• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour?

Extracts from this document...


´╗┐How can upbringing in a disrupted family explain criminal behaviour.? 10 marks Upbringing involves the influence of family, friends, teachers and general life experiences; such as where a person has been brought up. It considers the reasons for explaining differences in delinquency rates between individuals, for example it?s a fact there are differences in crime rates between cities but even in criminal ?hotspots? not all young men will commit criminal acts. The study by Farrington and Juby (2001) investigates the influence of the family on the tendency to become involved in crime, specifically to look at whether delinquency was more common amongst boys from permanently disrupted families compared to intact families. ...read more.


The longitudinal study began in 1961 and 411 south-London males aged 8-9 years participated, all where white working class and came from 6 state primary schools. The researchers conducted psychometric tests such as IQ, attainment, personality and psychomotor impulsivity. The boys were also interviewed between the ages of 8 -48 , they were questioned on living circumstances, employment and drinking and drugs. Other people interviewed include the mother/fathers, friends and teachers. In addition to both the qualitative and quantitative data collected, secondary data was collected in the form of criminal records. ...read more.


risk factors for later offending measures were of family criminality, daring personality, low school attainment, poverty and poor parenting. In conclusion Juby and Farrington conclude that some kinds of disrupted families (where the boy doesn?t remain with the mother) are criminogenic and will produce children more likely to commit delinquency. However, they also state that some kinds of intact families ( those with high conflict ) are just as criminogenic and can lead to intergenerational transmission of offending. Thus, they state it is not the disruption itself which leads to delinquency but rather the pattern of pre- and post- disruption events that can result in high levels of delinquency. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Social Psychology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Social Psychology essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Preventing and Reducing Crime

    3 star(s)

    Widiger and Corbitt (1995), as already discussed, found that between 40% and 70% of prisoners suffer from anti-social Personality Disorder. It could be said that this assumption is based on stupidity. It could be argued that a criminal has to be anti-social to be in prison in the first place.

  2. Pro and Anti Social Behaviour

    If bystanders produce a 'no' at any point in the decision model, then help will not be forthcoming. Criticisms of the Decision Model On the negative side, the model assumes that we think about our behaviour in a rational way, whereas many people act impulsively when they see someone in distress.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work