The Farrington study aimed to document offending behavior from childhood to adulthood and investigate factors influencing criminal behavior. Researchers interviewed 411 boys aged 8-9 in East London every few years up to age 48. By age 48, 161 participants had convictions. Chronic offenders, making up 7% of participants, tended to be convicted before age 21, have a convicted parent, delinquent sibling, young mother, and disrupted family. The study links criminal behavior to one's upbringing and environment, finding children from large, disrupted families or with criminal parents are more likely to offend.

1. Farrington
EMMA

2. Aim
To document the start, duration and end of offending behaviour from childhood through to
adulthood in families.
To investigate the influence of life events; the risk and protective factors predicting offending and
anti-social behaviour; the intergenerational transmission of offending and the influence of family
background.

3. Procedure
An initial sample of 411 boys aged 8/9 from 6 state schools in East London (the majority were
white working class) came from 397 families (some were brothers).
They were each interviewed at the ages of 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 32 and 48. At the age of 48
only 394 were still alive, only 365 of them had the final interview.
Throughout the study parents/guardians and teachers were also interviewed.

4. Results
By the age of 48, 161 of the participants had convictions.
The number of offenders and offences peaked at the age of 17.
91% of participants who had their first conviction within the ages of 10-13 were reconvicted and on
average committed around 9 crimes.
7% were considered to be chronic offenders as they accounted for half of the offences.
The majority of chronic offenders shared the following:
Convicted before the age of 21
Had a convicted parent
Had a delinquent sibling
Had a young mother
Had a large/disrupted family

5. Link to Crime
The study shows that the way in which children are brought up has a huge impact upon how
they act later in life. Children in large disrupted families with convicted parents or difficult
circumstances are more likely to turn to a life of crime either because it’s what they know from
their parents or because they find it more difficult to get through the schooling system and so
finding a proper job is a difficulty.

6. Issues
Methodology interviews were used to collect the data, this method is very susceptible to
social desirability bias. The participants may lie about their crimes because they don’t want to
be punished or get a bad reputation which may lose them their job (if they have one). This
means the results are less valid as it is not giving us a true representation of what is going on in
their life.
Usefulness  the study shows us that criminality stems from childhood, essentially, if you
commit crimes your children are likely to commit crimes.
Application vulnerable children can be identified and be given help, potentially remove them
from their homes to be put with a more stable family.

7. Debates
External Determinism  proposing that people turn to crime due to their environment (external
influences).
Nurture  criminal behaviour is developed through seeing parents/siblings committing crime.
Also the situation in which you are brought up can affect what choices you make in life, if you
didn’t get a good education because your parents weren’t supportive you may turn to crime
instead of getting a job.
Reductionist  says that criminal behaviour is entirely due to family influence. Ignores all other
possible influences/factors e.g. individual differences.

8. Quiz Questions
1. How many boys were interviewed at the start of the study?
2. What age were the boys when the study started?
3. Where were all the participants from?
4. What percentage of the participants made up the chronic offenders group?
5. How many of the participants had convictions at the end of the study?

9. Answers
1. 411
2. 8/9
3. East London
4. 7%
5. 161