Study smarter with Fiveable
Get study guides, practice questions, and cheatsheets for all your subjects. Join 500,000+ students with a 96% pass rate.
Juvenile delinquency isn't random—it emerges from a complex web of risk factors, protective factors, and developmental pathways that you'll encounter throughout Crime Human Development. When exams ask about youth offending, they're really testing whether you understand how biological development, social learning, strain, and environmental context interact to shape behavior during adolescence. These factors connect directly to major criminological theories: social bond theory, differential association, general strain theory, and life-course perspectives.
Here's the key insight: no single factor causes delinquency. You're being tested on how these factors accumulate, interact, and compound over time. A question about peer influence isn't just asking you to define it—it's asking whether you understand why adolescents are uniquely vulnerable to peer effects and how that connects to developmental neuroscience. Don't just memorize these fifteen factors—know what mechanism each one illustrates and how they cluster together in real-world cases.
The family serves as the primary site of socialization and attachment formation. Social bond theory suggests that weak bonds to conventional institutions—starting with family—increase delinquency risk. These factors reflect failures in attachment, supervision, and modeling.
Compare: Family dysfunction vs. lack of parental supervision—both involve parental failures, but dysfunction emphasizes conflict and modeling while supervision emphasizes opportunity and monitoring. FRQs often ask you to distinguish between quality of relationship and quantity of oversight.
Adolescence brings heightened sensitivity to peer evaluation and social belonging. Differential association theory explains how delinquent behavior is learned through intimate personal groups—and peers become increasingly central during this developmental stage.
Compare: Peer influence vs. gang involvement—peer influence operates through informal social learning, while gang involvement adds organizational structure, identity commitment, and explicit reward systems for criminal behavior. Gang involvement represents peer influence in its most institutionalized form.
These factors reflect structural constraints on behavior—conditions largely outside individual control that shape opportunities, stressors, and available pathways. General strain theory helps explain how blocked legitimate opportunities and accumulated frustrations generate delinquent adaptations.
Compare: Poverty vs. neighborhood characteristics—poverty emphasizes household-level strain and resource access, while neighborhood factors emphasize community-level social organization and exposure effects. Both matter, but they operate at different ecological levels. An FRQ might ask you to distinguish individual-level from community-level risk factors.
These factors highlight how biological development and psychological characteristics interact with environmental conditions. The adolescent brain is still developing, particularly in areas governing impulse control and risk assessment—making this developmental period uniquely vulnerable.
Compare: Impulsivity vs. genetic predisposition—impulsivity describes a behavioral pattern common in adolescence generally, while genetic predisposition explains individual differences in susceptibility. Both are biological, but one is developmental-universal and the other is individual-specific.
These factors represent individual-level vulnerabilities that increase risk when combined with environmental stressors. They often serve as mediating mechanisms—explaining how structural factors translate into delinquent behavior.
Compare: Mental health issues vs. substance abuse—both impair decision-making, but mental health issues are typically pre-existing vulnerabilities while substance abuse is often an acquired risk factor that may itself result from other problems. Substance abuse can also be both cause and consequence of delinquency.
| Concept | Best Examples |
|---|---|
| Social Bond Theory | Family dysfunction, lack of parental supervision, school environment |
| Differential Association | Peer influence, gang involvement, media influence |
| General Strain Theory | Poverty, poor academic performance, trauma or abuse |
| Social Disorganization | Neighborhood characteristics, school environment |
| Developmental/Biological | Impulsivity, early onset of puberty, genetic predisposition |
| Psychological Vulnerability | Mental health issues, substance abuse, trauma or abuse |
| Opportunity Structures | Lack of parental supervision, neighborhood characteristics |
| Protective Factors | Positive peers, supportive school environment, parental monitoring |
Which two factors best illustrate social bond theory, and how do they differ in the type of bond they address?
Compare and contrast how poverty and neighborhood characteristics contribute to delinquency—what ecological level does each operate at, and which criminological theory best explains each?
An FRQ asks you to explain how biological and social factors interact during adolescence. Which three factors would you combine to build the strongest answer, and why?
Identify two factors that can function as both risk factors AND protective factors depending on their quality or direction. What determines whether they increase or decrease delinquency risk?
A case study describes a 14-year-old from a low-income neighborhood with poor grades, impulsive behavior, and recent gang affiliation. Using at least four factors from this guide, explain the cumulative risk model and identify which theoretical frameworks apply to each factor.