Upbringing

Question 1

FARRINGTON 1996
(How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?)
Background

Answer 1

Disrupted families may be families with convicted parents or siblings or different family types such as single parent families. Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation suggested that if a child’s attachment from their primary caregiver if disrupted up to the age of 5. Then the child will become an affection-less psychopath which can cause criminal behaviour.

Question 2

FARRINGTON 1996
(How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?)
Aim

Answer 2

To investigate the influence of family orientated life events on the likelihood of criminal behaviour.

Question 3

FARRINGTON 1996
(How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?)
Design and method

Answer 3

Longitudinal survey over 40 years, using self report.

Question 4

FARRINGTON 1996
(How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?)
Participants

Answer 4

411 boys aged 8 and 9 from East London, mainly working class.
At age 48, 365 were interviewed 93%.

Question 5

FARRINGTON 1996
(How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?)
Procedure

Answer 5

Interviews with children, parents and teachers.
Data from the Criminal Records Office were used to gain info on convictions of the boys, parents, siblings and later on their wives.

Question 6

FARRINGTON 1996
(How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?)
Results

Answer 6

General findings
• Number of findings peaked at age 17, followed by 18.
• 7% were defined as chronic offenders because they accounted for about half of the offences. They shared common characteristics of: convicted parent, delinquent sibling, young mother, disrupted and large family.
Family findings
• At age 20, 48% of those with convicted fathers also had convictions compared to 19% without convicted fathers.
• 54% of those with convicted mothers had convictions compared to 23% without convicted mothers.
• Offending concentrated in families, 6% of families accounted for half of convictions.
• Worst offenders tend to be large, multi problem families.

Question 7

FARRINGTON 1996
(How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?)
Conclusion

Answer 7

Offending tends to be concentrated in families and appears to be transmitted from one generation to next- intergenerational transmission.

Question 8

SUTHERLAND 1934
(How can criminal behaviour be learnt from others?)
Background
(Social Learning Theory)

Answer 8

The behaviourist perspective assumes that all behaviour is a product of the environment around us. The Social Learning Theory is a neo behaviourist theory, developed by Bandura where he proposes observational learning; this involves the observation of models and then imitation of other people’s behaviour.

Whether a person imitates what they observe is influenced by reward and punishment- vicarious learning.
• Vicarious reinforcement: where people are more likely to imitate a role models behaviour as they have been rewarded in some way.
• Vicarious punishment: where an individual is less likely to copy the role models behaviour as they have been punished.

Question 9

SUTHERLAND 1934
(How can criminal behaviour be learnt from others?)
Intro to Differential Association and its two core assumptions

Answer 9

Sutherland used Bandura’s Social Learning Theory principles to develop his Differential association theory. He stated that criminal behaviour is learned through social interactions and exposure to criminal norms. Sutherland based his theory on two core assumptions:

1. Deviance occurs when people define certain situation as an appropriate occasion for violating social norms or laws.
2. Occurs as a result is past experience.

Question 10

SUTHERLAND 1934
(How can criminal behaviour be learnt from others?)
Some of the principles on which DA is based

Answer 10

Sutherland put forward 9 principles to support his theory.
• These suggested that criminal behaviour is learnt just like every other behaviour.
• They also said that deviance is the result of small intimate groups providing interactions with people that have favourable definitions to crime.
• As well as suggesting an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation leads to delinquency.
• Finally that criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values such as stealing for money, however this doesn’t explain non-criminal behaviour.

Question 11

SUTHERLAND 1934
(How can criminal behaviour be learnt from others?)
Conclusion

Answer 11

To conclude, DA states that the main factors influencing an individual are:
• Who they associate with
• How long for
• How frequently they interact
• How personally meaningful the associations are

Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association that behaviour is learnt from others, is supported by Bandura’s Social Learning Theory. Both theories claim that criminal behaviour, just like any behaviour, can be learnt from others.

Question 12

WIKSTROM AND TAFEL 2000
(How can upbringing in poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods explain criminal behaviour?)
Background

Answer 12

It has been recognised that there is a link between poverty and crime. Kawacki found that crime rates were highest when levels of inequality were highest and lowest.

Question 13

WIKSTROM AND TAFEL 2000
(How can upbringing in poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods explain criminal behaviour?)
Aim

Answer 13

To test what factors are the most significant predictors of criminal behaviour.

Question 14

WIKSTROM AND TAFEL 2000
(How can upbringing in poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods explain criminal behaviour?)
Method

Answer 14

Self report using questionnaires. 83% returned.

Question 15

WIKSTROM AND TAFEL 2000
(How can upbringing in poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods explain criminal behaviour?)
Participants

Answer 15

2000 14-15 year olds in state schools in Peterborough.

Question 16

WIKSTROM AND TAFEL 2000
(How can upbringing in poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods explain criminal behaviour?)
Procedure

Answer 16

Selected random sample of 20% to take part in more in depth interview study. These pupils were asked to keep diary of how and where they spent their time.

Examined explanatory factors:

1. Family social position
2. Individual characteristics
3. Social situation
4. Lifestyles and routine activities
5. Community contexts

Question 17

WIKSTROM AND TAFEL 2000
(How can upbringing in poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods explain criminal behaviour?)
Results

Answer 17

• Majority of youths have pro-social values such as the don’t believe it’s right to commit crime.
• Offending of a less serious nature is a widespread experience of adolescence.
• Serious offending was rare, only 7% committed serious theft.
• The strongest predictor of youths offending were their social situational dispositions and lifestyles.
• High frequency offenders tend to commit a wide range of different crimes.

Question 18

WIKSTROM AND TAFEL 2000
(How can upbringing in poverty and disadvantaged neighbourhoods explain criminal behaviour?)
Conclusion

Answer 18

The most important explanatory factor was the youths' individual characteristics and routines/lifestyles, which strongly affected their involvement in crime. Youths with many individual risk factors offend frequently (weak family, poor parental monitoring, truancy and poor self-control).
Social disadvantage was not a strong predictor of delinquency but those from a lower social class did have more risk factors than those from a comfortable background.