Risk factors

Question 1

Biological Theories

Answer 1

Historical theories
- Physiological characteristics
o Somotypes (Sheldon, 1971)

Modern theories
o Biological disposition to crime – interactive effect
 Genes
 Twin studies / adoption studies

Question 2

Psychological Theories

Answer 2

Eysencks criminal personality (1964, 1976)
Moffitt (1993) Life course theory

Question 3

Eysencks criminal personality (1964, 1976)

Answer 3

• Socialisation occurs through development of a ‘conscience’ via classical conditioning
• People differ in how conditioned
  o Extraversion (E)
  o Neuroticism (N) (moody, anxious)
  o Psychoticism (P) (solitude, lack feelings for others, aggression)
• Introverts condition quickly: Low E + Low N so less likely to offend?
• Extraverts more slow  least likely to learn social control

Question 4

Moffitt (1993) Life Course Theory

Answer 4

• Developmental explanation
  o Offending either marked by continuity or change
• Life-course persistent offenders
  o Small group, antisocial behaviors in childhood (continue to adulthood)
• Adolescence-limited offenders
  o Larger group, antisocial behaviors in adolescence, desist in adulthood
• Different causes for each
  o LCP= Neurobiological deficits (at risk)
  o AL= Consequence of adolescent development

Question 5

Risk Factors

Answer 5

1. Individual Factors:
   a. Hyperactivity & Impulsivity
   b. Intelligence and Attainment
2. Family Factors:
   a. Child-Rearing Methods
   b. Young Mothers and Child Abuse
   c. Parental Conflict and Disrupted Families
   3.Social Factors:
   a. Socioeconomic Status
   b. Peer Influence
   c. Neighbourhood Factors

Question 6

Hoge et al (1996)

Answer 6

• Delinquent youths- criminal activity, reoffending and adjustment
• Strongest risk factors: Family relationships, parenting problems (more re-offending)
• Strongest protective factors: Positive peer relationships, good school achievement, effective use of spare time, positive response to authority

Question 7

Dixon et al (2004)

Answer 7

• Prevalence study
• 100 female juvenile offenders vs 100 matches Age and SES comparison group
• Many significant differences
  o Conduct Disorder O 91% vs 1% NO
  o Substance abuse in offenders (O) 85% and in non-offenders (NO) 5%
  o Alcohol abuse/dependence O = 56% vs NO = 5%
  o Depression O = 55% vs NO = 25%
  o PTSD O = 37% vs NO = 4%
  o Witness to violent crime 30% vs 4%
  o Witness to domestic violence 52% vs 15%
  o Physical abuse 49% vs 9%
  o Sexual abuse 59% vs 6%
  o Living in intact family 16% vs 57%
  o Homeless, in care, living independently or with extended family 50% vs 5%

Question 8

Haapasolo and Kankkonen (1997)

Answer 8

• Retrospective study
• Ppts = 16 sex offenders and 16 violent offenders
• Truancy 88% (SO) vs 69% (VO)
• Expelled 44% (SO) vs 31% (VO)
• Initiated fights 13% (SO) vs 63% (VO)

Question 9

Trzesniewski et al (2006)

Answer 9

• Longitudinal study
• 978 ppts
• Low self esteem = more criminal behaviour in adulthood
• findings could not be explained by adolescent depression, gender or socioeconomic status

Question 10

Huesmann et al (2003)

Answer 10

• longitudinal study
• violent TV at 6-10 increases aggression 10-15 years later
• When other factors controlled

Question 11

Interactive effect

Answer 11

Mednick et al 1984
Twin and adoption studies found genetic predisposition to criminal behaviour
Highlights a biological influence however may overemphasise nature over nurture

Question 12

Socioeconomic status (SES)

Answer 12

Poverty and unemployment strongly correlate with criminal behavior (e.g., Farrington, 2002).

Evaluation: Highlights structural inequality but risks deterministic assumptions.

Question 13

Farrington 2002 crit ev

Answer 13

Strengths:
Comprehensive review of longitudinal studies, offering insights into developmental trajectories of criminal behavior.
Emphasizes risk-focused prevention, which is practical for intervention programs.
Identifies both proximal (immediate) and distal (long-term) risk factors.

Limitations:
Overreliance on correlational data, which cannot establish causation.
Tends to generalize findings across diverse populations, which may not account for cultural or contextual differences.
Focus on risk factors might downplay protective factors that mitigate criminal tendencies.

Question 14

Dixon et al (2004) crit ev

Answer 14

Dixon et al. (2004) make a valuable contribution to understanding risk factors for offending, particularly among juveniles, by adopting a biopsychosocial perspective.

However, limitations such as causality issues, sample bias, and neglect of protective factors reduce the study’s scope.

Addressing these shortcomings in future research would provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding and mitigating offending behavior.