Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Understanding the major criminologists isn't just about memorizing names and dates—it's about grasping the fundamental debate that drives this entire field: Is criminal behavior caused by biology, social learning, structural strain, or weak social bonds? Each theorist you'll encounter represents a distinct answer to this question, and exam questions will test whether you can identify which theoretical tradition explains a given scenario. When you see a case study about a teenager who started offending after joining a delinquent peer group, you need to immediately recognize that as differential association or social learning theory—not strain theory.
These theorists also represent the evolution of criminological thought from biological determinism to developmental criminology. You're being tested on your ability to trace how the field moved from Lombroso's "born criminal" concept to modern life-course perspectives that examine how risk factors accumulate over time. Don't just memorize what each theorist said—know which paradigm they represent and how their ideas connect to intervention strategies. If an FRQ asks you to design a prevention program, you'll need to match the right theoretical framework to the right approach.
The earliest scientific approaches to criminology looked for observable, measurable differences between criminals and non-criminals. These theories assumed that criminal behavior could be predicted—and potentially prevented—by identifying biological markers.
These theorists argue that criminal behavior is acquired through interaction with others—it's learned, not inherited or forced by structural conditions. The key mechanism is exposure to definitions, reinforcement, and models that favor law violation.
Compare: Sutherland vs. Akers—both emphasize learned behavior through social interaction, but Akers added specific psychological mechanisms (reinforcement, imitation) that explain how learning actually occurs. If an FRQ asks about peer influence on delinquency, Akers provides the more complete explanation.
These perspectives locate the cause of crime in society itself—specifically in the gap between cultural goals and legitimate means to achieve them. Crime emerges from social structure, not individual pathology.
Rather than asking "why do people commit crime?", control theorists flip the question: Why don't more people commit crime? The answer lies in social bonds that tie individuals to conventional society.
Compare: Merton vs. Hirschi—Merton sees crime as motivated by blocked opportunities, while Hirschi sees crime as what happens when social bonds fail to restrain natural self-interest. This distinction matters for intervention: strain theory suggests expanding opportunities; control theory suggests strengthening family and school bonds.
These theorists examine how place matters—specifically, how neighborhood characteristics create conditions that either facilitate or inhibit crime, independent of who lives there.
The most recent paradigm examines how criminal behavior emerges, persists, and desists across the lifespan. These theorists focus on trajectories, turning points, and the accumulation of risk and protective factors.
Compare: Moffitt vs. Loeber—both examine developmental trajectories, but Moffitt focuses on two distinct types of offenders while Loeber maps multiple pathways that lead to different types of offending. FRQs about early intervention should reference both: Moffitt explains who needs intervention most (life-course persistent), Loeber explains what behaviors to target (early pathway indicators).
These theorists synthesize multiple perspectives, recognizing that crime results from the interaction of individual, family, peer, and community factors.
Compare: Elliott vs. Hirschi—both emphasize social bonds, but Elliott's integrated model acknowledges that bonds to antisocial others can promote crime (drawing from social learning theory), while Hirschi's original theory focused only on bonds to conventional society.
| Theoretical Tradition | Key Theorists | Core Concept |
|---|---|---|
| Biological/Positivist | Lombroso | Born criminal, inherited traits |
| Social Learning | Sutherland, Akers | Differential association, reinforcement |
| Strain/Anomie | Merton | Goals-means gap, modes of adaptation |
| Social Control | Hirschi | Social bonds prevent crime |
| Community/Ecological | Sampson | Collective efficacy, neighborhood effects |
| Developmental/Life-Course | Moffitt, Farrington, Loeber | Trajectories, risk factors, pathways |
| Integrated | Elliott | Multiple factors, socialization processes |
Both Sutherland and Akers emphasize learned criminal behavior—what specific mechanisms did Akers add to Sutherland's differential association theory?
How do Merton's strain theory and Hirschi's social control theory differ in their fundamental assumptions about human motivation and the causes of crime?
Compare Moffitt's dual taxonomy with Loeber's developmental pathways model. If you were designing an early intervention program, how would each theorist's work inform your approach?
A neighborhood experiences high crime rates despite having many individual residents with strong personal bonds to family. Which theorist's work best explains this pattern, and what concept would you apply?
An FRQ presents a case study of a 14-year-old who began shoplifting after joining a new peer group, but has no history of early childhood behavior problems and strong family attachment. Using at least two theorists from this guide, explain this pattern and predict whether the behavior will persist into adulthood.