The Pittsburgh Youth Study

Crime is a fascinating component of any society. As tragic as the consequences may or may not be, there are many questions that arise when a crime occurs; particularly why do certain people commit the crimes that they commit? This week’s assignment somewhat touched upon that question by presenting three longitudinal studies (The Denver Youth Study, The Pittsburgh Youth Study & The Rochester Youth Study) that looked at the cause of crime amongst juvenile youth. The goal of these studies was to analyze causes as well as possibly identify correlations.

In summary the findings of each of the three studies identified that

“Between 14 and 17 percent of the youth were habitual offenders who accounted for 75 to 82 percent of the incidence of criminal violence.” (Lozada 2012)

Each of the studies commonly identified that most juvenile youth had a pattern of deviant and problematic behavior due to poor

upbringing, with common elements involving
Each study included a “core measurement package” which provided details surrounding the self-reports involving behavior, drug-use; neighborhood characteristics; the details of upbringing and most importantly views committing crime (Lozada 2012).

The difference between each of the studies involved was the gender of the participants used. The Pittsburgh Study in particular only used male participants, while the other studies used some females (Lozada 2012). Mainly the participants amongst all three studies were male and I think it throws off the results. This ties into the weakness of the study because again the results aren’t quite representative. The strengths of the study come from the fact that each of the studies covered all basis for getting to know each the participants. The researchers were able to get accurate readings of each individual to be able to draw the conclusions that were drawn. If I were conducting this study, I would employ the same method to study the participants except I would’ve tried to make the sample of participants more representative and

equal.
This information in turn raises the question as to whether or not the term “juvenile delinquency” should include youths who commit status offenses and nonviolent crimes. Based on previous knowledge, I understand that status offenses are “kid-crimes” (i.e. running away, cutting school & etc). Conducts under “status offenses” are not violent whatsoever. In my opinion I think that juvenile delinquency is complicated because not every child is the same. Most children do understand the difference from right and wrong, but again the environment that the child grows up in will ultimately determine the path in life that they choose. Some argue that people “age out” of committing a crime, but I don’t necessarily agree with that theory (Adler, Mueller, and Laufer, 45).
I think that the most important findings are related to the idea of nature vs. nurture. These findings demonstrate the power of one’s environment. The findings show how easy it is to get on the “wrong track” simply if you are born into the wrong environment. I took a forensic psychology course last year so this exercise and the findings were familiar to me. We studied a lot of statistics in the course and what makes an adequate study. I think that this exercise is applicable in the real world, regardless of the subject matter. Everyone needs to not only know how to read data, but to know how that data was achieved. I also think that everyone needs to be familiar with the method administered in this type of an exercise because it’s important to not only recognize patterns but to realize where results come from. Some results may be accurate, but the results may not be even close to representing an entire population.