Per,wn. individ. DifJ Vol. 19, No. 2. pp.

125-134, 1995
Pergamon Copyright 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0191.8869(95)00037-2 0191-8869/95 $9.50 + 0.00

PROSOCIAL AND ANTISOCIAL ASPECTS OF

PERSONALITY

Montserrat GomA-i-Freixanet
Department of Health Psychology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Edifici B, 08193 Bellaterra,
Catalonia, Spain

(Received 22 December 1994)

Summary-Physical risk taking activities can be classified along a continuum ranging from prosociality
to antisociality, the risky sports being in an intermediate point of that hypothetical dimension. The present
study was aimed at identifying the personality variables common to those who engage in physical risky
activities, and those that differentiate among the groups along the continuum. The sample consisted of 77
antisocial risk takers incarcerated for having committed armed robbery, 332 risky sportsmen, 170 prosocial
risk takers, and 54 subjects not engaged in any risky activity. Subjects were administered the Sensation
Seeking scale, the EPQ, the Impulsiveness scale of the IVE, the Socialization scale of the CPI, and the
Susceptibility to Punishment and Reward scales. Discriminant analysis identified three functions. The
antisocials were located in an Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking dimension characterized by poor
socialization, neuroticism, disinhibition, and impulsivity. The three risk taking groups had high scores on
a Venturesomeness function characterized by high thrill and adventure seeking and extraversion. The
prosocials were characterized by low scores on experience seeking and psychoticism, representing the search
for experience by a conforming life style.

INTRODUCTION

Based on the literature on personality variables and antisocial and prosocial behavior, and the results
obtained from different studies conducted by the author on this topic (Gomh, PCrez & Torrubia, 1988;
Goma & PuyanC, 1991; GomA 199 l), it was concluded that there is a personality profile of Ss engaged
in high physical risk activities. But before the results obtained in these studies could be generalized,
it was imperative to: (1) have a well classified group of antisocial people, (2) increase the sample of
the risky sports to include a wider range of activities; and (3) extend the observations to other types
of prosocial groups.

Personality variables and antisocial behavior

In general, the studies conducted under the light of the Eysencks dimensional theory of personality
(Eysenck, 1977; Eysenck & Eysenck, 1985) seem to show two clear cut results: one in prisoners where
Extraversion (E), Neuroticism (N) and Psychoticism (P) are positively related to criminal behavior;
the other, with nonincarcerated people, where only E and P are positively related to crime. Thus, the
N scale is not related to crime in nonincarcerated persons (PCrez, 1986).
The sensation seeking (SS) trait has also been related to crime and antisocial behavior of different
kinds (Zuckerman, 1979a,b). Farley and Farley (1972) with women, and Farley (1973) with men found
that inmates high on SS registered more escape attempts and aggressive behavior. High sensation
seekers also use illegal drugs (Zuckerman, 1983), engage in varied sexual activities with a variety of
partners (Zuckerman, Tushup & Finner, 1976) and drive too fast (Zuckerman & Neeb, 1980).
Likewise, Zuckerman (1979b) reviewed the links between sensation seeking and psychopathy as
measured by the California Personality Inventory (CPI) and its Socialization (So) scale. It is widely
accepted that Goughs (1957) So scale discriminates between delinquents and non-delinquents, and
between categories of delinquents who differ in their level of socialization. Zuckerman (1994)
summarizes that, on the basis of the CPI and other results, sensation seeking is related to impulsivity,
extraversion, nonconformity and weak self-control. The So scale correlated negatively with sensation
seeking, indicating that high sensation seekers tend to be less socialized.
Based on the literature, it may be predicted that people who committed antisocial behavior and have
been incarcerated should have high scores on E, N, P, SS and Imp, and low scores on So.

125
126 Montserrat Coma-i-Freixanet

Personality variables and risky sports

In an extensive review on sport and personality Eysenck, Nias and Cox (1982) state that sportsmen
tend to be characterized by extraversion, low neuroticism and very successful athletes in particular,
have high scores on P. Part of these results were confirmed by Goma (199 1) with a group engaging
in high physical-risk sports. Sports risk-takers differed significantly from controls on E but not on N
and P, although their scores on N were lower than controls.
Another explanation for the manifestation of risk-taking behavior could be impulsivity. Eysenck
and Eysenck (1978) postulated the existence of two primary personality traits (i.e. Impulsiveness,
Venturesomeness and Empathy). Two of these traits are particularly interesting in the context of risk
taking. Impulsiveness is described as related to nonplanning and impulsive behavior, whereas
Venturesomeness has been related to thrill and adventure seeking and risk-taking behavior. Thus,
different patterns of scoring in these two traits would lead to different consequences in behavior. Factor
analyses and correlational studies show that Ss scoring high on Impulsiveness also score high on
Extraversion and Psychoticism (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1977).
In Zuckermans Sensation Seeking (SS) theory (Zuckerman, 1979b), risk-taking behavior could be
explained as a function of stimulus seeking. Sensation Seeking has been related to a variety of
experiences and activities with a moderate degree of risk that provide exciting experiences. In a very
recent review of the literature on the relationship between Sensation Seeking scales (SSS) and
participation in sports, Zuckerman (1994) explained that high sensation seekers are prone to engage
in physically risky sports that provide unusual sensations and novel experiences.

Personality variables and prosocial behavior

Volunteers have been described as being adventurous and chance-taking and likely to seek
excitement. Kish & Donnenwerth (I 972) have found high SSS scores among members of many of
the helping professions, and other researchers (Zuckerman, Schultz & Hopkins, 1967; Stanton, 1976;
Thomas, 1989) have also found that volunteers for certain kinds of experiments and activities have
high SSS scores. More recently, Wallbank (1985) reported higher SSS scores, particularly on the
Disinhibition subscale (Dis), for volunteers in helping roles.
Zuckerman (1983) cites the work of Bacon (1974) where volunteer salvage scuba divers and
volunteer firefighter groups scored significantly higher than the control group on the SS total scale,
Dis and Boredom susceptibility (BS). Zaleski (1984) found that firemen scored higher than controls
on the Dis subscale and lower than sportsmen on the Thrill and Adventure Seeking (TAS) subscale.
Goma et al. (1988) found that firemen scored higher than a group of students of similar age on TAS,
Experience Seeking (ES) and total SSS. Levenson (1990) with a group of policemen and firemen found
that they scored significantly lower than a group of rock climbers on TAS, ES and total SSS.
McLaughlin and Harrison (1973) and Cami, Llorente, FarrC, Badenas and Ugena (1989) found
volunteers to be extraverted. In another study by Suda and Fouts (1980) it was also found that
extraverts helped more than introverts. These results seem particularly true, in the sense that the E
scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ) seems to measure sociability more than
impulsivity.
Certainly, people behaving in antisocial ways have high scores on sensation seeking, but not all
people high on this trait manifest antisocial behavior. Sensation seeking may predispose to risky
behaviors, but not necessarily to antisocial or abnormal behavior. However, physical risk taking
activities can be classified along a continuum ranging from prosociality to antisociality, with the
normal group intermediate on that hypothetical dimension. According to this premise, the high
sensation seeker might engage in risky activity characteristic of any of the three types. Consequently,
persons showing different forms of physical risky activities, should share certain personality features
and differ on others depending on their position along the continuum ranging from antisocial to
prosocial.
The aim of this study is to identify the personality variables common to those who engage in physical
risky activities, and those that dierentiate among these three types.
 Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality 121

METHOD

Subjects
The total sample was made up of four groups. The first group consisted of 77 male prisoners (age
X = 22.96 yr; SD = 6.16) incarcerated in a prison in Barcelona. This antisocial group consisted of Ss
who had committed crimes of armed robbery involving physical risk of injury or death.
The second group was composed of 332 male sportsmen (age X = 30.83 yr; SD = 9.15) who
engaged in different risky sports such as alpinism, mountain climbing, mountain skiing, scuba diving,
water skiing, power-boat racing, white-water canoeing, aviation, parachuting, gliding, hang gliding,
U.L.M. (Ultra Leger Motor), ballooning, motor racing, motorcycle racing, pot-holing and adventuring.
The third group consisted of 170 males (age X = 29.97 yr; SD = 7.93) who were employed in risky
prosocial jobs, such as firemen, traffic policemen, security guard, prison warder, ambulance driver
and life-savers from the Red Cross.
The fourth group was the control group for the other three. It was composed of 54 males (age
X = 30.7 yr; SD = 10.8) who did not engage in any kind of risky sports or activities.
The four groups did not differ in educational levels.

Procedure
Ss were contacted in different ways and were from various places. The antisocial risk takers were
contacted by the psychologist of the prison. Ss were asked to participate and if they consented the
questionnaires were group administered anonymously.
The sports risk takers were contacted in a different way. Usually, the first step consisted of a
telephone call to the presidents of several sports associations, to the editors of some sports magazines,
to some sports sponsors, etc. asking for an interview, to explain the aim of the study. Then, the
telephone numbers or the addresses of the Ss were obtained. Potential Ss were called and then received
a letter which described the research, a package containing the questionnaires, and a post-paid
envelope with our address. The questionnaires had a key number so that Ss could, if they wished,
answer them anonymously.
The prosocial group was far more difficult to obtain. Because of their activities, the majority of
people who made up this group has to be always alert and ready to act, so it was very difficult to contact
them because usually they were performing a duty outside their places of work.
The Ss in the control group were average people, to whom we met and explained our project. If
they agreed to participate, they received a letter like the other groups. The selection of this group
received special attention in order not to include university students and to reflect the different social
strata of the other three. In general, this group was recruited from the employees at the Autonomous
University of Barcelona.
Personality was assessed by the Sensation Seeking scale Form V [SSS (Zuckerman, Eysenck &
Eysenck, 1978)]; the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire [EPQ (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975)]; the
Impulsiveness scale (Imp) of the Impulsiveness-Venturesomeness-Empathy Questionnaire [IVE
Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978)]; the Socialization scale of the California Psychological Inventory [CPI
(Gough, 1957)]; the Susceptibility to Punishment scale [SP (Torrubia & Tobefia, 1984)]; and the
experimental version of the susceptibility to Reward scale [SR (Muntaner & Torrubia, 1985)].
According to Grays (1971) reformulation of Eysencks theory, high sensitivity to signals of
punishment is located on the Neuroticism-Introversion quadrant and may underlie the trait of high
anxiety; and high sensitivity to signals of reward is located on the Neuroticism-Extraversion quadrant
and may underlie the trait of high impulsivity.
The responses were scanned for possible omissions and unacceptable answers, and Ss with more
than 10% of missing answers were excluded from the sample. All computations were made using the
SPSS statistical program.

RESULTS

Table 1 presents the correlations among all scales in the study and for the total sample (n = 622).
The correlations between the SS subscales and the Total scale, and EPQ dimensions were in the
128 Montserrat Goma-i-Freixanet

Table I. Interscale correlation matrix 01 = 622)

EPQ IVE CPI

E N P L Imp SO SR SP

SSS-V
TAS 0.30** - 0.03 0.09 - 0.14** 0.24** -0.11* 0.20** - 0.23**
ES 0.21** 0.11* 0.24** - 0.24** 0.39** - 0.28** 0.23** - 0.12
Dis 0.30** 0.28** 0.34** - 0.30** 0.60** - 0.37** 0.53** 0.00
BS 0.16** 0.27** 0.29** - 0.16** 0.44** - 0.33** 0.30** 0.10
TAS-OUT 0.30** 0.29** 0.38** - 0.31** 0.63** - 0.43** 0.47** - 0.01
Total 0.35** 0.20** 0.32** - 0.29** 0.57** - 0.37*+ 0.44** -0.11*

SP - 0.40** 0.55** - 0.02 0.02 o.II* - 0.09 0.07

SR 0.38** 0.33** 0.19** - 0.27** 0.5 I ** - 0.29**
SO - 0.09 - 0.42** - 0.44** 0.20** -0.51**
Imp 0.22** 0.48+* 0.53** - 0.38**

PiO.01; **P<o.ool
SSS, Sensation Seeking Scale; EPQ, Eysertck Personality Questionnaire; Imp, Impulsiveness; So, Socialization; SP, Susceptibility
to Punishment; SR, Susceptibility to Reward.

predicted direction. The expected pattern of positive correlations between the SSS and the E and P
scales of the EPQ was found. The E scale correlated most reliably and highly with the Dis subscale,
the TAS-OUT and the Total scale. The P scale showed a pattern of correlations similar to that of the
E scale, except for the TAS subscale which correlated significantly with E but not with P. As expected,
there was little correlation between the N scale and the SSS, although some correlations reached
significance because of the large number of Ss. The L scale correlated negatively with the SS total
scale and with all its subscales.
The Impulsiveness scale was moderately correlated with the SS subscales, particularly
Disinhibition, and Total scale. Its correlations with the EPQ dimensions are also in the direction
predicted, that is, positive with P, N and E, and negative with L, the highest correlation being with
P (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978). Impulsiveness correlated negatively with socialization, as might be
expected on theoretical grounds. Impulsiveness also correlated positively and highly with
Susceptibility to Reward but had little relationship with Susceptibility to Punishment. In relation to
the socialization scale we found a negative correlation with P and N, and a positive one with L; a pattern
of correlations opposite to the one shown by Impulsiveness. The So scale correlated negatively with
the Total score and the subscales of the SSS. There was no relationship between the Socialization scale
and the SP scale, and the one with SR was negative and low. The correlations found between the SP
scale (measuring the Anxiety dimension of Grays theory) and Eysencks dimensions were as
predicated in theory, that is, positive with N and negative with E. Moreover, the correlations found
between the Susceptibility to Reward scale (measuring the Impulsivity dimension of Grays theory)
and Eysencks dimensions are also in line with the theory, that is, positive with N, E and Impulsiveness.
The fact that the SR scale correlates more highly with Imp than with E is probably because EPQ-E
is largely a measure of sociability rather than impulsivity. Moreover, the SP scale has almost no
correlation with the SSS, and the SR scale has a positive and high relationship with the SSS. Finally,
SP and SR scales did not correlate with each other.
Means and standard deviations obtained by age and for each scale of the four groups can be seen
in Table 2. As some of the items from the TAS subscale were concerned with sports and activities
that some of the Ss were actually participating in, we decided to create a new variable named
TAS-OUT, the sum of the remaining three subscales. The obtained means for the SSS in the control
group are close to the means obtained from the English normative group (Zuckerman et al., 1978)
within the same age group (30-39 yr), except for the TAS subscale. This is probably because our
controls were specially selected for not participating in any risky activity; this could explain the low
scores found on the Thrill and Adventure Seeking scale. The obtained mean on Impulsiveness from
the control group is almost the same as that obtained by Eysenck and Eysenck (1978) in a group of
similar age. The mean on Socialization from the control group is similar to that obtained by Gough
(1989) in groups of a similar level of education.
 Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality 129

Table 2. Means and standard deviations of the SSS, EPQ. Imp, So, SP and SR for the three groups and
the control

Antisocial Risky sports Prosocial Control

(n = 77) (n = 332) (n = 170) (n = 54)

.1 SD .1 SD 1 SD .r SD

Age (y) 22.96 6.16 30.83 9.15 29.97 7.93 30.74 10.76
sss-v
TAS 7.5 I 2.21 7.86 2.16 7.1 I 2.58 4.52 3.41
ES 7.03 1.71 6.2 I 2.05 5.45 2.08 s.31 2.10
DiS 6.75 2.36 5.27 2.01 4.67 2.08 4.70 2.16
BS 5.29 1.86 4.44 I .94 4.20 I .86 4.26 I .59
TAS-OUT 19.07 4.75 IS.93 4.42 14.32 4.56 14.28 4.72
Total 26.58 5.98 23.79 5.67 21.43 6.02 18.80 6.98

EPQ
E 13.52 3.48 14.34 4.15 13.90 4.14 12.09 4.59
N 12.57 4.13 8.23 4.61 7.75 4.36 9. I7 4.5 I
P 6.40 2.93 4.58 2.99 3.93 2.88 4.68 3.17
L 9.97 3.41 9.83 4.10 9.82 3.85 10.34 4.61

IVE
Imp 13.14 5.05 9.55 4.72 8.65 4.57 8.78 4.83

CPI
SO 23.93 3.59 32.72 5.10 32.99 4.99 33.44 5.15
SP 16.78 6.40 14.87 6.02 14.98 6.33 16.89 5.75
SR 20.15 4.27 16.77 4.90 17.34 4.95 15.53 4.83

SSS, Sensation Seeking Scale; EPQ, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; Imp, Impulsiveness; S,
Socialization; SP, Susceptibility to Punishment; SR, Susceptibility to Reward.

Bivariate group differences

Table 3 shows F tests and post hoc range comparisons. Preliminary group differences were tested
for all scales and subscales using one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferronis
correction for multiple tests. That is, 0.05 was divided by 14, the number of tests run, to determine
the P level (0.004) that would be considered significant. Where significant differences were found,
Scheffes post hoc range tests (P < 0.01) were used to determine which groups were significantly
different. Because groups differed in age, the data were reanalyzed, using analysis of covariance to
control it. All of the between-group differences that were significant remained significant after
controlling for age.
The only variable which differentiated between the control group and all three groups engaging in
physical risky activities was Thrill and Adventure Seeking. This outcome highlights the fact that the
groups were well selected apriori on the basis of performing physical risky activities, a thing possibly
not very obvious for the antisocial group.
The antisocial group scored significantly higher than the other three groups on Dis, TAS-OUT, and
Total scale, than the prosocial and control groups on ES scale; and than the risky sports and prosocial
groups on BS. Risk-taking sportsmen scored significantly higher than the prosocials on ES, TAS-OUT
and Total scale.
On the EPQ scales, the antisocial group was significantly higher than the risky sports and prosocial
groups on N and P. This group was also significantly higher than the control group on the N scale.
The E scale only differentiated the risky sports and the control groups. The groups did not differ on
the L scale.
The Impulsiveness and Socialization scales showed the same pattern of differences, but in different
directions for Imp and So, i.e. the antisocial group scored higher than the other three groups on Imp,
and lower than these three groups on So.
The four groups did not differ on susceptibility to punishment, but the antisocial group was higher
than the other three groups on susceptibility to reward.

Multivariate group differences

In order to test the efficiency of the entire battery of scales in correctly classifying the members
of the four populations over random probabilities, a stepwise discriminant analysis was used. Of the
633 cases processed, 49 were excluded from the analysis because they had at least one missing
130 Montserrat Goma-i-Freixanet

Table 3. F-tests and posr hoc range comparisons

Scheff@
Variables d.f. F P (P<O.Ol) d.f. P P

Age (yr) 31629 17.65 0.000 I < (2.3,O)

sss-v
TAS 31612 30.20 0.000 0 < ( I ,2,3) 3161 I 33.55 0.000
ES 31612 13.52 0.000 I > (3,0)/2 > (3) 3161 I IO.42 0.000
Dis 31612 IX.09 0.000 I > (2.3.0) 31611 I I.15 0.000
ES 31612 s.99 0.000 I > (2,3) 3161 I 5.04 0.002
TAS-OUT 31612 20.66 0.000 I > (2,3,0)/2 > (3) 3161 I 13.67 0.000
Total 31612 23.66 0.000 I > (2.3,0)/2 > (3.0) 3161 I 19.37 0.000

EPQ
E 3/618 4.87 0.002 2 > (0) 31617 6. I3 O.OCCl
N 31618 22.59 0.000 I > (2,3,0) 31617 21.32 0.000
P 3/61X I I .99 0.000 1 (233) 31617 7.74 O.OCKJ
L 3/618 0.27 0.845 31617 2.34 0.072

IVE
Imp 3/61X 16.54 0.000 I > (2,3,0) 31594 9.07 O.OCiI

CPI
so 3/618 73.89 0.000 I < (2.3.0) 31594 63.19 0.000
SP 31616 3.33 0.019 31594 3.99 0.008
SR 31617 12.32 0.000 I > (2.3.0) 31594 6.46 0.000

Bonferronis correction for multiple Fs (0.004).

%NNp 0, Control: Group I, Antisocial; Group 2, Risky sports; Group 3, Prosocial.
Fs after controlling for age.
SSS, Sensation Seeking Scale; EPQ, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; Imp, Impulsiveness; So,
Socialization; SP, Suxeptibility to Punishment; SR, Susceptibility to Reward.

discriminating variable, resulting in a total sample of 584 Ss. The remaining sample sizes were 66
Ss for the antisocial group, 309 Ss for the risky sports group, 157 Ss for the prosocial group, and 52
Ss for the control group. Thus, the prior probabilities for the four groups were 0.11, 0.53, 0.27, and
0.09, reflecting the random probability of classifying individuals correctly. For the discriminant
analysis to be significant, the canonical discriminant functions, reflecting the groupings of the variables
that maximize the differences among the groups, must correctly classify individuals better than chance
probabilities.
The TAS-OUT and the SS total scale variables were omitted from the analysis because they were
the sum of the remaining scales of the SS scale. Table 4 presents the three discriminant functions
identified. The first function had an eigenvalue of 0.43, accounting for 66.17% of the variance and
had a canonical correlation of 0.55. The second function had an eigenvalue of 0.16, accounting for
24.69% of the variance and had a canonical correlation of 0.37. The third function had an eigenvalue
of 0.06, accounting for 9.14% of variance and had a canonical correlation of 0.24.
The function structure matrix shown in Table 4 ranks each scale and subscale according to the
strength of its contribution to the overall classification. The first function was defined by positive

Table 4. Results of the discriminant analysis

Function structure matrix Function I Function 2 Function 3

so 0.87 -0.10 0.10

N - 0.47 -0.14 0 I9
Di\ - 0.39 0.17 0.38
Iv ~ 0.38 0.1 I 0.23
BS - 0.28 0.09 0.14

TAS - 0.07 0.96 0.17

E 0.07 0.37 0.05
SP - 0.13 - 0.20 0.08
L ~ 0.02 - 0.06 0.01

ES - 0.28 0.29 0.52

P - 0.33 - 0.03 0.35
SR - 0.29 0. I7 - 0.33

SSS, Sensation Seeking Scale; EPQ, Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; Imp,

Impulsiveness: So, Socialization; SP, Susceptibility to Punishment: SR.
Susceptibility to Reward.
 Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality 131

Table 5. Classification results from the discriminant analysis

Predicted group membership

Actual group Number of cases Antisocial Risky sports Prosocial Control

Antisocial 66 (75% ,4.53%, 6 7

(9.1%) (10.6%)
Risky sports 309 ,l3%, 146 71 51
(47.2%) (23.07~) (16.5%)
Prosocial I57 I5 48 62 32
(9.6%) (30.67~) (39.590) (20.4%)
Control 52 6 9 ,l9%, 27
(11.5%) (17.3%) (51.9%)

loadings of So, and by negative loadings of N, Dis, Imp, BS, and P. The second function was defined
by positive loadings of TAS and E, and by negative loadings of SP and L. The third function is defined
by positive loadings of ES and P, and by negative loadings of SR.
Table 5 shows the classification results of the discriminant analysis. The three functions correctly
classified 48.80% of Ss, including 75.8% of the antisocial group, 47.2% of the risky sports group,
39.5% of the prosocial group, and 5 1.9% of the control group. The group best classified by the three
functions was the antisocial group, and in second place was the control group. Both groups are the
ones which most differed from the rest in at least one salient behavioral characteristic: the antisocial
because of its antisocial behavior, and the control group because Ss were explicitly selected for not
engaging in any risky activities.
Figures 1 and 2, show the graphs of the group centroids on the three functions. Function 1
discriminates the antisocial group from the other three. Function 2 discriminates control group from
the rest, and Function 3 discriminates the prosocial group from the normative and control ones. Thus,
it seems as if the Function I is a Prosocial vs Antisocial dimension with positive loadings of So and
negative of N, Dis, Imp, and P. Function 2 seems to be a Thrill and Adventure Seeking dimension
with positive loadings of TAS and E. Finally, the third Function appears to be a dimension of
Experience Seeking with positive loadings of ES and P, and a negative loading of SR.

DISCUSSION

The only variable which differentiated the control group from all of the other groups was TAS. This
means that the antisocial, sports risk and prosocial groups scored similarly on this scale, even though
their risk taking behavior was manifested in very different forms. Thus, the high thrill seeker may
engage in physically risky activities, whether antisocial, sporting or prosocial. The Ss who committed
armed robbery had an antisocial style of sensation seeking, the sports risk takers represented a personal
risk but socially acceptable form of sensation seeking, and the prosocial risk takers took risks for the
sake of helping others.
These different social orientations of the three risk taking groups was reflected in a number of
measures of personality. The antisocial group had higher scores than the other two groups on Dis,
BS, TAS-out, Total SSS, N, P, Imp and SR; and lower on So. The sports risk takers and the prosocial
group only differed on ES, TAS-out, and Total SSS; the sportsmen scored higher on all of these. The
sports risk takers also scored higher than the controls on E.
The group differences were most clearly indicated in the discriminant analysis which resulted in
three discriminant functions. The first function, with positive loadings of So and negative of N, Dis,
Imp, and P could be called Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking as Zuckerman, Kuhlman and
Camac (1988) do. In fact, this function discriminates the antisocial group from the other three. The
second function, with positive loadings of TAS and E, discriminates the control group from the other
three. This was the only variable which differentiated the control group from the rest, meaning that
the three groups were well classified on the basis of the criteria of performing risky activities. Thus,
we could call this dimension a normative one in the sense that people performing these kinds of risky
sports are socially accepted. This dimension could correspond to the Venturesomeness trait of
132 Montserrat Gomk-i-Freixanet

, Prosocial
. Control . Risky sports

b Antisocial
I I
-I 0 I 2

Function 2

Fig. 1, Group centroids of Function I and Function 2 from discriminant analysis.

Prosocial .
8 Control, Risky sports
E
- 0
s
S
LL

-I

Antisocial

-2
-2 -1 0 I 2

Function 3

Fig. 2. Group centroids of Function I and Function 3 from discriminant analysis.

 Prosocial and antisocial aspects of personality 133

Eysenckss theory (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1978) which has been related to thrill and adventure seeking
and risk-taking behavior. The third function, with positive loadings of ES and P, and negative of SR,
discriminates the professional risk-takers from the rest of the groups. These professionals scored
significantly lower than the antisocial and normative groups on ES, and than the antisocial one on P
and SR. This means that this group is characterized by low scores on ES, and P. Thus, we could define
this dimension as the seeking of experiences by means of a non-conforming life style.
It should be mentioned that the subscales of the SSS were very useful in discriminating among the
groups. Thus, the Dis subscale loaded on the first function, the TAS on the second and the ES on the
third function.
All together, this study identified three functions on which the four groups differed. One dimension,
termed Venturesomeness characterized the three groups engaged in physically risky activities.
Variables measuring TAS and E loaded strongly and positively on this function. Thus, the personality
profile of a S engaged in physically risky activities, independently of its social value, is characterized
by being a Thrill and Adventure seeker and Extraverted.
A second dimension, named Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeking discriminated the antisocial
group from the other three. This function was positive and strongly loaded by So and negatively by
N, Dis, Imp, and P. Thus, the personality profile of aSengaged in a physically risky antisocial behavior
is characterized by being poorly socialized, disinhibited and impulsive. Probably, as the literature
shows, high scores on N are due to the fact of incarceration and do not reflect a personality attribute.
The third dimension, discriminated the prosocial group from the rest. This function was
characterized by positive loadings on ES and P; and thus it was termed the search for experience
through a noncortfarming rife style. In fact, the prosocials represented the end of the dimension
characterized by low scores on both variables. In other words, a prosocial risk-taking S is a thrill and
adventure seeker, but not an experience seeker, with high control of impulses, ambiverted and
emotionally stable. These men seem to have a conforming life style and sound mental health.
All in all, this study identified three different profiles of risk-taking personality according to the
behavior emitted: (1) the Impulsive Unsocialized Sensation Seeker, (2) the Venturesome S, and (3)
the Seeker of Experience through a non-conformist life style.

Acknowledgements-The author wishes to thank Marvin Zuckerman for his valuable suggestions in writing this paper. Thanks
are also due to Jorge Perez and Rafael Torrubia for their comments, and to Pilar Puyane for helping with the collection of
data.

REFERENCES
Bacon, I. (1974). Sensation seeking levels for members of high-risk organizations. Unpublished manuscript. (Described in
Zuckerman, I979a, 207-208.)
Cami, _I.,Llorente, M., Far&M., Badenas, .I. M. & Ugena, B. (1989). Personality of healthy volunteers participating in phase
I clinical trials. Personality and Individual Differences, IO, 1 199-l 200.
Eysenck, H. J. (1977).Crime and persona&y, (3rd edn. London: Paladin.
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, M. W. (I 985). Personality and individual diyerences: A natural science approach. New York:
Plenum.
Eysenck, H. J. & Eysenck, S. B. G. (I 975). Manual of the Eysenck Persona1it.y Quesfionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Eysenck, H. J., Nias, D. K. B. & Cox, C. N. (1982). Sport and personality. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy,
4, l-56.
Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (I 977). The place of impulsiveness in a dimensional system of personality description.
British Journal of Social and Clinicul Psychology, 16, 57-68.
Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Impulsiveness and Venturesomeness: Their position in a dimensional system of
personality description. Psychological Reports, 43, 1247-1255.
Farley, F. H. (1973). A theory of delinquency. Paper presented at Symposium on The sensation seeking motive, American
Psychological Association Annual Meering,Montreal.
Farley, F. H. & Farley, S. V. (1972). Stimulus-seeking motivation and delinquent behavior among institutionalized delinquent
girls. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 94-97.
Goma, M. (1991). Personality profile of subjects engaged in high physical risk sports. Personality and Individual Differences,
/2, 1087-1093.
Goma, M., PCrez, J. & Torrubia, R. (1988). Personality variables in antisocial and prosocial disinhibitory behavior. In Moffitt,
T. E. & Mednick, S. A. (Eds), Biological contributions to crime causation, (21 i-222). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff
Publishers.
Corn&, M. & PuyanC, P. (1991). Personalidad en alpinistas vs. otros grupos que practican actividades relacionadas con la
montafia. Psicothema, 3, 73-78.
Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual uf the California Psychological Inventory, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
134 Montset-rat GomB-i-Freixanet

Cough, H. G. (1989). CPI California Psychological Invenrorv: udminisrrarors guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Gray, j. A. (i971). The psychology of fear and stress. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kish, G. B. & Donnenwerth, G. V. (1972). Sex differences in the correlates of stimulus seeking. Journal of Consulring and
Clinical P.rycho1og.v. 38, 42-49.
Levenson, M. R. (1990). Risk Taking and Personality. Journal offersonaliry and Social Psychology, 58, 1073-1080.
McLauahlin. R. J. & Harrison. N. W. (1973). Extraversion, neuroticism and the volunteer subject. Psychological Reports,
32,-l 131-I 134.
Muntaner, C. & Torrubia, R. (1985). Experimental version of a susceptibility to reward scale. Unpublished manuscript.
Perez, J. (1986). Teoria de Eysenck sobre la criminalidad: El resultado de la investigation. Psiquis, 7, 254-264.
Stanton, H. E. (1976). Hypnosis and encounter group volunteers: A validation study of the Sensation Seeking Scale. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 692.
Suda, W. & Fouts, G. (1980). Effects of peer presence on helping in introverted and extroverted children. Child Developmen?.
1272-1275.
Thomas, D. A. (1989). Measuring volunteer for exciting psychology experiments with the sensation seeking scale. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 53, 790-801.
Torrubia, R. & Tobetia, A. (1984). A scale for the assessment of susceptibility to punishment as a measure of anxiety:
preliminary results. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 37 i-375.
Wallbank, J. (1985). Antisocial and prosocial behavior among contemporary Robin Hoods. Personulity and Individual
Differences, 6, 1 l-l 9.
Zaleski, Z. (1984). Sensation-seeking and risk-taking behavior. Personality and individual Differences, 5, 607-608.
Zuckerman. M. (1979a).Sensation seeking: Bevond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M. (1979b): Sensation seekingand risk taking. in Izard, C. E. (Ed.), Emotions inpersonaliryandpsychopathology.
(163-197). New York: Plenum.
Zuckerman, M. (1983). A biological theory of sensation seeking. In Zuckerman, M. (Ed.), Biological bases of sensation
seeking, impulsivir.~, and anxiety (37-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Zuckerman, M. ( 1994). Behaviourul expressions and &social bases of sensation seeking. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S. B. G. & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation Seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age,
and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 139-149.
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M. & Camac, C. (1988). What lies beyond E and N? Factor analyses of scales believed to measure
basic dimensions of personality. Journal of Personu1it.v nnd Social Psychology, 54, 96-107.
Zuckerman, M. & Neeb, M. (1980). Demographic influences in sensation seeking and expressions of sensation seeking in
religion, smoking and driving habits. Personalit.v and individual Dierences, I, 197-206.
Zuckerman, M., Schultz, D. L. & Hopkins, T. R. (1967). Sensation seeking and volunteering for sensory deprivation and
hypnosis experiments. Journal of Consulring Psychology. 31, 358-363.
Zuckerman, M., Tushup, R. & Finner, S. (1976). Sexual attitudes and experience: Attitude and personality correlations and
changes produced by a course in sexuality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Ps.vcholog.v, 44, 7-19.