Chapter 14 Flashcards
1
Q
Early social disorganization theories
A
- They proposed that the structure and culture of the American city was responsible for deviant behaviour
- Disorganized neighbourhoods were characterized by weak social institutions (family, schools, labour markets, etc.)
- This lack of effective social controls led to high rates of crime & other types of deviance
2
Q
Later theorists focused on..
A
the way the social bonds of individuals help constrain crime and delinquency
3
Q
Social control theory assumes…
A
- Human beings are neither good nor evil
- People are born with the capacity to do wrong
- No special motivation is needed to explain deviance
- It is conformity, not deviance, that needs to be explained
4
Q
Social control theory asks…
A
Why don’t we all commit deviance?
Not, why only some commit deviance?
5
Q
Social control theory focuses on
A
- Why we refrain from deviance
- The processes that bind people to the social order
6
Q
Durkheim and social integration
A
- Earliest social control theories explained how some types of social structure led to high rates of crime and deviance
- Durkheim emphasized the importance of social bonds to a understanding of deviance
7
Q
Egoistic vs anomic suicide
A
- Egoistic suicide occurs when there are weak social constraints and the person acts in self-interest
- Anomic suicide occurs when a lack of social integration leaves a society without a clear system of moral beliefs and sentiments
8
Q
Thrasher and the gang
A
- Gangs predominated in areas where there were breaks in the structure of social organization (where social controls were weak):
- -In city slums
- -Along economic or ecological boundaries
- -In adolescence
- Gangs not necessarily delinquent
- -However, delinquency often is the natural result of the activities of youth in areas with weak social controls
9
Q
Shaw and McKay: ecological analysis
A
- Deviance originates not in pathology of individuals
- But in the social disorganization of communities
- Certain parts of Chicago had high crime rates over a long period of time
- -Despite racial/ethnic changes in population (i.e., problem was ecological)
- This was blamed on failure of neighbourhood institutions and organizations (e.g., family, schools)
- -Which did not provide adequate social controls
- Result: criminal subculture developed in these areas
10
Q
Theories of social disorganization
A
- Control theory all but disappeared between 1930s and 1960s
- Primarily because early research was methodologically flawed
- -Degree of social control in slum neighbourhoods was not directly measured, only inferred
- Also suffered from ecological fallacy
- -Inference that class (socioeconomic status) correlates with criminal behaviour is not necessarily true
11
Q
Albert Reiss
A
- Differentiated between
- -Social controls, which involve ties to social groups like the family, the community, other institutions, and
- -Personal controls, which are internalized by the individual
- If these controls are absent, break down, are in conflict, or cannot be enforced, delinquency will result
- Reiss found that success or failure of young males on probation was associated with the absence of both social and personal controls
12
Q
Ivan Nye
A
- Expanded on Reiss and used advanced methods
- Used self-reported delinquency from a sample of American high school students in 1950s
- His theory: delinquency is not motivated by the resulting gains, but prevented by the relative costs of alternative benefits
- -Weak controls free the person to commit delinquent acts by lowering their cost relative to available alternatives
- -People are motivated to achieve goals quickly but are prevented from doing so by laws and customs
13
Q
Social controls: family
A
- Family-enforced controls and how members got along influence child’s self-control
- Children of close families where there was agreement on basic values are unlikely to be delinquent
14
Q
Hirschi and the social bond
A
- Individuals are more likely to turn to illegitimate means if their bonds to society are weak or broken
- Four linked aspects of social bonds constrain our behaviour:
Attachment
Commitment
Involvement
Belief
15
Q
Self-control: the general theory of crime
A
- Developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi in 1990
- People with low self-control are more likely to commit crime and engage in risky activity when given the opportunity
- Low self-control individuals are impulsive, focus on the moment, have unstable personal relationships, and are less likely to feel remorse
- Low self-control is the result of early childhood socialization: poor relationships with parents and/or poor parenting
- Assumed to cause deviance throughout one’s life
16
Q
Self-control: the general theory of crime
A
- Some research support for this theory
- Canadian research found correlation between low self-control and drug use (Sorenson and Brownfield, 1995)
- LeBlanc (1997): low self-control is just one of many psychological traits that should be a part of a holistic social control theory of offending
- Sampson and Laub (2003): lifelong deviance not always the case.
- Deviance may subside with transitions (turning points) in one’s life and changes in social bonds
17
Q
Family Relationships
A
- Social control theory emphasizes family relationships
- Since these provide children with the attachments that restrain their deviance
- Several aspects of family relationships are related to delinquency:
- Strength of family ties
- Warm, affectionate family relationships are associated with low rates of delinquency
- Mutual rejection and hostility are typical of the families of delinquents
18
Q
Parental supervision and discipline
A
- -Children who are adequately supervised by their parents have lower delinquency rates than their peers who are not
- -Clear, consistent, discipline that entails explicit disapproval of unwanted behaviour is related to non-delinquency
- -Strict discipline and harsh physical punishment, combined with lack of parental warmth, is related to higher rates of behavioural problems and delinquency
19
Q
Parental role model
A
- Strong ties to parents act as a deterrent to delinquency regardless of parent criminality
- Yet there is an association between criminality of the parent and that of the child
- -Which may be because of problems that accompany criminal parents (e.g., poverty, bad parenting, labelling)
- Direct modelling of parental behaviour does not seem to be the major cause of delinquency
- -The modelling of aggression and antisocial attitudes may be the most significant mechanism
20
Q
Schooling
A
- the school plays a primary role in socialization and is an important determinant of delinquency
- Those who are successful enjoy the experience, are rewarded, and have a stake in conformity
- Those who fail may be rejected by peers and adult world and have less stake in conformity
- The correlation between school failure and delinquency is strong
21
Q
The school affects delinquency in two interrelated ways:
A
- It has taken over many of the occupational socialization functions formerly done by the family
- The school is related to delinquency through its effects on children’s daily lives
- The daily problems of coping with school failure have more impact on delinquency than how it may affect future occupational outcomes
22
Q
Religion
A
- Early studies showed a modest negative relationship between religiosity and criminality
- Hirschi and Stark’s (1969) methodologically superior research found that religiosity was not related to delinquency
- -Church attendance, a belief in supernatural sanctions for rule breakers, and religiosity of parents were not associated with delinquency
- Subsequent research did find a strong negative relationship between religiosity and delinquency or crime
23
Q
Religion: contradictory findings (Stark et al)
A
- Religion affects delinquency only if religious influences permeate the culture and the individuals in question (i.e., in a strongly religious community)
- Religion has its greatest impact when it binds its adherents to a moral community in which religious teachings are salient and consistently reinforced
- An individual is less likely to be deviant, for the costs of violating community norms will be high, while the likelihood of associating with deviant peers is low
24
Q
Issues: How does social control theory explain upper-world crime?
A
- Control theory does not seem to be able to explain the deviance of people have a high stake in conformity
- Watergate case study (Hagen, 1985):
- -Such illegal events might have been prevented by the belief that such acts arewrong
- -But, upper world morality has not been clearly defined
- -Elites often receive only token punishment for deviance and often see their behaviour as technical violations
- -Situational controls in upper-world settings are often inadequate
25
Q
Issues: Does everyone have the same motivation to deviate
A
- Social control theory sees no reason to account for the motive to deviate, as the motive is natural
- But researchers have found that some motive-related variables are more strongly related to deviance than control variables
- -“Ties to delinquent peers” has a stronger correlation with delinquency and drug use than social control.
26
Q
The role of delinquent peers
A
- By combining differential association theory and control theory, a better overall explanation of crime is obtained
- -Differential association’s emphasis on ties to deviant peers exposes social bonds as multidimensional: conventional and unconventional
- -The adolescent’s lack of ties to the conventional order will increase association with deviant peers since the adolescent has nothing to lose by this affiliation
- -These ties will increase the probability that the adolescent will be involved in deviance
27
Q
Issues: is control theory conservative?
A
- Conflict criminologists argue that the political and economic structure is ignored by social control theorists
- A fair criticism, since an individual’s relationships with institutions are conditioned by structural factors
- However, critics ignore that control variables can be incorporated into a structural perspective
- Control theory focuses on an individual’s relationships with social institutions; structural factors condition those relationships
28
Q
Policy implications: the family
A
- Address criminal behaviour by strengthening families to ensure parents love and care for their children
- Patterson (1980): punish misdeeds of children or they will tend to persist
- -Monitor and recognize deviance and punish
- -Train parents to use effective non-physical punishment
- Numerous other programs help parents establish bonds with children to foster their internal controls
- May be useful for families with children at risk of future delinquent and criminal behaviour
29
Q
The schools and social ploicy
A
- Schools can help at-risk students academically and behaviourally
- Which can promote social bonds, self-control, and pro-social behaviour
- Qualities of effective schools:
- -High standards and values maintained by the school
- -Student participation in decision making
- -Small school and class size; low staff turnover
- -Mix of intellectually and socially disadvantaged students
- -Individual learning goals and pacing
- -Mechanisms for transitioning to a career
- -Curriculum relevant to student lives and minority cultures
