Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Resourcd File
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Resourcd File


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Farrington The Cambridge study of delinquent behaviour Turning to crime
  • 2. Aim: • To document the start, duration and end of offending behaviour from childhood to adulthood in families. • To investigate the influence of life events and family background on offending behaviour.
  • 3. Procedure: • A prospective longitudinal study • 411 boys aged between 8 and 9 • Taken from the registers of 6 state schools in East London, predominantly white, working class • From 397 different families • At age 48 when they were last interviewed, 394 were still alive and 365 were interviewed.
  • 4. Results: • At age 48, 404 individuals searched in criminal records and 161 had convictions. • Number of offenders and offences peaked at age 17. • Those who started a criminal career at age 10-13 nearly all reconvicted. • 93% committed at least one crime in their lives. • 7% were classes as chronic offenders and accounted for half of all offences. • Most chronic offenders shared childhood characteristics; high daring, convicted parent, large family size, young mother and low popularity.
  • 5. Conclusions: • Offenders tend to be deviant in many areas of their lives. • The most important risk factors for criminality include impulsiveness, poverty and poor school performance.
  • 6. Issues: • Generalisability – Cannot generalise to places out of cities – Large sample size- representative – Mainly white, working class males from East London – Male gender bias • Ethics – No follow up for those who dropped out of the study – Participants labelled as criminal children • Validity – Ecologically valid
  • 7. Debates: • Reductionism vs Holism – Takes into account many factors influencing criminality • Ethnocentrism – All boys from East London- Andocentric • Determinism vs Free will – Your background and upbringing affects criminality • Individual vs Situational – Views behaviour from a situational point of view • Nature vs Nurture – Can be argued from both sides
  • 8. Bandura Social learning theory and the transmission of aggression
  • 9. Background • Social Learning Theory is a theory that people learn behaviours though observational learning and through interaction with their environment. • If people observe positive, desired outcomes, in the observed behaviour, they are more likely to imitate and adopt this behaviour.
  • 10. Aim: • To see if children imitate modelled aggression in a new setting and to investigate sex differences in social learning theory.
  • 11. Methodology: • Lab experiment • Repeated measures design • 72 children from Stanford university nursery • Aged from 3 years 1 month to 5 years 9 months IV’s: •Sex of the child •Sex of the model •Behaviour conditions
  • 12. Procedure: • The experiment took place in three stages: Stage one: Children exposed to the adult model individually. In the aggressive condition the model acted out a series of pre-planned aggressive acts towards a bobo doll. In the non-aggressive condition, the model played quietly. Stage Two: Mild aggression arousal. Children were briefly showed some attractive toys and the told that they weren’t allowed to play with them. Stage three: Observation of delayed imitation lasted 20 minutes where the child was in a room containing aggressive and non-aggressive toys including a bobo doll. Observers watched through a one way mirror and noted imitated physical aggression, imitative verbal, imitated non- aggressive and imitated non- aggressive. Non-imitated responses were also noted.
  • 13. Results: • Boys were more physically aggressive than girls. • Children in the aggressive condition made more aggressive responses than the non-aggressive condition. • Girls in the aggressive condition showed more aggression if the model was male and more verbal aggression when the model was female. • Boys were more likely to imitate same sex models.
  • 14. Conclusions: • Findings support Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. • Applying this to criminality, SLT states that it is simply a learned behaviour, imitated from role models.
  • 15. Issues: • Ethics – No follow up to see if children retained aggressive behaviours – No assent- consent from the child- only parental consent • Generalisability – Large sample – All from one nursery- a prestigious university nursery! • Reliable – Can be replicated- lab experiment • Ecological validity – Controlled lab experiment – Out of the childrens usual nursery setting
  • 16. Debates: • Ethnocentric – All from one nursery • Individual vs Situational – You learn through interaction with the environment and through observing other people behaviours • Nature vs Nurture
  • 17. Wikstrom and Tafel The Peterborough Youth Study
  • 18. Aim: • To investigate why young people offend.
  • 19. Procedure: • A cross-sectional study • Carried out on 2000 year 10 students aged 14-15 • Data was collected from official records • Students were interviewed
  • 20. Results: • 44.8% of males and 30.6% of females had committed at least one crime during 2000. • 9.8% of males and 3.8% of females had committed a serious crime of theft. • High-frequency offenders commit a wide range of crimes. • 1 in 8 were reported to or caught by the police for their last offence. • Offenders are victimised more than non-offenders. • Violent offenders are more likely to become a victim of violence. • Offenders are more likely to abuse drink or drugs.
  • 21. Results: • Explanatory factors include: – Family social position; social class/ethnicity – Individual characteristics; self-control/morality – Social situation; Family/school bonds/opportunity for truancy – Lifestyle and routine activities – Community context; neighbourhood disadvantages/school attended
  • 22. Conclusions: • Wikstrom and Tafel proposed three groups of adolescent offenders: • Propensity induced – Enduring propensity to offend – Weak families and social bonds – Low levels of self control – Low levels of shame – High risk lifestyle • Lifestyle dependent – Average in terms of social readjustment – Offend when they have high risk lifestyles- drink/drugs • Situationally limited – Occasionally offend – Offend when exposed to high levels of situational risk – Unlikely to reoffend
  • 23. Issues: • Reliability – Interviews may give social desirable answers – However, checked with official records • Generalisability – Large sample- nearly 2000 – Only one age range – Only from one city
  • 24. Debates: • Determinism vs Free will – Argues both • D: Criminality comes from the influence of others • FW: Acknowledges individual differences • Nature vs Nurture – The environment and people we are associated with explain why people turn to crime • Reductionism vs Holism – Looks at a variety of factors influencing criminality