Disruptive Families; Farrington et al.
How the child is brought up at home can have an impact on whether the child turns to crime.
Aim; 1) document start, duration, end of offending behaviour from child-adult. 2) Investigate influence of life events the risk/protective factors, predicting offending and anti-social behaviour. Inter-generational transmission of offending and ASB and influence of family background.
Sample & Procedure; 411 boys aged 8/9. WC from East London. 397 families, 14 pairs of brothers, 5 twins. Longitudinal survey Interviews and searches of criminal records. Latest age 48. 194 alive - 365 interviewed = 93%.
Results; Those who started offending 10-13 nearly all reconvicted once, committed 9 crimes on average compared to 6 on average if they started at the ages of 14-16. These two groups committed 77% of all the crimes seen in the study (620/808). 7% of males were defined as chronic offenders as they are persistent. They shared childhood characteristics such as convited parents, highdaring, delinquent sibling, disrupted family, large family.
Conclusion; Early prevention can have wide-ranging benefits. risk factors are criminality in family, poverty, poor child-rearing, impulsiveness.
Social Learning; Bandura, Ross & Ross.
One way to explain criminal behaviour is from learning from people around us. observe aggression = aggressive adults. Aggression then be seen as an acceptable manner, and they may witness crimes such as domestic violence and then go on and do the same.
Aim; Demonstrate that if children were passive witness to aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this behaviour when given the opportunity.
Method & Procedure; lab exp, with matched group design. 72 children from uni nursery. 3 condition, aggressive, non-aggressive and control. aggressive 6 boys same sex model/6 boys opposite sex model, 6 girls same sex model/6 girls opposite sex model. and the same was used in the non-aggressive condition. Stage 1 - taken to room with experimenter model then entered and went to corner with the toys, aggressive hit the bobo doll and used verbal aggression as well as physical, non-aggressive ignored it and played quietly. Stage 2 - child taken to a second room and once settled and started to play were told those toys werent for them but for toher children and had to leave. Stage 3 - final room where they were alone with all the toys and were observed for 20 minutes through a 1-way-mirror.
Results & Conclusion; Boys made more aggressive behaviour than girls, children showed more aggression when faced with same-sex model. Children are influenced socially and when seeing a behaviour will copy.
Neighbourhoods; Wikstrom & Tafel.
The neighbourhood in which a child is brought up in can influence their criminal behaviour.
Aim; To look how the neighbourhoods children grow up in, influences their criminal behaviour.
Participants; 2000 yr 10 students from 13 state schools in Peterborough.
Method; Interviews and data collection such as criminal records etc. Snapshot study which focused on one specific group of the population.
Results; 45% male, 31% female had committed at least one of the crimes studied such as violence, vandalism, shoplifting burglary or theft of or from cars. high frequency offenders committ a wide range of crimes. offenders were also more drunk and using drugs than other youths, and 1/8 of offenders were reported or caught by police for their last crime.youths with many individual risk factors offended frequently whilst those who had protective didnt. social-economic isnt an issue but poorer you are exposed to more risk factors. Key risk factors - weak family/school bonds/poor parental monitoring/poor self-control.
Conclusion; 3 types of adolescent offenders. Propensity induces chronic offenders. Life style defendent if peer centred activities. Situationally limited offend if lifestyle exposes them.
Neighbourhoods; Wikstrom & Tafel.
sample - the sample was only done on one specific group of people (yr 10s). Therefore all the results are only represensative of year 10s. Mainly year 10s in just Peterborough as the study was only conducted there. Therefore the results cannot be generalised to the population.