Criminological Theory Notes PDF

Introduction to integration Criminological theory There are an abundance of criminological theories Two ways that we can attempt to reduce the number of theories Falsification Integration Falsification One way to reduce the number of theories is through...

Introduction to integration Criminological theory There are an abundance of criminological theories Two ways that we can attempt to reduce the number of theories Falsification Integration Falsification One way to reduce the number of theories is through falsification Falsification involves testing competing theoretical perspectives to see whether their predictions are supported or not Theories whose predictions are not supported are falsified and can be discarded Issue that even if a theory is not well supported it tends to be retained Integration Another way to reduce the number of theories is through theoretical integration Integration involves merging two or more traditionally separate models of offending to form one integrated theory that, ideally, offers a more complete explanation of criminal behaviour Example Combine social bond theory and social learning theory Differing perspectives on integration For Thought that integration would improve on the empirical validity of traditional theories Criminological theorizing is/was dominated by sociology Against Is it appropriate to integrate theories that have different assumptions of human nature Increased complexity (and, in turn, less parsimonious and more difficult to test) Types of integration 1. Conceptual integration - do not use for term paper Synthesis of models where theorists draws similarities between concepts in different theories The words used to identify the concepts might be different, but the meanings are similar Example Rational choice theory: costs and benefits Social learning theory: rewards and punishments 2. Propositional integration Combining specific concepts or propositions from different theories There are three main types of propositional integration (based on how the concepts or propositions are linked together) A. End-to-end integration B. Side-by-side integration C. Up-and-down integration A. End-to-end integration Used when theorists expect that one theory (or specific propositions from it) will come before or after another in terms of their ordering Example Weak social bond --> delinquent peer associations --> crime B. Side-by-side integration Used when cases are classified by a certain criterion and two or more theories are considered parallel explanations depending on what type of case is being considered Example Moffitt's Dual taxonomy classifies offenders as either AL or LCP and different perspectives account for each (social learning, neuropsychological deficits) C. Up-and-down integration Considered the classic form of integration There are two main forms of up-and-down integration i. Theoretical reduction ii. Theoretical synthesis i. Theoretical reduction Used when the theoretical concepts/propositions of theory B can be accommodated in theory A Example Theory A = general strain theory Theory B = Merton's Anomie/strain II. Theoretical synthesis Done by combining elements of theory A and theory B in a new theory C This requires the formulation of a new theory with new concepts or propositions that are not already found in the original theories Example Social control + social learning + new propositions Additional considerations The integration of theories can be intra- or inter-disciplinary The integration of theories also differs in terms of the level of the level of analysis that is being considered (e.g., micro vs. macro) Micro-micro OR macro-macro OR micro-Macro Thornberry's interactional theory (1987) Introduction Thornberry argued that traditional criminological theories have three limitations. Two are more important for our discussion today 1. Rely on unidirectional rather than reciprocal relationships 2. Non-developmental (specific to a narrow age range) Thornberry developed an interactional theory of delinquency that attempts to respond to each of these limitations Key concepts  Five primary theoretical constructs derived from social control and social learning perspectives 1. Attachment to parents 2. Commitment to school 3. Belief in conventional values 4. Adoption of delinquent values 5. Association with delinquent peers Sixth concept = delinquent behaviours Social control concepts Attachment to parents Affective relationship between parent and child Considers parent-child conflict, parenting skills, and communication patterns Commitment to School The stake in conformity (success in school, perceived importance of education, attachment to teachers and involvement in school activities) Belief in Conventional Values Granting legitimacy to such middle-class values as education, hard work, financial success Social learning concepts Adoption of Delinquent Values Seeing delinquent activities as acceptable modes of behaviour and adopting a general willingness to violate the law Association with Delinquent Peers Level of attachment to peers, delinquent behaviours of peers, and their reinforcing reactions to the adolescent’s own delinquent or conforming behaviour Reciprocal relationships between concepts Unidirectional: one concept affects the other concept (A → B) One thing influences the other but the other doesn’t influence the other Example: attachment to parents decreases association with delinquent peers Reciprocal: each concept affects the other (A → B; B → A) Example: attachment to parents decreases association with delinquent peers; AND association with delinquent peers decreases attachment to parents Thornberry specifies reciprocal, rather than unidirectional, relationships between most of the key concepts Developmental approach Provides a different model for different developmental periods Middle adolescence (15-16) Parents have less of an effect Delinquent values have more of an effect Late adolescence (18-20) Commitment to family Commitment to conventional activities Limitations Complexity of a model that includes reciprocal effects and is age-graded (lacks parisomony) Makes it difficult to test (which limits empirical support) Also makes it less likely that the theory will be used to inform policy Does not address the differing assumptions of human nature held by social control and social learning perspectives