Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Moffit's Developmental Taxonomy Theory Differentiates Between 2 Core…

- - - - Define Recinidivism
        
        Repeat vs. Once Off Defenders
    - - Contributing Factors to Delinquency:
        
        Increased risk-taking behaviors
        
        Adolescent Egocentrism - Belief consequences dont apply
        
        Much more influential, concernced with image/looking cool in front of friends
        
        Poor parenting/Ineffective Discipline/Lack of good role models or rewarding of good behaviour in home
        
        Need
        
        Opportunity
- - - - Primarily Influence:
        
        Social environment
        
        Peer influence
        
        Crime is mainly risk-taking based
    - - 2) Risky Behaviour
        
        Across adolescence, progressively shifts from favouring peers that are good students to those who are ASB (Piquero & Brezina above re-emphasises)
      - 1) Discomfort From Maturity Gap
        
        Moffitt believed adolescents struggle with frustration from gap between increasing biological maturity and lack of social maturity/ responsibility
        
        Can feel self biologically maturing, responsibilities increasing, but social restrictions dont feel they adapt too
        
        Crime creates a sense of autonomy from parents, mimics adult privellages
        -Even more likely to commit crime if friend has successfully demonstrated autonomy the same way
        
        By illegal drinking, smoking, driving, etc. adult privellages unlocked without needing parent
        
        In Dunedin study these individuals usually had healthy development, some even better than those who never offend
        
        Due to influence of maturity gap, Moffitt theorised many will grow out of in adulthood as restrictions decrease. Low liklihood of recindivism in adulthood
        
        Should live p stable, functional adult lives
        
        Snares (such as criminal record, addiction, missed school credits) are lasting effects of the period that can compromise chance of succesful adulthood
        
        Reinforces loop mentioned for LCP ^^ - crime affecting adulthood (ex: harder to get job with record) makes it harder to fuction as an adult and might increase liklihood of committing
        
        (Aguilar et al., 2000) found AL offenders often reported higher-stress that they were more likely to internalise symptoms of
        
        Moffitt refered to this finding as evidence of psychological discomfort consistent with own assumptions of adolescent experience, which could be true
        However, it's worth noting overlap of this finding with Strain perspective that indicates social pressure may lead to negative emotional reactions and crime could be serving as temporary coping mechanism
        Hence, strain (stress) reduced when entering adulthood, so does crime. Both similar, but Moffitt does not frame crime as a coping mechanism or expand on emotional dimensions of AL which may be influential
        
        (Piquero & Brezina, 2001)
        Carried out a survery of 2,000 males in transition (from adol-adult)
        Identified desire for autuonomy and feelings of discomfort from maturity gap, hugely correlated with AL crime
        Found AL crime primarily rebellious than very aggressive
        
        Lowkey may leave unless strengthens evaluation
  - - - Typical History For Life-Course Persistent Offenders:
        
        - Moffitt believed LCP offenders might have a genetic predisposition for cime that influenced/aggrevated by enviornmental factors
        
        LCP's often exhibit problematic behaviour from a young age that continues late into adulthood
        
        Example of typical history for these:
        
        might have something like a neurological defecit ->
        causes a difficult temprament ->
        making child more vulnerable to poor parenting
        (may also make parenting harder explaining poorer, stress induced tactics) ->
        poor neurological development
        
        Evidence:
        
        Environmental Factors:
        examp: disadvantaged background, peer relationships, family dynamics/parenting
        
        Social Factors Found in Childhood of LCP's in Dunedin Study:
        
        Raised by single teen parent
        
        Poor mental health in parent or very harsh/neglectful -> found esp. true if these are from mum
        
        High family conflict or instability, changing primary CG
        
        Peer rejection
        
        Environmental Factor Found:
        
        Low socio-economic status (SES)
      - Genetic Pre-disposition for crime & problematic behaviour
        examp: neurological defecits, difficult temprament
      - Dunedin Study Found These Biological Factors Prevalant in LCP's in Childhood (as young as 3 for many):
        
        Uncontrolled temprament
        
        Delayed motor development
        
        Low intellectual, reading, and memory abilities
        
        Hyperactibity
        
        Slower heart rate
        
        Neurological abnormalities
      - Although many studies re-affirm,
        (Aguilar et al., 2000)
        Conducted longitudinal study of low SES Mineappolis people
        Inferred childhood psycholosocial adversity was sufficent origins to become LCP regardless of bio
        Due to the fact no signifigant neurocognitive or temprament issues prior to 3
        Although significant differences in early and onset criminals in later childhood
        (Lahey, Moffitt, and Caspi, 2003) respond that more research needed on ages 3 and prior as very limited but overall still confirms differences in later life
      - (Lyons et al al., 1995)
        Found ASB persisting from adolescence-adulthood signifigantly more heritable than that reported exclusively in adolescents
        
        Asessed over 3,000 identicle and fraternal twins
        (Criticism: Predominately male)
        Asessed if identicle twins were more similar in ASB than fraternal twins to infer strength of genetic influence
        Adol ASB: very low genetic influence (7%)
        Strong shared environment influence (over 30%)
        Adult ASB: Much higher genetic influence (43%)
        Lower environmental influence, often move to diff.
    - - Potential Loops Hard to End:
        1) Genetic predispositions associated with LCP's can lead to difficult temprant in children,
        which can be stressful on parents and lead to poor parenting tactics,
        this can create a loop of struggling child misbehaving in response to poor/harsh parenting and parents poorly reacting from distress**
        (If needing evidence for this, Moffitt chapter ref an adoption study affirming poorer parenting in parents who adopted cx w/hyperactivity and other issues)
        2) LCP's commit crime throughout life but even if/when they attempt to build a more normative-fuctional life, the aggressive personality formed as a result of genetic pre-disposition and continuous exposure to enviornment risks makes success in academics, the workplace, and relationships much more difficult
        One could predict that attempting to reform would feel much less unsatisfying for these individuals if work and relationships were unfufilling, -> more crime to distract from these-> less likihood to get jobs, maintain them, mend relationships
  - - - Biological:
        
        Centralise around neurological defecits or differences that many criminals may share, often identified through brain scans.
        
        A few correlations have been found, such as frontal lobe damage sometimes altering personality to a more risk-taking, aggresive nature
        
        Severe head trauma, esp if resulting in loss of consciousness, highly correlated
        
        Could be argued that those involved in crime could be more likely to be injured due to risk-taking acts, aggression, and impulsivity
        - Hard to prove causational
        
        Social:
        Humans are social creatures, examines effects of norms, roles, and group pressure on behaviour
    - - Although originally intended for child health, ran by Phil Silva
        
        Was funded to extend past 13-year assesment due to amount of insight it brought, shifted to a second version
        
        Some participants and researchers rotated out
        -Moffitt was recruited at this point (around 1985ish) to research ASB in sample
- - - - Same criminal study identified lower cognitive ability to be linked with earlier onset crime
- - - - Dunedin Group Assessment at age 26:
        
        End with delinq. notes on most influential predictors/moderators of recindivism
      - Longitudinal study of British males aged 8-32
        Anti-social boys committed less crime then predicted in adulthood
        However, most had little to no friends, dirty leaving space, worked in low pay jobs
        Moffitt believed that childhood onset ASB can sometimes predict crime when combined with pre-dispostion
        But childhood onset ASB (alone or combined) is almost always a prognosticator of poor adult adjustment
      - Again, self report and other report:
        LCP's: psychopathic traits, child and domestic abuse, struggles with employment, and more crime esp. violence and drug-related
        AL's: Self-reported small property offences, financial struggles, mental health struggles and substance dependency
        LCP's showed more extreme behaviours and more arrests but AL's did not report cease of maldaptive behaviours. However, those who reported on participant rarely identified the struggles of the participant, indicating that behaviours may have reduced or they got better at concealing. Higher surface level functioning than LCP's
        
        If using this -prob should- def requires further expansion on does this contradict/align w/Moffitt, potentially link to strain theory (internalising stress)