Development And Life Course Theory

Front 1

overview

Back 1

Development of offending and antisocial behavior Risk and protective factors at different ages Effects of life events on the course of development(Farrington, 03;05) in context of life course; progression from childhood to adolescence to old age

Front 2

overview

Back 2

Development of offending and antisocial behavior Risk and protective factors at different ages Effects of life events on the course of development(Farrington, 03;05) in context of life course; progression from childhood to adolescence to old age

Front 3

Intro

Back 3

Benson 01 “life course theory is a new way of thinking” not theory per se. Elder 94 it is emerging new paradigm Distinctive featrure - Cohort study and integrative studies LC extensive longitudinal and cohort studies(West and Farington’s Cambridge study), Farrington and Loever’s Pittsburgh Youth s Survey). Integrate biological, psychological, and sociological theories to explain the onset, persistence and desistence Interaction bw individuals and environemtns(elder 85), impact of social and historical ontext. Reciprocal interaction bw human and others.

Front 4

Development of LC

Back 4

Elder 85,94 Loeber and Leblanc 90 Terrie Moffitt 91,93,97 Thornberry 87 Sampson and Laub 93

Front 5

Elder 85;94

Back 5

LC is pathways through the age differentiates life span. “interweaves of age-graded trajectories” Trajectory: long term pattern of behavior(work career, education career, family pathways. Marked by sequence of transitions Transitions : life events(first job, marriage, leaving school) Turning point : Interlocking nature of trajectories and transitions generate a significant change in the direction of one’s developmental course. 4 premises -Aging and developmental changes=continuous process over life -Trajectories in different realms of life are interconnected, reciprocal effects on one another(Biological, psychological, social trajectories interacts) - Human development is influenced by social and historical conditions.(war, depression, mass media, industry) - Optimizing effect on human most effective when they are sensitive on developmental needs and capabilities of particular age periods in the life span-principle of timing

Front 6

Loeber and Leblanc 90

Back 6

Developmental is both continuity and with-individual change in offending over time, focusing on “life transition and developmentalcovariates which may mediate the developmental course of offending. (451) Stepping stone approach : factors are timeordered by age, assessed with respect to outcome variables

Front 7

Terrie Moffitt 91.93.97

Back 7

Accumulating risk of LCP offender. Integrated different theories(biological, psychological, sociological) id distinctive types LCP and AL

Front 8

Moffitt LCP

Back 8

LCP :interaction bw neuropsychological deficit and criminogenic Environment. 5-6 offenders ar responsible for about 50% of known crimes(Moffitt 91; Wolfgang et 72) They re LCP early onset, long periods of persistence Initial antisocial caused by (Cognitive deficit, under controlled temperament, hyperactivity, poor parenting,disrupted families, teenage parents, poverty, SES, heritable low IQ) Parent-LCP linked genetically + temperamental behavior elicitdysfunctional parentingLCP continuity: Manifestation emerge early, remain present thereafter. - continuity is result of Cumulative consequences(S&L93;97):initial deficits result in further problem (deficit - Tantrum-education fail–job difficulty) - and Contemporary continuity(G&H90). Traits got him onto trouble. (Hot tempered-tantrum-erratic work lives). Twoconsequences 1. Fail to learn conventional prosocial. 2. Ensnared in a deviantlife-style by crime consequences.Neither Traits(G&H90) norEnvironment(Bandura79) alone account for countinuity. Moffitt emphasizereciprocal interaction bw personal traits and environment reaction). - Subtlevars neuropsychological health – antisocial style over life course

Front 9

Moffitt AL

Back 9

80% of males have police contact for some minor infringement(Farrington et 86) during adolescent years. Shorter offending time, stop after teen years. i. Motivation : secular change has generated motivation for delinquency. Maturity gap bw biological and participation in work. ii. Mimicry: of the antisocial style of life course-persistent youth who obtain possession of materials by theft or vice. iii. Reinforcement: socially reinforced by consequence of crime. Most AL desist cuz gradually lost motivation for delinquency as they exit the maturity gap. +, perceived consequence of illegal behavior shifts from rewarding to punishing. And leave high school, army. Marriage, full time job. AL than LCP exempt from cumulative and contemporary continuity.

Front 10

AL support

Back 10

Piquero & Brezina01 using Youth in Transition Survey, support for AL offenders. Al characterized by involvement in rebellious but not aggressive delinquency. Rebellious D is accounted for by the interaction bw early maturity and the autonomy aspects of peer activities. Blumstein and Cohen 87; Farrington 86 Majority of offenders are teenagers and most of them desist as they grew up adolescent period Caspi et al. 03 Dunedine. early evidence of neuropsychological deficits, learning disabilities & Emotional/behavioral problems predict later delinquent behavior, even after controlling for SES, race, academic attainment. cognitive deficits(inattention, impulisivity, aggression and poor judgment) have also been linked to delinquent behavior

Front 11

Thornberry 87

Back 11

Interactional Theory. Combines control th + social learning th attempting to increase their collective ability "Cause to delinquent behavior will change over the life course." a. Cause of delinquency=weakening of bonds to conventional society, reduction of control -> adolescents interact with other people and institutions (asb is formed by interactive process) b. Causes vary for children at different ages/developmental stages i. Earliest age(birth to six): Neuropsychological deficit, difficult temperament, parenting deficit and structural adversity ii. 6-12: Nbhood and family factors iii. 12-18: school and peer school>family iv. Late starter(18-25): cognitive deficit(IQ or poor school perform). Protected by supportive family or school environment. More continuity

Front 12

Thornberry 87 support

Back 12

Thornberry et 91: general support for theory and reciprocal relationships between social bonding and delinquency Thornberry et 94: delinquent behavior and delinquent peers are reciprocally related over time and role of delinquent beliefs increases as youth become more embedded in a delinquent network

Front 13

Sampson & Laub 93 (1)

Back 13

Integrated theory: social control, bonding, labeling and life course perspective Social capital(back to social bond): “age graded theory of informal social control”(S&L97). Argued crime and deviance result when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken. Informal social control by social institutions key. i. Unlike Hirschi, SL important institutions of informal control vary across the life span. 1. Early adolescent years: family and school 2. Adulthood: marriage and wok <- attachment to labor, cohesive marriage >> prior differences in criminogenic environment ii. Recognition of quality of bonds. They emph social bond is not per se social control. Social bonds combined with close emotional ties and interdependency or quality relationships creates an informal social control. Coleman88 called social capital= instrumental or affective resources that are gained from quality social relations including the relationship between parent-child, teacher-student, employer-employee. Quality of social bonds –onset, persistence and desistence from crime at each life stage

Front 14

Sampson & Laub 93 (2)

Back 14

iii. Mediate effect of family or school on structural factors (Braithwate89; Colvin02): informal social control derived from the family and school mediate the effects of both individual and structural background(mobility, poverty, deviant parent, ..) variables. iv. Cumulative continuity: stable individual differences in criminal propensity + developmental processes(childhood asb foster adult crime). The developmental process 1. Early deviance brin about differing reactions from parent, friend, teacher(Caspi 87; thornberry87) 2. Crime itself causally modifies the future probability of engaging in crime(Nagin & Paternoster91) serious sanction knife off their future opp v. Paradox : ASB best predictor of antisocial behavior in adulthood(Robin 78) but most asb no become antisocial adults(Gove 85). vi. Turning Point : individual change may occur dependeing on “turning points” that modify social bonds. 1. Positive turning point: strengthened social bonds to society in adulthood will lead to less crime and deviance(good marriage, meaningful work, military). Especially social ties to jobs and family are the key inhibitors to adult crime and deviance. They could have stakes in conformity. Elder 91 ponted radical turnaround but SL conceptualized as “part of a process over time” incremental change and age-related pogressions(Rutter and Rutter93) 2. Negative turning point: incarceration, heavy drinking, job instability. Weak informal social control elicit deviant behavior even if non delinquent as a youth SL reject later adult factors have little relevance(Wilson and Herrenstein 85; G&H90)

Front 15

Limitation

Back 15

Weisburd et 90; Benson & Kerley 00; Weisburd et 01 .. Only focus on the ordinary street crime and ignore white collar crime. Recent evidence suggest that careers in white-collar crime differ substantially from careers in street crime

Front 16

Future LC

Back 16

1. Quantitative and qualitative study needed. Official and unofficial 2. Turning points in adolescent period 3. Onset, persistence and desistence of female offenders(Piquerro et 01) 4. Importance of exploring short-term changes in the life-course(Honey et 95l Piquero et 02) 5. Negative turning point? Differential association, labeling theory 6. Integration of rational choice, situational, social control theories with a life-course perspective

Front 17

Evidence of Continuity

Back 17

a. West and Farrington 77, Cambridge study b. Farrington 03. c. Loeber 82, review extant literature d. Caspi and Moffitt 93, replicated in New Zealand e. Loeber and Farrington 01, Pittsburgh outh Survey f. Caspi et 03. Dunedine study in 1996 NZ g. Huesmann et 84. NYS 870 youngsters h. Simons et 02, self-selection

Front 18

a. West and Farrington 77

Back 18

Cambridge study i. Delinquent acts continued over time. ii. Attempted to uncover the factors contribution to the continuance of delinquent behavior over the life cycle. iii. 411 london boys from 8 yold to 32 age. Onset 8, peaked 17-18, decreased 20s. in 30s most of delinquent boys divorced single parents, perpetuated own criminogenic family environment to their children. Low income, poor parenting. iv. Farrington 93 Asb continue throughout life course and transmitted to their children. Future asb could be predicted by examining the personal and social characteristics of the early childhood experience, particularly criminal family background.

Front 19

Farrington 03.

Back 19

onset peaks 8-14. Desistance peaks 20-29. Earlier onset, longer duration and greater number. Individual can change over time. Small proportion large numbers. Not specialized but versatile. Teen crime commit with other but later solo (Piquero, Farrington, Blumstein07 by Cambridge study again) diversification of offending increases up to 20 but after 20 specialized and not diversificated. Main factors for early onset of offeding, individual, family peer, school, neighborhood. Main desistance factors after 20 marriage, satisfying job, areas, military.

Front 20

Loeber 82

Back 20

review of extant literature. Consensus has been reached in favor of the stability hypothesis

Front 21

Loeber and Farrington 01.

Back 21

Pittsburgh youth Survey i. 1500 youths fir 14 years. Comparable result to Cambridge study. ii. Predictability of future antisocial behavior from early childhood events. iii. Prevalence of psychological problems among antisocial delinquents in the sample

Front 22

Caspi et 03.

Back 22

Dunedine study in 1996 NZ, age 3 to age 26 followed up. i. Temperament types in Early childhood at age 3. Well-adjusted type/undercontrolled type(impulsive)/Confident type/Inhibited type/Reserved type. ii. Personality assessment in adulthood (Multidimensional personality questionnaire) at age 26. + who knew them well. Big Five Inventory, - informant report. iii. Undercontrolled children grew up to highest traits level of Negative emotionality + Intolerant. iv. Inhibited(shy, fearful) grew up to nonassertive personality style.

Front 23

g. Huesmann et 84

Back 23

. NYS 870 youngsters i. 600 subjects 8 years old aggressive, 30 years old aggressive as well especially for male. ii. Early aggressiveness(peer nomination index of aggression) predict later serious (MMPI and State CJ records)antisocial behavior. iii. Stability of aggression across generations within family even higher than individual.

Front 24

Simons et. 02

Back 24

self-selection i. Support continuity but disagree with SL concerning the process of continuity ii. Assortative mating rather than quality of relation explains the continuity for both males and females. iii. Adolescent delinquent and who affiliated with deviant peer are apt to become romantically involved with other antisocial persons. direct and indirect effect on crime. iv. No relationship between criminal behavior for males and quality of romantic relationship. v. Job attachment didn’t mediate the relationship bw delinquency and crime either.

Front 25

cumulative continuity of disadvantage

Back 25

Reciprocal interaction dynamics of parents, teacher, peer and CJ system contribute to the continuity of aggression and other forms of delinquent behavior Family i. Lytton90. Parent and child display reciprocal adaptation to each other’s behavior level. Child effects on parents. Conduct disordered children may be under-responsive to social reinforcement and punishment. Mother of hot tempered infants later became more permissive of aggression -> lead to greater aggressiveness in middle childhood(Olweus, 80). Parenting is a reaction to children’s temperament. ii. Widon 89. Delinquent behavior and other deliberate violations of parental authority spark retaliation in the form of harsh physical punishment. In some cases, parental abuse. In turn, child abuse and violent punishment have been linked to later violent offending on the part of victims(child)

Front 26

cumulative continuity of disadvantage (school, peers, CJ reaction, Structural location)

Back 26

b. School and peers. Glueck 64. Poor attachment might be consequence of misbehavior more than a cause. Difficult and unruly children – reject them – undermined attachment to school-low performance in school.(Olweus 3, Thornberry et 91). Similar to peer interaction. Aggressive – rejected by peers – negative interactions – interactional continuity(Dodge 83, Caspi 87) c. CJ reaction. SL 93 juvenile incarceration had the largest overall effect on later job stability regardless of prior crime (Excessive drinking, criminal history). Freeman 91. NLSY and boston youth survey, “having been in jail is a single most important deterrent to employment” participation in criminal activity is rather rational choice given the limited employment opp d. Structural location and continuity. Sherman 93. In populations with low stakes in conformity, sanctioning tends to aggravate crime. Unempoyed husband, police arrest didn’t result in reduction of spouse abuse. Braithwaite 89. Stigmatizing punishment among the disaffected works only to increase defiant recidivism.

Front 27

Turning point

Back 27

Thornberry 87 Horney et 96 Simons et 98 Ireland, Smith and Thornberry 02 SL 90.93 Uggen 01 Labouvie 96 Warr 98 Loeber and Hay 97 Simon et 02 Glueck and Glueck 50

Front 28

Thornberry 87

Back 28

Important institutions of social control vary in different stages of life course. Early-family, youth-pee and school.

Front 29

Horney et 96

Back 29

Examined month to month changes in retrospective study of incarcerated adult offenders. Variation in bonds to family, work, education strongly impacted participation in or desistance from crime. Most promising is short term changes also contribute to long-term changes.

Front 30

Simons et 98.

Back 30

Who were highly oppositional during childhood but who subsequently experience improved parenting, increased school commitment, or reduced involvement with deviant peers, showed no more conduct problems during adolescence than did boys who displayed little oppositional behavior during childhood

Front 31

Ireland, Smith and Thornberry 02

Back 31

Maltreatment occurred in adolescent period(12-17) significantly increased the risk of youthful violent crime and drug use. However, failed those are associated each other. Agnew 97 argued differential effect of adolescent and childhood maltreatment supported strain theory with life-course perspective.

Front 32

SL 90 93

Back 32

Using Glueck’s data. Attachment to spouse and job serves as turning points for adults, who had deviant history.

Front 33

Uggen 01

Back 33

. Ex-offenders over 26 who were employed were more likely to desist from criminal activity than those who remained unemployed after release. Employment is turning point! But little effect of employment program on youth.

Front 34

Labouvie 96.

Back 34

Social institutions such as parenthood and marriage were the strongest predictors of reduced substance abuse. Most effective for 28-31age. (Piquerro. 02. Timing matters)

Front 35

Warr 98

Back 35

Marriage as turning points. Marriage discourages criminal behavior by disruption or dissolving relation with deviant friends, rather than operation directly as a social control.

Front 36

Loeber and Hay 97

Back 36

i. Cognitive factors – low intelligence predict delinquency/ Attention(ADHD) predict onset and persistence. / social cognitive deficiencies and sensitivities not sufficient to control aggression / attitudes toward aggression and mental scripts tended to become stronger with age and stable./inflated self-esteem weak / ii. Family factors – Mother-infant relationship / Disciplinary practices / Family structure / multiple risks iii. Peer influences – iv. Neighborhood factors v. Causes –Cumulative long term causes / short term causes for the late onset

Front 37

Simons et 02.

Back 37

Strong gender differences in the effects of social relations. For female, conventional romantic partner, strong job attachment, conventional adult friends. For male, only conventional adult friends.

Front 38

Glueck and Glueck 50

Back 38

10,000 boys born in Philadelphia 45. Longitudinal sequencing of offenses

Front 39

Cause of onset

Back 39

Loeber 87. Loeber 91 Warr 93 Simons et 94 Moffitt et 96 Tibbets and Piquero 99 Wright et 99 Moffitt & Caspi 01

Front 40

Loeber 87

Back 40

Conduct problem(firting, theft, truancy, drugs) and early onset -> adult delinquency and chronic offending patterns.

Front 41

White et 90

Back 41

Early antisocial behavior best predictor of later ASB. Hyperactivity and aggression

Front 42

Loeber 91.

Back 42

Hyperactiviry, aggression , weak ties to parents, poor parental supervision, deviant peers. -> onset / Low scool motivation, positive attitude to problem behave negative relationship -> escalation

Front 43

Warr 93

Back 43

Delinquent peer and friendship relations during adolescents explains onset of delinquency and relationship between ae and offending.

Front 44

Simons et 94

Back 44

Late starter: quality of parenting -> deviant peer -> CJ involvement. Defiant behavior x related peers and CJ involve. Early starter: Quality of parenting – defiant behavior and deviant peer and CJ. Defiant behavior and deviant friends lead to high CJ

Front 45

Moffitt et 96

Back 45

50% childhood onset no become serious delinquent. Male ASB LCP differ from AL

Front 46

Tibbets & Piquero 99

Back 46

Support Moffitt Low birth weight interacts w/ disadvantaged familial environment predicts early onset. Low birth weiht combined w. SES significantly increases the risk of early onset. Neuropschological risk disadvantaged environment interactions for male not for female.

Front 47

Wright et 99

Back 47

. Weak attachment and poor performance in school-onset. LSC in childhood & adolescence predicted LSC, weak social bonds & offending in adulthood.

Front 48

Moffitt and Caspi 01

Back 48

Childhood onset: parentin, neurocognitive problem, temperament and behavior problem. Adolescent onset: don’t have his pathological patway. LCP AL

Front 49

Nagin, Farrington and Moffitt 95

Back 49

Trajectories Differential trajectories of offending through time no match the aggregate age-crime curve, x interpreted from the perspective of self-control stability. Official report and self-report distinguish

Front 50

Desistance

Back 50

Ontogenetic paradigm – they will grow out of it. Sociogenic paradigm- Events throughout life course can change criminal trajectory

Front 51

Quetlet 83

Back 51

Ontogenic - Inclination to crime diminishes with age because of enfeeblement of physical vitality

Front 52

Glueck and Glueck 40.43.74

Back 52

age and maturity not same. Maturity encompass intellectual and affective capacity and stability.

Front 53

Matza 64

Back 53

sociogenic - Embarrassment of rich(contemporary criminology). Theories overpredicted criminal behavior. Fail to acknowledge temporary and conditional nature of criminality

Front 54

Blumstein 86

Back 54

Most criminal career are short -10years. Juvenile delinquent 31-70% persistent, but 50% of adult offenders x have police contact as juvenile.

Front 55

Fagan 89

Back 55

sociogenic - Desistance is dynamic not static

Front 56

Elder 98

Back 56

How influenced by ever-changing historical context. Historical shape social trajectories of family, education and work in - turn influencing behavior

Front 57

Hirschi & G 83.

Back 57

Official stat property earlier age than personal crime but self-report show similar. Due to official likely to record serious only. Age distribution is invariant across time, place, demographic. Age had a direct effect! Regardless of any other vars. Cause of the crime were same at every age. Matter is rates of offending because the number of offenders doesn’t change. That’s why the crime curve drawn.

Front 58

Paternoster et 97

Back 58

LCD theory conceptually distinguishied into static, dynamic, typolgical theories

Front 59

Static

Back 59

individual’s stable propensity. Some people are more crime-prone. Deny exogenous influence on the development of criminal behavior after some point. Age, unemployment and substance abuse are considered a dynamic risk factor

Front 60

Support of static

Back 60

i. West and Farrinton 79. Stability of delinquent over time ii. Olweus 79. 16 studies review early aggressive behavior and later criminality stability. iii. Hirschi and Gottfredson 83. Static! Looks like dynamic due to official and self-report differences. And Age had a direct effect on crime! Than any other vars. Rate matters not number of offenders. iv. Wolfgang 87. v. Rowe, Osgood and Nicewander 90. Criminal propensity position static. Applied 4 sets of data and found solid support for propensity position. vi. Caspi and Moffitt 93. NZ vii. Hirschi and otfredson 95. Critical o life-course and SL age-raded theory

Front 61

Dynamic th

Back 61

Changeable: trajectory of individual crim is to a large extent shaped by external events a person experiences

Front 62

Support of dynamic

Back 62

i. Elder 75. Informal, formal social control vary across the life span ii. Cline 80. More heterogeneity in criminal behavior across life course than previous research sugested iii. Elder 85. Transition , turning point are embedded in trajectories that evolve over shorter time periods. Adaptation matters iv. Blumstein, Cohen and Farrinton 88. Longitudinal study, opposed to GH v. Loeber & Leblc 90. Life transitions and developmental covariates mediate the developmental course of offending vi. Nagin & farrinton 92. Once time stable individual differences are established, subsequent individual experiences & circumstances will have no enduring empact on criminal trajectories. vii. Sampson & Laub 93. Age is indirectly related to crime through its influence on individual’s experiences with social institution and bonds to society.

Front 63

Typological

Back 63

refute both static and dynamic. Instead, different routes for different kinds of offenders influential balance between internal propensity and external events in shaping the offender’s behavior to shift between types. Caspi, bem, elder 89. Capsi and Herbener 90 Nagin & Paternoster 91 Benson 02.

Front 64

Caspi, bem, elder 89

Back 64

Dynamic but Continuiy at the same time. Cumulative continuity: individual style fix them and reinforce their style thus sustaining. Interactive continuity: arises when individua’s stle evokes reciprocal responses from other in onion social interaction, thereby reproducing the behavior pattern across the life course.

Front 65

Caspi and Herbener 90

Back 65

Stability possible cuz individual create the environments in shich they live. Mate selection usin longitudinal data on married couples. Pick similar mates. Person and their environment interacts across time.

Front 66

Nagin & paternoster 91

Back 66

Population heterogeneity(criminal propensity/ self-selection) and state-dependence(events alters individual or his life circumstance) Early deviance has causal effect on future behavior, by changing personal characteristics or life chances.

Front 67

Benson 02.

Back 67

Cumulative continuity and self-selection 1. Cumulative continuity Is behavior of one point influences opp and behavior later in life. Knifing off, block opp in the future Cumulative disadvantage: negative experiences and failures that make it difficult for a person to succeed in life(state dependence) 2. Self-selection” tendency of individuals to select experiences that are consistent with internal traits or dispositions that are established early in life. ASB child-ASB adult – xgood performance in life domains.(population heterogeneity) 3. Ontogenesis and ontogenetic fallacy Origin and development of an individual and in which personal biologically based traits is the fallacy of attributing developmental outcomes solely o the unfoldin o personal traits and ignorin that I is the interaction between traits and the environment that produces the outcome. IQ and succeed in college.

Front 68

Farrington 86

Back 68

Individual age-crime curves track a person’s rate of offending over given time period, and vary considerably across different offenders and for different offenses. Male and property crime have sharper peak. persistent offenders do not reduce their rates of offending. High rates of teenager due to low informal social control (more freedom from parents, no spouse)