Created by stevefisher48
over 11 years ago
|
||
Question | Answer |
Wikstrom Findings Peterborough Youth Study Aim | - Investigates link disadvantage and criminality |
Wikstrom Results | - Offending widespread experience in adolescents - high freq. offenders versatile -adolescent off. spend rel. little time - more victimized than others |
Wikstrom Explanatory factors 1 | - gender NOT strong predictor - fam. structure modest affect on offending - disadvantaged adolescents likely h. risk lifestyles - most youths pro. social - more risk factors = ^ likely to offend - routines & lifestyle risks strong predictors |
Wikstrom Explanatory Factors 2 | - 3 types offender: propensity induced offenders, lifestyle dependent off., situationally limited off. |
Wikstrom Conclusions | - IDs key factors to be addressed - unlikely to affect propensity induced offenders |
Wikstrom Evaluation | - Self report (criminal activity social desirability) - snapshot - large sample but ethnocentric - genders balanced - parallel data acquisition - replicable - applicable - range of measures increases validity - labelling individuals unethical (self- fulfilling prophesy) |
Akers et al linked to differential assoc. (sutherland) Aim | - test slt and diff. assoc. explaining drinking/drug taking adolescents - strong support slt 55% variance drink. beh. 68% var. drug use (regression equation) - predictions made correct to % - predicted variable: differential peer assoc., least: imitation |
Akers et al Discussion | - poor predictive strength imitation = bad slt, though slt redeemed through related variables - strong support differential assoc. (peer group influence, beh. norms) |
Akers et al Evaluation | - self report (demand characteristics) - massive sample (increased reliability) - boys & girls wide range ages (generalisable) -ethnocentric (one region one country) -useful as test val. of learn. theories - snapshot (dev + participant variables poor) - authors admit longitudinal study needed - correlation |
Juby & Farrington Evaluation | - longitudinal, observe development but subject attrition poss. - prospective study no bias -findings generalized? targets spec. socio group, greatly ethno and andro centric - reliability? - lots quantitive data, not replicable - reductionist or holistic? - v. holistic mirrors many aspects kids lives - applicable? yes, validity? yes, answers correct & relevant? data collection valid: self report - ethical issues? none - correlational |
Juby & Farrington Discussion | - Disrupted fam's assoc ^ delinqu. rates - Causes + events aft. disr. important - Loss Mother = ^ del. v dad - authors warn simplistic interpretation - intact fam's disharmony = disrupt. - any fam. could be criminogenic |
Juby & Farrington | Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development - disruptive v intact (1.9) - disharmony v death (2.0) - father v mother (3.7) - disruption v high conflict (1.0 to 1.4) |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.