Farrington
The Cambridge study of
delinquent behaviour
Turning to crime
Aim:
• To document the start, duration and end of
offending behaviour from childhood to adulthood in
families.
• To invest...
Procedure:
• A prospective longitudinal study
• 411 boys aged between 8 and 9
• Taken from the registers of 6 state school...
Results:
• At age 48, 404 individuals searched in criminal records and
161 had convictions.
• Number of offenders and offe...
Conclusions:
• Offenders tend to be deviant in many areas of their
lives.
• The most important risk factors for criminalit...
Issues:
• Generalisability
– Cannot generalise to places out of cities
– Large sample size- representative
– Mainly white,...
Debates:
• Reductionism vs Holism
– Takes into account many factors influencing criminality
• Ethnocentrism
– All boys fro...
Bandura
Social learning theory and the
transmission of aggression
Background
• Social Learning Theory is a theory that people learn
behaviours though observational learning and
through int...
Aim:
• To see if children imitate modelled aggression in a
new setting and to investigate sex differences in
social learni...
Methodology:
• Lab experiment
• Repeated measures design
• 72 children from Stanford university nursery
• Aged from 3 year...
Procedure:
• The experiment took place in three stages:
Stage one:
Children exposed to the adult
model individually.
In th...
Results:
• Boys were more physically aggressive than girls.
• Children in the aggressive condition made more
aggressive re...
Conclusions:
• Findings support Bandura’s Social Learning Theory.
• Applying this to criminality, SLT states that it is
si...
Issues:
• Ethics
– No follow up to see if children retained aggressive behaviours
– No assent- consent from the child- onl...
Debates:
• Ethnocentric
– All from one nursery
• Individual vs Situational
– You learn through interaction with the enviro...
Wikstrom and Tafel
The Peterborough Youth Study
Aim:
• To investigate why young people offend.
Procedure:
• A cross-sectional study
• Carried out on 2000 year 10 students aged 14-15
• Data was collected from official ...
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 f...
Results:
• Explanatory factors include:
– Family social position; social class/ethnicity
– Individual characteristics; sel...
Conclusions:
• Wikstrom and Tafel proposed three groups of adolescent
offenders:
• Propensity induced
– Enduring propensit...
Issues:
• Reliability
– Interviews may give social desirable answers
– However, checked with official records
• Generalisa...
Debates:
• Determinism vs Free will
– Argues both
• D: Criminality comes from the influence of others
• FW: Acknowledges i...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Resourcd File

163 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Resourcd File

  1. 1. Farrington The Cambridge study of delinquent behaviour Turning to crime
  2. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 8. Bandura Social learning theory and the transmission of aggression
  9. 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. 10. Aim: • To see if children imitate modelled aggression in a new setting and to investigate sex differences in social learning theory.
  11. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 17. Wikstrom and Tafel The Peterborough Youth Study
  18. 18. Aim: • To investigate why young people offend.
  19. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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

×