of self esteem,
along with aggression and violence. Consequently, in children and adolescents,
narcissism was believed to be associated with high levels of self esteem, high
levels of aggression and, of course, behavioral dysfunction and delinquency.
In a comparative study between aggressive and non-aggressive teenagers,
Ang and Yusof (2005) compared the obtained scores at the narcissism scale, along
with the scores obtained at the self esteem scale. As they said in their hypothesis,
aggressive teenagers obtained a much higher level of narcissism compared to the
non-aggressive group, although no differences were recorded in the scored
obtained from the self esteem scale. These results prove the fact that aggression
is linked to narcissism in adults, as well as in teenagers.
Hepper et al. (2013) compared the levels of narcissism and empathy in two
groups of adolescents: one formed by adolescents with no criminal antecedents
and the other formed by adolescents in detention. Results indicated that the
adolescents in detention presented a higher level of narcissism, authors linking
this to the low level of empathy, the low level being a known characteristic of the
narcissistic personality disorder. More than that, empathy is starting to be more
and more associated with aggression and antisocial behavior and crimes.

70

Hepper et al. (2013) demonstrated that a high level of narcissism means a low
level of empathy, which leads to predispositions for crime. Thus, narcissism was
directly linked to the predisposition for crime. Also, people with a rich personality
in narcissistic traits are motivated and preoccupied to maintain an unrealistic level
of self esteem along with an attitude of superiority towards others.
Some studies tried to explain the reason why adolescents engage themselves
in antisocial behaviors and crimes. One explication, as the authors underline,
would be linked to the period of development basically, which is characterized
through a lower capacity of impulse control (Steinberg, 2008; Steinberg, 2010).
Another explication offered by the authors affirms that personality traits are risky,
in sense that they are characteristics of ones personality associated with the
development of a criminal behavior. For example, there are adolescents that are
more impulsive and that seem to lose control over their behavior. They engage in
actions without thinking about the consequences, since they cannot control their
impulses (Romer, Betancourt et al., 2009). Thus, there exists a type of adolescents
that enjoy hurting others, manipulating them, controlling them and dominating
them, taking into account many vicious methods, only to satisfy their own desires,
selfish motives or just for the thrill of the moment (Gustafson and Ritzer, 2005).
Even though not all behaviors previously mentioned suggest the fact that they are
in fact true criminal behaviors, they still indicate the fact that people presenting
those behaviors tend to have risky personalities that could stimulate the
appearance of an antisocial behavior.
As Robinson et al. (1999) said, people who presented early age behavioral
dysfunctions, are more inclined to present low self control, hyperactivity,
authority, impulsivity and disrespect.
Amongst the theories regarding the origins of delinquency and delinquent
behavior, the theories regarding control are viewed more highly. The common
denominator between the two types of theories would be the impulse control
factor, even though the concept varies (restraint, self control) (Newburn, 2007).
Thus, behavior control is linked to impulsivity, which represents the tendency to
act on a whim (Romer et al., 2009). People with low behavioral control tend to
engage in more delinquent acts than people with a high behavioral control (White
et al., 1994).
One important theory is the theory of general criminality. This theory affirms
that the so-called concept of low self control, represents, in fact, the cause of all
antisocial and delinquent acts. Thus, all delinquent behaviors have one thing in
common: low self control. Even more, if the possible consequences that may
appear seem too small or are perceived as too far from the present moment, the
risk of making poor decisions is even higher. Thus, the impulsive behavior is
believed to be something we were born with and something for which each and
every child must develop a sense of control from their parents when young, in
order to manage it. On the other side, the general criminality theory is being

71

criticized because it only covers one concept when explaining the delinquent
behavior and the engagement in criminal behaviors and crimes (Gottfredson,
Hirschi, 1990).
Literature on this subject, affirms that impulsivity, low self control (White et
al., 1994) and machiavellic traits (Muris et al., 2013) play an important role in the
development and construction of an antisocial behavior, these traits manifesting
themselves in different levels, from low levels to very high levels, and should be
included the studies on antisocial behaviors and delinquency in adolescents
(Andershed et al., 2002). Also, various authors mentioned the fact that
machiavellic persons dont necessarily have to present a high level of impulsivity,
thus, including the possibility of machiavellic persons capable of high impulse
control.
Bruce et al. (2006) showed that adolescents with cognitive and motor abilities
deficiency tend to be more inclined to impulsivity during teens. Loeber (1990)
discovered that impulsivity is one of the most consistent factors in estimating
antisocial behavior in teens (apud Higgins et al., 2013).
Andersson and Helander (2013) tried to explain, as many other authors did,
why do teenagers engage themselves in criminal activities and antisocial
behaviors. One explanation found by the authors was related to the fact that this
specific period of development, the adolescence, is defined by a low impulse
control and a desire to search and feel different emotions, comparative to the
maturity stage. Also, the authors highlighted the personality traits that represent
high risk factors that can lead to delinquency. For example, some adolescents are
impulsive and seem unable to control their behavior. This type of adolescents acts
on a whim without thinking about the consequences and are unable to control
their impulses.
Gustafson and Ritzer (1992) considered that there exists a type of
adolescents that find pleasure in hurting, manipulating and controlling others by
vicious and well prepared methods just for the thrill or for their own selfish
reasons.
People with low self control are impulsive, insensitive, action oriented,
incapable of solving scholar, family and professional responsibilities (Gottfredson,
Hirschi, 1990).
Romer et al. (2009) considered that impulsivity (the tendency to act on a
whim) is linked to behavior control. Thus, White et al., (1994) considered that
people with a low self control are more proned to engage in delinquent and
antisocial behaviors compared to those who present a high level of self control of
their behavior. When the behavior self control level is low, the person is incapable
of controlling his or hers impulses, he or she being exposed to the risk of wrongful
judgment for immediate satisfaction.

72

2. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESIS

2.1. OBJECTIVES
Using the older studies as basic material, the current study explores if there
are differences between minors and young delinquents and non-delinquents on 4
personality traits (empathy, narcissism, impulse control and machiavellianism).
Along the years, many studies have linked the 4 personality traits with the
tendency to delinquency, the results suggesting that there exist differences
between delinquents and non-delinquents.
2.2. HYPOTHESIS

1. Non-delinquent adolescents have a higher level of self control compared

to delinquents.
2. The empathy level is significantly lower in adolescent delinquents
comparative to non-delinquents.
3. The machiavellianism level is significantly higher in adolescent
delinquents comparative to non-delinquents.
4. The narcissism level is significantly higher in delinquent adolescents
compared to non-delinquents

2.3. VARIABLES
Dependent variables: impulse control, empathy, machiavellianism and
narcissism
Independent variables: delinquency
Defining the variables:
1. Impulse control: the ability to engage in an inhibitive behavior and to
resist the tendency to act on a whim, the ability to delay gratification
and to control aggression and irresponsible behavior.
2. Empathy: ability to understand emotional states of other people; the
ability to identity a persons emotion and to resonate in a certain
manner with his feeling, even if it is not explicitly shown.
3. Machiavellianism: interpersonal disposition to manipulate and exploit
others for ones own interest. People with machiavellic traits are
considered cynical (for example, they consider that people are weak
and are not trustworthy), are characterized as unaffectionate people
(emotional detachment), not preoccupied with conventional morality

73

and concentrated on their own goals and how they may achieve
them.
4. Narcissism: personality construct characterized by a feeling of grand
importance, superiority and excessive need of admiration,
hypersensitivity to critics and is associated with a social psychological
adaptive problem such as aggression, delinquency, behavioral
dysfunctions and internalization in teens.

3. METHOD

3.1. PARTICIPANTS
The current study was based on 120 subjects, split into two independent
groups.
The first group was formed from 60 delinquent adolescents put in detention
in Tichilesti Minors and Teens Penitentiary, with ages from 16 to 21 years old,
condemned to serve a freedom deprived sentence for various crimes such as:
burglary, aggravated theft, theft, rape, grievous bodily harm, second degree
murder, third degree murder, first degree murder, trafficking and consumption of
drugs.
The second group was formed from 60 non-delinquent adolescents aged from
16 to 21 years old. They were scholars who offered themselves voluntarily for the
study from Grigore Moisil National High School from Bucharest and Nicolae Iorga
Theoretical High School from Braila. A part of them completed the questionnaires
face to face, while others completed them on a Google Docs platform.
The participants were informed regarding the purpose of the study and
regarding the confidentiality clause.

3.2. INSTRUMENTS
The questionnaire used to collect the data was took from Research Central,
where questionnaires from the International Personality Item Pool (ipip.ori.org)
are adapted on Romanian population. The instrument was formed from 4 scales:
a. Impulse control scale - adaptation from Cloningers
Temperament and Character Inventory
b. Empathy scale adapted from Jackson Personality Inventory

74

c. Machiavellianism scale adapted from Jackson Personality

Inventory
d. Narcissism scale adapted from California Psychological
Inventory
Cloningers Temperament and Character Inventory is a questionnaire that
investigates personalitys basic components: character and temperament. It was
constructed in order to identify the intensity of the relationship between the
seven dimensions of the personality: 4 temperaments (perseverance, danger
avoidance, gratification dependence, novelty seeking) and 3 character types
(independence, cooperation and self improvement) and that each and every one
of these dimensions has subscales. Impulse control, the scale adapted from this
questionnaire for the use of the current study is an adaption from the Impulse
control subscale which is part of the novelty seeking subscale.
After calculating Cronbach Alpha, we obtained =0.72 for the nondelinquents group and =0.78 for the delinquents group.
Jackson Personality Inventory is a questionnaire that evaluates personality
traits such as: openness, extraversion, trust and organizational skills, neurosis. The
questionnaire is formed from 320 items (15 scales, along with a validity scale,
each containing 20 items) using a dichotomist type of answer. It has 5 subscales:
analytical, opportunist, emotional, extravert and trustworthy. In our case, only the
empathy scale was used, scale which is part of the emotional subscale.
After calculating Cronbach Alpha, we obtained =0.79 for non-delinquents
and =0.77 for delinquents.
California Psychological Inventory (CPI) is considered one of the biggest
instruments of personality measurement. The CPI is a questionnaire made up of
434 or 232 true-false questions, of which 19 were taken from the original MMPI.
It is formed of 20 folk scales (18 in the 434 version) measuring Dominance,
Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, Self-acceptance, Independence,
Empathy, Responsibility, Socialization, Self-control, Good impression,
Communality, Well-being, Tolerance, Achievement via Independence, Intellectual
Efficiency, Psychological-mindedness, Flexibility, and Femininity/Masculinity. The
scales are then grouped into 4 categories: Measures of poise and interpersonal
adequacy, Measures of socialization, responsibility and intrapersonal values,
Measures of achievement potential and intellectual efficiency and Measures of
intellectual modes and interest modes. The machiavellianism scale was adapted
from the Dominance scale.
After calculating Cronbach Alpha, we obtained =0.7 for non-delinquents
and =0.72 for delinquents.

75

3.3. PROCEDURE
The main method of the study was a questionnaire based research.
Delinquents completed the questionnaires, during 10-13 February 2014 and
the non-delinquents completed them between April-May 2014. There were no
problems during the completion of the questionnaire, participants showing
interest and completing the documents as required.
The subjects were informed about the purpose of the study and the data
confidentiality clause as mentioned in COPSI (Colegiul Psihologilor din Romania)
and in conformity with the law regarding data protection, by completing an
informed consent form and a signed agreement, in which they agreed to give their
data for scientific purposes.
Next, the subjects received a 37 affirmations questionnaire scored on a 5
point Likert scale (1- total disagreement, 2- disagreement, 3- neither agree, nor
disagree, 4- agree, 5- total agreement).
The data obtained was interpreted using SPSS 19, by applying the t test for
two independent samples and Pearsons correlation test.

4. RESULTS

First of all, to determine the type of statistical test used, we have checked the
normality and internal consistency for each scale.

Group Statistics

level of empathy
level of narcissism
level of impulse control
level of machiavellianism

group
delinquents
non- delinquents
delinquents
non- delinquents
delinquents
non- delinquents
delinquents
non- delinquents

N
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60

Mean
32,40
29,60
35,17
34,08
19,93
32,32
33,27
20,55

Standard
Deviation
5,169
6,071
7,219
5,601
5,262
5,206
4,562
4,979

Standard
Error
,667
,784
,932
,723
,679
,672
,589
,643

Mean

Tabel 1. Mean, standard deviation and standard mean error for every group,
for the variables that contain the scores for empathy, narcissism, impulse control
and machiavellianism.

76

In Table 1, we can see the mean, standard deviation and standard mean error
for every group, for the variables that contain the scores for empathy, narcissism,
impulse control and machiavellianism.
For empathy, the delinquent group presented a mean of 32.40 (SD= 5.16),
while the non-delinquents presented a mean of 29.60 (SD= 6.07). The distribution
of the values indicated a skewness of -0.301 (SE= 0.309) and a kurtosis of -0.16
(SE=0.6) for the delinquent group, and a skewness of -0.036 (SE=0.309) and a
kurtosis of 0.015 (SE=0.6) for the non-delinquent group.
For narcissism, the delinquent group presented a mean of 35.17 (SD= 7.21),
while non-delinquents presented a mean of 34.08 (SD=5.6). The distribution of
the values indicated a skewness of -0.249 (SE=0.309) and a kurtosis of 0.042
(SE=0.6) for delinquents and a skewness of 0.526 (SE= 0.309) and kurtosis of 0.198
(SE=0.6).
For impulse control, the delinquent group presented a mean of 19.93
(SD=5.26), while the non-delinquents presented a mean of 32.32 (SD=5.2). The
distribution of values indicated a skewness of 0.005 (SE=0.309) and a kurtosis of 0.709 (SE=0.6) for the delinquents and a skewness of -0.556 (SE=0.309) and a
kurtosis of 0.083 (SE=0.6) for the non-delinquents.
For machiavellianism, the delinquents presented a mean of 33.27 (SD=4.56),
while the non-delinquents presented a mean of 20.55 (SD=4.97). the distribution
of the values indicated a skewness of 0.327 (SE=0.309) and a kurtosis of -0.709
(SE=0.6) for the delinquents and a skewness of -0.113 (SE=0.309) and a kurtosis of
0.168 (SE=0.6) for the non-delinquents.
Regarding the normality of the plots, we obtained normality, statistically
speaking, for empathy, narcissism, impulse control and machiavellianism.

Shapiro-Wilk

level of narcissism

group
delinquents
non- delinquents
delinquents

Statistic
,977
,985
,986

df
60
60
60

Sig.
,318
,670
,710

level of impulse control

non- delinquents
delinquents

,969
,979

60
60

,129
,403

level of machiavellianism

non- delinquents
delinquents

,971
,981

60
60

,156
,461

non- delinquents

,991

60

,924

level of empathy

Tabel 2. Shapiro-Wilk Normality Test

In Table 2, we can view the scores obtained by applying the Shapiro-Wilk
normality test. Results show that the distributions for the 4 variables (empathy,
narcissism, machiavellianism and impulse control) are normal (p>0.05).

77

In order to see if there are any significant differences between the groups, t
test for two independent samples was used, along with Pearsons correlation test
meant to explore the correlation between the 4 variables.
Thus, after analyzing the results, we deduce that: the first hypothesis,
according to which non-delinquent adolescents have a higher level of self control
compared to delinquents, confirms for t(118)= -12.959, p<0.001, 95% CI: -14.276
(- 10.491); the second hypothesis, according to which the empathy level is
significantly lower in adolescent delinquents comparative to non-delinquents, was
infirmed for a t(118)= 2.72, p=0.008, 95% CI: 0.76-4.83, even though there was a
statistically significant difference between the two groups. The third hypothesis,
according to which the machiavellianism level is significantly higher in adolescent
delinquents comparative to non-delinquents, was confirmed for a t(118)=14.587,
p<.001, 95% CI: 10.990 14.443, while the fourth and last hypothesis according to
which the narcissism level is significantly higher in delinquent adolescents
compared to non-delinquents was infirmed for a t(118)= .918, p=.360, 95% CI:
1.252-3.419.
Overall, based on the information obtained we can affirm that there is a
statistically significant difference between adolescent delinquents and adolescent
non-delinquents.
1. Comparing the levels of empathy:
The Shapiro-Wilk test (p>0.05) along with the numbers obtained on skewness
and kurtosis showed that the two distributions are normal, with a skewness of 0.3 (SE=0.3) and a kurtosis of -0.16 (SE=0.6) for the delinquent group and a
skewness of -0.36 (SE=0.3) and a kurtosis of 0.01 (SE=0.6) for the non-delinquent
group.
Shapiro-Wilk

level of empathy

group
delinquents

Statistic

df

Sig

,977

60

,318

The delinquent group was compared to the non-delinquent group. The

delinquents presented a low level of empathy (m=32.4, =5.16) compared to the
non-delinquent group (m=29.6, =6.07), t(118)=2.72, p<0.05. The effect is
medium for a d=0.49 and the confidence limits (95%) for the difference between
means are 0.76 and 4.83.
Empathy
Equal variances
assumed

78

Equal
variances
not assumed

Levenes
test
for
Equality of Variances

F
Sig.

1.026
.313

t-test for Equality of

Means

t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
Lower
Upper

2.720
118
.008
2.800
1.029

2.720
115.075
.008
2.800
1.029

.762
4.838

.761
4.839

of

the

Tabel 3. Results obtained by applying t-test for Equality of Means for empathy
Table 3 illustrates the results obtained by applying the t test for two
independent samples. The results dont support the studys hypothesis according
to which the empathy level is significantly lower in adolescent delinquents than in
non-delinquents, t(118)=2.72, p=0.008, 95% CI: 0.76-4.83. Yet, there is a
statistically significant difference between the two groups.
2. Comparing the machiavellianism level:
group
level of machiavellianism
delinquents
non- delinquents

Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic

df

Sig.

,981
,991

60
60

,461
,924

The group of delinquents was compared to the group of non-delinquents. The

delinquents presented a higher level of machiavellianism (m=33.27, =4.56),
compared to the non-delinquents (m= 50.55, =4.97), t(118)=14.58. The effect
was high for a d=1.04 and the confidence limits (95%) for the difference between
means are 10.99 and 14.44.
Machiavellianism

Levenes test for Equality

of Variances
t-test for Equality
Means

of

F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
Lower
Upper

of

Equal
variances
assumed
.158
.692

Equal
variances
not assumed

14.587
118
.000
12.717
.872

14.587
117.106
.000
12.717
.872

10.990
14.443

10.990
14.443

the

Tabel 4. Results obtained by applying t-test for Equality of Means for

machiavellianism

79

Table 4 illustrates the results obtained by applying the t test for two
independent samples, the results support the hypothesis according to which the
level of machiavellianism is higher in adolescent delinquents, than in nondelinquents, t(118)= 14.587, p<0.001, 95% CI:10.990-14.443.
3. Comparing the narcissism level:
Shapiro-Wilk
group
level of narcissism

delinquents
non- delinquents

,986
,959

Statistic

df

60
60

,710
,129

Sig.

The group of delinquents was compared to the group of non-delinquents. The

delinquents scored significantly lower (m=35.17, =7.21) compared to the nondelinquents (m=34.08, =5.6), t(118)= 0.918. The effect was low for a d=0.16 and
the confidence limits (95%) for the difference between means are 1.252 and
3.149. We can estimate that if we grow the number of subjects we may obtain a
higher effect.

Narcissism

Levenes
test
for
Equality of Variances
t-test for Equality of
Means

F
Sig.
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval
Difference
Lower
Upper

of

Equal
variances
assumed

Equal
variances
not assumed

4.068
.046
.918
118
.360
1.083
1.179

.918
111.138
.360
1.083
1.179

1.252
3.419

1.254
3.421

the

Tabel 5. Results obtained by applying t-test for Equality of Means for

narcissism
Table 5 illustrates the results obtained by applying the t test for two
independent samples. The results dont support the hypothesis according to
which the level of narcissism is higher in adolescent delinquents than in nondelinquents, t(118)=0.918, p=0.360, 95% CI: 1.252-3.419.

80

4. Comparing the impulse control level:

Shapiro-Wilk
group
level of
impulse control

Statistic
delinquents
non- delinquents

,979
,971

60
60

df

Sig.

,403
,166

The group of delinquents was compared to the group of non-delinquents.

The delinquents scored significantly higher (m=19.93, =5.26) than nondelinquents (m=32.32, =6.5), t(118)=-12.95. The size of the effect was high for a
d=2.36 and the confidence limits (95%) for the mean differences are -14.276 and 10.491.

Impulse control
Equal
variances
assumed
Levenes test for
Equality
of
Variances
t-test for Equality
of Means

Equal
variances
not
assumed

F
Sig.

.061
.806

t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean Difference
Std. Error Difference
95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
Lower
Upper

- 12.959
118
.000
-12.383
.956

-12.959
117.986
.000
-12.383
.956

-14.276
-10.491

-14.276
-10.491

Tabel 6. Results obtained by applying t-test for Equality of Means for impulse
control
Table 6 illustrates the results obtained by applying the t test for two
independent samples. The results support the hypothesis according to which
adolescent non-delinquents present a higher level of impulse control compared to
delinquents, t(118)=-12.959, p<0.001, 95% CI: -14.276- (-10.491).
As it can be seen from the results obtained by applying the t test for two
independent samples, we can affirm the fact that there are differences between
the two groups regarding empathy, narcissism, machiavellianism and impulse
control.

81

Based on the scores obtained, we can also say that two hypotheses
confirmed, while the other two were infirmed.
Thus, the hypothesis according to which adolescent non-delinquents
present a higher level of impulse control, compared to delinquents, confirmed for
an m=19.93 for the delinquents group and a m=32.32 for the non-delinquents
group, which indicates that the difference between the two groups is significant,
statistically speaking.
Because of this, we can estimate that adolescents that have committed a
crime and that present a delinquent behavior have a significantly lower impulse
control compared to those who never did a crime. In this direction, many studies
have been made based on the hypothesis according to which behavioral control is
linked to impulsivity, which represent the tendency to act on a whim. Also, people
with a low impulse control, tend to engage in a more delinquent behaviors and
crimes compared to those who present a higher impulse control. This finding was
supported, also, by the current study, in which the delinquents who participated
did various crimes, like burglary and theft, which are crimes based on impulse and
many of the delinquents dont have the capacity to resist temptation.
The second hypothesis, according to which the empathy level is
significantly lower in adolescent delinquents than in non-delinquents, was
infirmed. Yet, apart from this, a statistically significant difference was found
between the two groups, the delinquents presenting a mean of 32.40 and the
non-delinquents presenting a mean of 29.6.
Numerous studies have associated, along the years, empathy with
antisocial behavior and delinquency. The results showed that adolescents who
present a criminal behavior tend to care only about their feelings, reason for
which adolescents sometimes tend not to respond to the emotional hints others
give.
The current study showed exactly the contrary. Similar results we also found
by Larden, Merlin et al. (2005) who found that there are no differences in
empathy between adolescent delinquents and non-delinquents, with the note
that in their study, they compared the two groups based on age and gender. In
the current study, though, all the participants were men and in the same age
range.
Also, amongst incarcerated adolescents, empirical findings are inconsistent,
because the guilt and shame proof are rare (Jolliffe, Farrington, 2004).
Though, we can affirm that, that in the case of teen delinquents from the
current study, the necessity of a social mask represent a social adaptive method.
Also, we can suppose that the delinquent participants tried to dissimulate the
answers during the questionnaire completion phase, because a number of them
were preparing themselves for the conditioned parole liberation commission or
for a detention regime change, aspects that could influence they way the
delinquents answered the questions of the questionnaire.

82

The third hypothesis, according to which the machiavellianism level is

significantly higher in adolescent delinquents than in non-delinquents, was
confirmed. The delinquent group presented a mean of 33.27 and the nondelinquent group presented a mean of 20.55.
Even though machiavellianism represented a neglected concept in the
specialized literature on antisocial behavior and delinquency, lately, numerous
studies have taken this factor into account and started associating it with the
antisocial behavior.
The current study showed that there is a statistically significant difference
between delinquents and non-delinquents regarding the machiavellianism factor.
As Lau and Marsee (2013) said, machiavellianism is associated with many
dysfunctional behaviors, from manipulation and exploit, to difficulties in
controlling ones impulses (the current study showing that adolescent delinquents
have a lower impulse control compared to non-delinquents) and delinquency. In
the current study, most of the delinquents were incarcerated for burglary, which
currently represents a crime which implies manipulating and exploiting others for
personal motives.
The fourth and last hypothesis, according to which the narcissism level is
significantly higher in adolescent delinquents than in non-delinquents, was
infirmed. The delinquent group presented a mean of a 35.17 and the nondelinquent group present a mean of 34.08, the difference between the means of
the groups being a small one as seen.
Recent studies indicated that narcissism represents a personality factor which
is frequently linked to social adaptive problems, behavioral dysfunctions and
delinquency. Also, studies have shown that those who present narcissistic traits
are preoccupied with maintaining unrealistic self esteem levels and a superiority
attitude towards others.
Hepper et al. (2013) proved that high levels of narcissism lead to low levels of
empathy, which leads to delinquent tendencies. Thus, narcissism was associated
with the tendency to delinquency. Also, those with a rich personality in narcissistic
traits are preoccupied with maintaining unrealistic levels of self esteem and with
maintaining a superiority attitude towards others.
Thus, we can suppose that the adolescent non-delinquents from this study are
prone to engage in antisocial behaviors.
We must mention the fact the scholars from the non-delinquent group come
from prestigious high schools which may lead to a higher level of narcissism
(feelings of grand importance, need of admiration and attention).
Vazire and Funder (2006) observed the fact that people who present
narcissistic traits are impulsive and suggested that they tend to engage
themselves in behaviors such as praise, in order to maintain a high self esteem
level, along with other aggressive and delinquent behaviors.

83

Existing studies showed that machiavellic persons tend to engage in antisocial

behaviors, as much as persons with a narcissistic traits do, but their behavior is a
less impulsive, more dependent on the situation one. The results of the current
study show that the delinquent group presents a lower impulse control.
5. CONCLUSIONS
` The current study explored if there were any differences on the
personality level between adolescent delinquents and non-delinquents, regarding
especially 4 factors: empathy, machiavellianism, narcissism and impulse control.
The studys subject is of much importance especially for social and juridical
psychology, the subject being treated by many studies in this domain.
The current study was based on the idea that it is very important to examine
the way in which these personality traits interact and linked to delinquent and
antisocial behaviors, because the adolescents that engage in these acts dont only
destroy their own future, but affect the society in which they live, by provoking
sufferance (Moffit et al, 2001; Olweus, 2011).
We must not ignore the fact that, besides the personality factors that directly
influence the appearance and development of an antisocial behavior, there are
also a number of other factors implied in this process. Amongst them we mention:
the familial environment, which is considered by most researchers the most
influential of factors for the appearance of an antisocial behavior, because the
familial environment is the one from which the child learns different behaviors
and adopts various norms and principles, the family being responsible for the
childs education. The school, the peers, mass-media, etc. represent other
important factors that can lead to the appearance of an antisocial behavior and it
all depends on how the child copes and faces them in order for them to generate
such a behavior.
But, returning to our study, it must be mentioned that along the years there
were many studies that explored the 4 factors separately, but never together,
which is what this current study explored.
Other studies tried to explain the reasons for which adolescents engage into
such behaviors. One explanation that the authors gave is that according to which
during adolescence, people tend to have a lower impulse control (Steinberg,
2008; Steinberg, 2010). Another explanation is related to the existence of risky
personality traits, in the sense of traits that are already associated with an
antisocial behavior. For example, adolescent are more impulsive and tend to lose
control of their behavior. They tend to act on a whim; hence they cannot control
their impulses (Romer, Betancourt et al., 2009; Derefinko, DeWall, et al., 2011).
Thus, there actually exist adolescents that gain pleasure from hurting,
manipulating and exploiting others by vicious methods and for their own selfish
reasons or for the thrill (Gustafson and Ritzer, 2005). Even though not all

84

previously mentioned behaviors are delinquent acts, they can act as indicators for
the people who can, in the future, develop an antisocial behavior.
Studies have shown that machiavellic persons tend to engage in antisocial
behaviors, as well as narcissistic persons do, but their behavior is less impulsive
and more dependent on the situation, which implies more strategy and the use of
less severe methods to reach their goals.
Hepper et al., (2013) compared adolescents to no criminal record to
adolescents in detention in their study, comparing the level of narcissism with the
level of empathy. Results show that the delinquents show a higher level of
narcissism, authors directly linking this with the low empathy level, the low level
of the empathy representing a well-known characteristic of the narcissistic
personality disorder. Even more, empathy is starting to be constantly associated
with aggression and antisocial and delinquent behavior.
The results of the current study confirmed two hypotheses and infirmed the
other two.
The first hypothesis according to which adolescent non-delinquents present a
higher level of impulse control compared to delinquents, confirmed. Thus, it can
be supposed that adolescents who committed crimes along the years have a
lower impulse control than the non-delinquents do. In support for this hypothesis
we raise the types of crimes for which the delinquents who participated in the
study were convicted for: burglary and theft. These types of crimes are crimes
made on a whim, with no thinking whatsoever, by people who cannot control
their impulses.
Also, the other confirmed hypothesis is the one according to which the
machiavellianism level is significantly higher in adolescent delinquents than in
non-delinquents. Machiavellianism is usually associated with dysfunctional
behaviors, such as manipulation and exploit, absence of impulse control and
delinquency. In the current study, many of the questioned delinquents were in
for burglary, a criminal act which implies manipulating and exploiting others for
ones own interest.
Results also showed that the other two hypotheses infirmed. Thus, the
hypothesis according to which the narcissism level if significantly higher in
adolescent delinquents than in non-delinquents infirmed, along with the one
according to which the empathy level is significantly lower in adolescent
delinquents than in non-delinquents. Yet, in what regards the empathy factor,
results indicated a significant difference between the groups. Thus, these two
variables must be taken into account in future studies and explored more.
Still, the present study has its limits. Amongst them, the small number of
participants has to be mentioned. The study only had 120 subjects, separated into
two groups of 60 people each. Due to the small number of participants, it cannot
be said for sure if the observed difference regarding narcissism between the

85

groups should be taken into account or if the factor really is a representative

factor for one of the two groups.
There is also a second limit: the questionnaire used. The questionnaire used in
this study is formed out of 4 scales for each of the variables, adapted on
Romanian population. The questionnaires were taken from the International
Personality Item Pool (ipip.ori.org). For future studies, the use of a more
consistent questionnaire, possibly with more items is recommended.
For future studies, a more complex research plan is of interest, with more
variables such as: self esteem, aggression, and psychopathy. Numerous studies
linked the 4 personality factors with self esteem, aggression and psychopathy.
Concluding, even though the study has reached all of its objectives, two of
hypotheses getting infirmed, the study presents important data that can be used
for future studies as reference, regarding the importance of the effects of various
personality factors on delinquent behavior amongst minors and teenagers.

6. REFERENCES

Andershed, H., Gustafson, S. B., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2002). The usefulness of self reported
psychopathy-like traits in the study of antisocial behavior among non-referred adolescents,
European Journal of Personality, 16, 383-402.
Andreou, E. (2004). Bully/victim problems and their association with Machiavellianism and selfefcacy in Greek primary school children, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 297309.
Andersson, M., Helander, M. (2013). Inflated Ego or Low Imuplse Control: Which Personality
Aspect Predicts Juvenile Delinquency Better? University essay from rebro University.
Ang, R. P., & Yusof, N. (2005). The Relationship between Aggression, Narcissism, and SelfEsteem in Asian Children and Adolescents, Current Psychology, 24, 113-122.
Christie, R., & Geis, F., (1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. NewYork: Academic Press.
Gottfredson, M. R., Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford California USA:
Stanford University Press
Gustafson, S. B., Ritzer, D. R. (1995). The dark side of normal: a psychopathy-linked pattern
called aberrant self-promotion. European Journal of Personality, 9, 147-183.
Hepper, E. G., Hart, C. M., Meek, R., Cisek, S. Z., Sedikides, C. (2013). Narcissism and Empathy in
Young Offenders and Non-Offenders. European Journal of Personality, 28, 201-210.
Higgins, G. E., Kirchner, E. E., Ricketts, M. L., Marcum, C. D. (2013). Impulsivity and Offending
from Childhood to Young Adulthood in the United States: A Developmental Trajectory Analysis.
International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 8, 182-197.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. (2004). Empathy and offending: A systematic review and meta
analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 441476.
Lau, K. S. L., Marsee, M. A. (2013). Exploring Narcissism, Psychopathy, and Machiavellianism in
Youth: Examination of Associations with Antisocial Behavior and Aggression. Journal Of Child and
Familz Studies, 22(3), 355-367.
Lau, K. S. L., Kunimatsu, M. M., Marsee, M. A., Fassnacht, G.M. (2011) Examining associations
between nacrissism, behaviour problems and anxiety in non-referred adolescents. Child Youth Care
Forum, 40, 163-176.

86

Larden, M., Melin, L., Holst, U., Lngstrm, N. (2006). Moral judgement, cognitive distorsions
and empathy in incarcerated delinquent and community control adolescents. Psychology, Crime &
Law, 12(5), 453-462.
Mitrofan, N., Zdrenghea, V., Butoi, T., (1992), Psihologie judiciar, Bucureti: Casa de editur i
pres ansa
Moffit, T. E., Caspi, A., Rutter, M., Silva P. A (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behaviour:
Conduct disorder, delinquency and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology. Cullompton, UK: Willan Publishing
Olweus, D. (2011). Bullying at school and later criminality: Findings from three Swedish
community samples of males, Criminal behavior and mental health, 21, 151-156.
Raskin, R., Novacek, J., & Hogan, R. (1991). Narcissistic self-esteem management. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 911-918
Robinson, T. R. Smith, S. W., Miller, M. D., & Brownell, M. T. (1999). Cognitive behavior
modification of hyperactivity/impulsivity and aggression: A meta-analysis of school based studies.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 195-203.
Romer, D., Betancourt, L., Giannetta, J. M., Brodsky, N. L., Farah, M., Hurt, H. (2009) Executive
cognitive functions and impulsivity as correlates of risk taking and problem behavior in
preadolescents. Neuropsychologia, 47, 2916-2926.
Stattin, H. Magnusson, D. Reichel, H. (1989). Criminal activity at different ages: A study
based on a Swedish longitudinal research population. Brit .J. Criminology, 29(4), 368-385.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking.
Developmental Review, 28(1), 78-106.
Steinberg, L. (2010). A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking. Wiley Inter Science, 217224.
Vasile A. S., (2010). Psihologia delincvenei juvenile. Bucureti: Universul Juridic.
Vazire, S., & Funder, D. C. (2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 154-165.
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., Bartusch, D.J., Needles, D. J., Stouthamer-Loeber, M. (1994).
Measuring impulsivity and its relationship to delinquency, Journal of abnormal psychology, 103 (2),
192-205.

87