Cambridge IGCSE Sociology: Patterns of and Explanations for Crime — Practice Questions (0495)

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Crime patterns, explanations and punishment revision notes

These questions practise key question 6.2 of Cambridge IGCSE Sociology (0495), What are the patterns of and explanations for crime and deviance? They follow the six-part (a)–(f) structure the syllabus describes for each Paper 2 question, followed by extra short questions on the theories.

---

Questions

(a) Define the terms:

• (i) status frustration [2]
• (ii) institutional racism [2]

(b) Give two reasons why women may commit less recorded crime than men. [2]

(c) Explain three reasons why young people may appear more often in crime statistics. [6]

(d) Explain three reasons why working-class people may be more likely to be convicted of crime. [6]

(e) Discuss how interactionists explain crime and deviance. [8]

(f) Evaluate the view that crime is mainly caused by material deprivation. [14]

Extra practice on theories (6.2.6 and 6.2.7)

(g) Explain the Marxist view of crime. [4]

(h) Explain one strength and one limitation of strain theory. [4]

(i) Explain the postmodernist view of crime. [4]

---

Answers and mark guidance

(a)(i) [2] The frustration felt by people, especially working-class young males, who cannot gain status through legitimate routes such as school, so they seek it through deviant subcultures (Albert Cohen, 1955) (2).

(a)(ii) [2] Racism built into the policies, practices and culture of an organisation, such as a police force, producing unfair outcomes even without individual intent (2). The Macpherson Report (1999) applied this term to the Metropolitan Police.

(b) [2] Any two: greater social control of girls and women at home and in public (Heidensohn, 1985); socialisation into caring, less aggressive roles; fewer opportunities; chivalry thesis — lenient treatment means fewer women recorded.

(c) [6] Three reasons, 2 marks each:

• Police targeting / stop and search — police focus on public spaces where young people gather.
• Stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecy — labelled as troublemakers, some young people act out the label.
• Status frustration and lack of opportunity — low status and few jobs encourage seeking status through deviance.
• Peer pressure and gang culture — risk-taking to gain group acceptance.
• Weaker social control — less tied to work, marriage and mortgages.

(d) [6] Three reasons, 2 marks each:

• Material and relative deprivation — poverty and comparing oneself with others create motives.
• Police targeting — working-class areas are policed more heavily.
• Power inequalities — middle-class white-collar crime is harder to detect and often dealt with outside courts.
• Social exclusion — lack of stake in society.
• Inadequate socialisation (New Right) — underclass families blamed for weak norms.

(e) [8] Levels: 7–8 clear, developed and well applied; 4–6 some development; 1–3 basic.

• Deviance is not a quality of the act but a label applied by others (Becker, 1963).
• Agents of social control (police, courts, teachers) have power to make labels stick.
• Labels can become a master status, leading to a self-fulfilling prophecy and deviant career.
• Moral panics (Stanley Cohen, 1972): media exaggeration creates folk devils and leads to more control and possibly more deviance.
• Evaluation: explains why some groups are criminalised, but does not explain why people commit the first deviant act, and may neglect victims.

(f) [14] Levels: 11–14 balanced, developed, evaluated, conclusion; 7–10 developed but less balanced; 4–6 limited; 1–3 basic.

For the view:

• Statistics show more recorded crime among poorer groups.
• Material deprivation creates motives for property crime.
• Relative deprivation — comparing oneself with richer groups — can motivate crime even where absolute poverty is low.
• Marxists argue capitalism’s inequality drives crime.
• Social exclusion and lack of opportunity.

Against the view:

• White-collar and corporate crimes are committed by the wealthy.
• Most poor people do not commit crime.
• Labelling: statistics reflect policing of the poor rather than real offending.
• Other causes: masculinity, peer and gang culture, inadequate socialisation, status frustration.
• Feminist: gender, not poverty, is the strongest predictor of offending.
• Postmodernism: crime is individual and varied, linked to excitement and consumer desires.

Conclusion: deprivation helps explain some property crime but not crime of the powerful; credit a reasoned judgement.

(g) [4] Laws reflect ruling-class interests and protect property (1–2); the working class is policed and punished more heavily, while crimes of the powerful are under-policed (1–2); capitalism encourages greed and competition, motivating crime across all classes (1–2). Max 4.

(h) [4] Strength (2): explains why working-class people with blocked opportunities may turn to crime to reach shared goals such as wealth (Merton, 1938). Limitation (2): does not explain non-utilitarian crime such as vandalism, or crime by the wealthy; assumes everyone shares the same goals.

(i) [4] Postmodernists argue crime is now diverse and individualised, not explained by one big theory (1–2); consumer culture creates new desires and identities that some pursue through crime (1–2); new forms of crime such as cyber crime and hate crime reflect a fragmented society (1–2). Max 4.

---

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between material and relative deprivation? Material deprivation is lacking basic resources; relative deprivation is feeling deprived compared with others.

Do I need named sociologists? They are not required, but accurate names (Becker, Merton, Albert Cohen, Heidensohn) add precision and credibility.

How do I evaluate in (f)? Set deprivation against at least two alternative explanations and question the statistics behind the claim.

Related pages: family, education and crime study guide | family, education and crime practice questions