CRIM 220 Midterm: Chapter 4

Probabilisitic

human behaviours/social phenomena are not going to happen 100% of the time

• e.g. teens commit more crime that middle-aged people, but that doesn’t mean every teen commits crime

Three criteria for causation

• it is empirically correlated

• the cause comes before the effect

• the results aren’t the effect of a third variable

Necessary cause

a conditions that must be present for the effect to follow

• e.g. someone has to be charged before being convicted

Sufficient cause

a conditions that, to an extent, guarantees the effect

• e.g. pleading guilty to a criminal offence is a sufficient cause to be convicted

Validity

if statements about cause & effect are true (valid) or false (invalid)

Validity threats

possible sources of false conclusions about cause/measurement

Statistical conclusion validity

is there a real statistical relationships (covariation) between cause & effect?

• empirical correlation

• threat ⇒ random errors

Internal validity

is the relationship causal or is it driven by a third variable?

• third variable problem

• threat = nonrandom (systematic) errors

External validity

can the results be generalized to another population, time, or place?

Construct validity

how well do the measures/observations represent the theoretical concepts of interest?

Traditional vs. scientific realist approach

traditional:

• takes away surrounding environment to isolate the cause

scientific realist:

• keeps surrounding environment to see how a cause works in a real-life setting

Units of analysis

the “what”/”whom” being studied

Units of analysis: individuals

any variety of a person

• e.g. police, victims, offenders

Units of analysis: groups

groups aren’t the same as individuals

• teen gang member = individual, all juvenile gangs in a city = group

• e.g. cities, counties

Units of analysis: organizations

formal political/social organizations

• characteristics come from individual members

• e.g. police departments, courtrooms

Units of analysis: social artifacts

products of social beings & their behaviours

• e.g. criminal history records, interactions between police & citizens

Ecological fallacy

concluding about individuals group data

• leads to individualistic fallacy

• e.g. neighbourhoods with universities have lower crime rates, so university students commit less crime

Reductionism

making things too simple

• e.g. explaining being part of gang using individual psychology

Cross-sectional studies

a study design that collects data at a single point in time

• inherent problem = only observes one time, but cause must come before an effect

Longitudinal studies

a study design that collects data at different points in time

Longitudinal studies: trend

same population, repeated, different people

Longitudinal studies: cohort

a defined, single group followed over time

Longitudinal study: panel

same individuals measured repeatedly

• problem = panel attrition

Retrospective research

asking people to recall their pasts

• issue = faulty memories, records may be unavailable/incomplete/inaccurate

Prospective research

follows participants forward in time