Sociological theories and crime | AQA A-Level Sociology

For Specification 7192

AQA A-Level Sociology | Free Revision Notes

Estimated study time: 80 minutes

exam questions by topic 👇

Sociologists explain crime and deviance in very different ways. This Sociological theories and crime A-Level Sociology revision page compares consensus and conflict approaches with structural and social action theories, showing how each directs attention towards different causes and meanings of crime. AQA specifically requires knowledge of consensus, conflict, structural and social action theories, while Paper 3 requires students to apply theoretical debate to crime and deviance. Understanding these distinctions builds directly on positivism, interpretivism and crime [Positivism, interpretivism and crime] and strengthens your ability to compare explanations rather than simply describe them.

Learning Objectives 🎯

By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:

• Define consensus, conflict, structural and social action theories.

• Apply consensus theories to crime and deviance.

• Apply conflict theories to crime and deviance.

• Explain how structural theories understand criminal and deviant behaviour.

• Explain how social action theories understand criminal and deviant behaviour.

• Compare and evaluate different theoretical explanations of crime.

Revision Notes 📚

Sociological theories and crime A-Level Sociology revision overview

AQA requires students to study:

• consensus theories

• conflict theories

• structural theories

• social action theories.

These are not four completely separate theories of society. They describe different dimensions of sociological explanation.

A useful starting point is to separate two debates:

1. Consensus versus conflict asks how society is organised, particularly whether order is based mainly on shared values or unequal power.

2. Structure versus social action asks how human behaviour should be explained, particularly whether social structures strongly shape behaviour or whether greater attention should be given to individuals' meanings, interactions and choices.

This distinction is crucial. A theory can be both structural and consensus, or both structural and conflict.

For example:

• functionalism is generally a consensus structural approach

• Marxism is generally a conflict structural approach

• social action approaches focus more closely on meanings, interactions and agency.

The AQA course plan treats these as linked but separate theoretical debates in consensus theories [Consensus theories], conflict theories [Conflict theories], structural theories [Structural theories] and social action theories [Social action theories].

Consensus theories

Consensus theories emphasise the values, norms and interests that members of society share.

From a consensus perspective, social order is possible because individuals are socialised into common norms and values. Institutions contribute to social stability by encouraging conformity.

Crime and deviance therefore raise important questions:

• Why do some people fail to conform?

• What happens when society's norms are broken?

• Can crime perform functions for society?

• How does society respond when its boundaries are challenged?

The main consensus approach applied to crime in AQA assessment material is functionalism.

Functionalism as a consensus theory of crime

Functionalists examine crime in relation to the functioning of society as a whole.

AQA examination material has tested the functionalist view that crime and deviance are:

• present in all societies

• to some extent inevitable

• capable of performing functions for society.

This makes functionalism a useful example of a consensus theory because it explains crime against the background of shared norms and values.

Crime and boundary maintenance

When behaviour is condemned as criminal or deviant, the reaction can demonstrate the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

This is known as boundary maintenance.

Punishing an offender may reinforce society's norms by reminding others what behaviour is regarded as unacceptable.

AQA's 2025 mark scheme explicitly recognised boundary maintenance as one way crime can benefit society, because responses to crime can reaffirm values.

Crime and social cohesion

A response to serious deviance may strengthen social cohesion if people unite in condemnation of the behaviour.

The functionalist argument is therefore not that the harmful act itself is desirable. Instead, the social reaction to deviance may reinforce collective values.

Crime and social change

Deviance can also indicate that existing norms require reconsideration.

Behaviour initially treated as deviant may contribute to wider changes in accepted values or policies.

AQA's 2025 mark scheme recognises social change as another possible benefit of crime and deviance.

Crime as a warning

Crime and deviance may indicate underlying problems in society.

In this sense, deviance can act as an early warning that some aspect of society is not functioning effectively.

Functionalism, strain and crime

Consensus approaches do not simply argue that crime performs functions. They can also attempt to explain why individuals become deviant.

AQA's specimen material presented a functionalist explanation based on people being unable to achieve society's rewards through socially approved means.

The basic argument is:

1. society promotes shared goals

2. approved means exist for achieving those goals

3. some individuals or groups experience blocked opportunities

4. a gap may develop between socially valued goals and legitimate means

5. some may respond through deviance.

This is a structural explanation, because criminal behaviour is connected to the organisation of society rather than simply individual personality.

It also connects with social class and crime [Social class and crime], where unequal opportunities and differences in recorded offending can be examined more directly.

Evaluating consensus explanations of crime

Consensus theories draw attention to:

• common values

• socialisation

• conformity

• social order

• the functions that social reactions to crime may perform

• structural pressures that may make deviance more likely.

However, conflict theorists challenge the assumption that society has a single set of interests shared equally by everyone.

The key question becomes:

Whose norms become laws, and whose interests are protected by those laws?

That takes us to conflict theory.

Conflict theories

Conflict theories emphasise divisions of interest and unequal distributions of power and resources.

Rather than seeing social order primarily as the outcome of shared values, conflict approaches ask how more powerful groups may influence:

• law creation

• law enforcement

• definitions of crime

• social control

• punishment.

AQA's 2022 crime question explicitly contrasted functionalism with conflict theories, stating that conflict theorists may argue that the construction of crime serves the interests of powerful groups.

Marxism as a conflict theory of crime

Marxism provides a major conflict explanation of crime.

Its focus is on:

• capitalism

• social class inequality

• power

• law creation

• law enforcement

• crimes of powerful groups.

AQA's 2025 Paper 3 specifically required students to evaluate Marxist explanations of crime. The item focused on the organisation of an unequal capitalist society, corporate and white-collar crime, punishment and the possibility that some working-class crime may represent resistance to experiences of capitalism.

Capitalism and crime

A Marxist approach examines whether the organisation of capitalist society creates conditions that contribute to crime.

The emphasis is structural. Crime is connected with broader inequalities rather than treated simply as the result of individual moral failure.

Possible processes recognised in AQA assessment material include:

• poverty

• inequality

• consumerism

• alienation

• pressure to acquire material wealth.

From this perspective, some working-class offending may need to be understood in the context of unequal access to resources and opportunities.

Law creation

Conflict theories question whether law represents an entirely neutral expression of shared values.

Instead, laws may reflect unequal power.

If powerful groups have greater influence over social institutions, conflict theorists may argue that the definition of crime itself can favour some interests over others.

This contrasts directly with a consensus view in which law largely reflects society's shared norms.

Selective law enforcement

Conflict theorists also examine whether laws are enforced equally.

If some groups are more heavily policed or criminalised while the actions of powerful groups receive less attention, official crime patterns may reflect selective law enforcement as well as differences in behaviour.

AQA has repeatedly recognised selective law enforcement as a sociological explanation of recorded patterns of crime.

Corporate and white-collar crime

AQA's 2025 Marxism question specifically highlighted the view that corporate and white-collar crimes may go unnoticed or unpunished.

For conflict theorists, this raises questions about power.

If offences committed by powerful individuals or organisations are less visible in official data or treated differently by agencies of social control, recorded crime may give an incomplete picture of the relationship between class and offending.

Feminist approaches as conflict explanations

Conflict is not limited to class.

AQA assessment material also recognises feminist explanations and patriarchy as relevant when evaluating crime and wider sociological theories.

Feminist approaches direct attention towards gendered power relations.

They may therefore question explanations that concentrate only on class inequality and ignore:

• patriarchy

• gendered social control

• gender differences in offending

• gendered experiences of criminal justice.

This links with gender and crime [Gender and crime].

The key analytical point is that conflict theories may disagree about which division is most important. A Marxist explanation emphasising class may therefore be criticised for giving insufficient attention to gender or ethnicity.

Evaluating conflict explanations of crime

Conflict approaches are useful because they highlight:

• power

• inequality

• differences in interests

• law creation

• selective enforcement

• crimes committed by powerful groups.

However, criticisms can include:

• focusing too heavily on one source of inequality

• underestimating areas of genuine agreement about unacceptable behaviour

• failing to explain all differences in offending

• giving insufficient attention to individual choices and meanings.

The 2025 Marxism mark scheme explicitly recognised the criticism that explaining crime primarily through capitalism may be too simplistic because other inequalities, including racism and patriarchy, may also matter.

Consensus and conflict theories compared

Issue	Consensus theories	Conflict theories
View of society	Emphasise shared norms and values	Emphasise competing interests and unequal power
Social order	Largely produced through agreement and socialisation	May reflect the power of dominant groups
Law	Often understood as reflecting shared values	May reflect unequal influence over law creation
Crime	A breach of socially shared norms, but potentially functional	Must be understood in relation to inequality and power
Main crime example	Functionalism	Marxism and feminist approaches
Key question	How does crime affect social stability?	Whose interests are served by definitions and control of crime?
Possible weakness	May underestimate inequality and conflict	May underestimate consensus or overemphasise one form of inequality

Structural theories

Structural theories explain behaviour mainly by examining the organisation of society and the social forces surrounding individuals.

They operate primarily at the macro level, focusing on social structures rather than beginning with individual interactions.

Structures may include patterns connected with:

• social class

• capitalism

• patriarchy

• institutions

• inequalities

• socialisation

• access to legitimate opportunities.

AQA explicitly requires awareness of the importance of both social structure and social action when explaining social issues.

Functionalism as a structural theory

Functionalism is structural because it explains individual behaviour in relation to wider society.

For crime, it may examine:

• levels of integration into shared norms

• socialisation

• opportunities available within the social structure

• pressure created when social goals cannot be reached through approved means.

The focus is therefore on how social arrangements shape behaviour.

Marxism as a structural theory

Marxism is also structural, but unlike functionalism it is a conflict theory.

It explains crime by examining:

• class relationships

• capitalism

• inequality

• power

• the organisation of law and social control.

This demonstrates an important exam point:

Structural does not mean consensus.

Functionalism and Marxism are both structural approaches, but their explanations of society and crime differ sharply.

Structural explanations and social class

A structural sociologist might explain a pattern of crime by examining the social circumstances surrounding groups rather than beginning with individual motivations.

For example, AQA assessment material has recognised explanations involving:

• poverty

• marginalisation

• strain

• unequal opportunities

• selective enforcement.

These explanations link offending or recorded crime to broader social arrangements.

Strengths of structural theories

Structural approaches can:

• reveal large-scale inequalities

• connect individual behaviour to wider social conditions

• explain patterned differences between social groups

• examine the influence of institutions and power

• avoid treating crime simply as an individual failing.

Limitations of structural theories

A major criticism is that structural approaches may make individuals appear too passive.

If behaviour is explained primarily through structural forces, there is a danger of underestimating:

• choice

• interpretation

• interaction

• differences between individuals in similar circumstances.

AQA's June 2022 Theory and Methods item presented exactly this disagreement. Social action theorists focused on individual free will, choice, interaction and meanings, while structural theorists emphasised structural power differences that shape behaviour.

Social action theories

Social action theories begin with individuals, interaction and meaning rather than treating behaviour as simply the outcome of external social structures.

AQA's 2022 exam described social action theorists as taking a micro-level approach and focusing on:

• free will

• choice

• interaction

• meanings behind behaviour.

This is the key contrast with structural theory.

A structural question asks:

What social forces shape this behaviour?

A social action question asks:

What does the behaviour mean to the people involved, and how is that meaning created through interaction?

Labelling theory and crime

Labelling theory provides an important social action approach to crime.

Instead of assuming that deviance can be understood entirely from the original act, labelling approaches examine the processes through which:

• behaviour is interpreted

• individuals are categorised

• labels are applied

• people react to labels

• identities and later behaviour may change.

AQA's 2022 mark scheme for social action theories explicitly included:

• labelling

• self-fulfilling prophecy

• social construction

• interaction

• deviant career

• agency.

The social construction of crime and deviance

A social action perspective draws attention to the idea that definitions of deviance are socially constructed.

This does not mean that behaviour has no real consequences.

It means sociologists also need to examine the processes through which particular behaviours and people come to be interpreted as criminal or deviant.

This connects with crime and deviance [Crime and deviance], where the distinction between crime and broader deviance is introduced.

Labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy

A self-fulfilling prophecy occurs when a label influences treatment and behaviour in ways that help make the original label appear true.

Applied to crime:

1. an individual or group is labelled as deviant

2. others begin responding to them on the basis of that label

3. opportunities and interactions may change

4. the person may come to accept or act in accordance with the deviant identity

5. further deviance may follow.

AQA's 2023 mark scheme accepted labelling and the self-fulfilling prophecy as an explanation of class differences in patterns of offending.

Deviant careers

A social action explanation may also examine how deviance develops over time.

A deviant career refers to a process through which involvement in deviance becomes increasingly important to an individual's identity and social relationships.

The emphasis is on a process rather than a single structural cause.

This allows sociologists to ask not only:

Why did the original behaviour occur?

but also:

How did social reactions influence what happened next?

Interaction and meaning

Social action theories argue that understanding behaviour requires examining people's interpretations.

Two individuals living under similar structural conditions do not necessarily behave in the same way.

A social action approach therefore gives greater attention to:

• how situations are interpreted

• interaction with others

• identity

• choice

• agency.

This links closely with positivism, interpretivism and crime [Positivism, interpretivism and crime], because social action approaches are often associated with attempts to understand subjective meanings.

Strengths of social action theories

Social action approaches can:

• explain how meanings influence behaviour

• examine processes of labelling and social reaction

• show how definitions of deviance are constructed

• recognise individual choice and agency

• explain how identities may develop through interaction.

They therefore challenge explanations that treat people as simply controlled by social structure.

Limitations of social action theories

Structural theorists argue that social action approaches can underestimate the influence of:

• class

• gender

• power

• institutions

• capitalism

• wider social inequalities.

For example, understanding how an individual reacts to a criminal label is valuable, but it may not explain why particular groups are more likely to be labelled in the first place.

AQA's 2022 Theory and Methods item explicitly used this structural criticism, arguing that power differences between groups can shape behaviour.

Structure and action compared

Issue	Structural theories	Social action theories
Level of analysis	Mainly macro	Mainly micro
Main focus	Social structures and external social forces	Individuals, meanings and interaction
Human behaviour	Strongly shaped by social conditions	Involves interpretation, agency and choice
Crime question	What structural conditions produce patterns of crime?	How is behaviour interpreted and labelled as deviant?
Examples	Functionalism, Marxism	Labelling and interactionist approaches
Strength	Explains wider social patterns and inequalities	Explains meanings and social processes
Limitation	May underestimate agency	May underestimate structural power

Theories can cross the structure-action divide

The distinction between structure and action is useful, but sociological explanations do not always fit perfectly into one category.

AQA's 2025 Marxism item provides a useful example. It distinguished structural Marxist explanations based on capitalist inequality from neo-Marxist arguments that working-class individuals may choose crime as a response or form of resistance to their experiences of capitalism.

This combines two levels:

• structure: capitalism and inequality shape the circumstances in which people live

• action: individuals still make choices and give meaning to what they do.

This is a useful reminder that the best sociological comparisons do not simply force every explanation into a rigid box.

The four perspectives together

A useful way to organise the topic is through two separate axes.

Theory or approach	Consensus or conflict?	Structural or action?	Main crime focus
Functionalism	Consensus	Structural	Shared values, integration, strain, functions of crime
Marxism	Conflict	Structural	Capitalism, class inequality, power, law creation and enforcement
Feminist approaches	Conflict	Often structural in focus	Patriarchy, gendered power and social control
Labelling/social action approaches	Not primarily classified through the consensus-conflict divide	Social action	Meaning, labelling, interaction and social construction
Neo-Marxist approaches	Conflict	May combine structure and action	Structural inequality together with agency and choice

⚠️ Exam warning: Do not treat "consensus", "conflict", "structural" and "social action" as four mutually exclusive boxes. They refer to different features of theoretical explanations.

Comparing explanations of the same crime pattern

Suppose official statistics show that one social group has a higher recorded offending rate than another.

Different perspectives might ask different questions.

A consensus structural explanation

A functionalist might ask whether differences in:

• socialisation

• integration

• access to legitimate opportunities

help explain offending.

A conflict structural explanation

A Marxist or other conflict theorist might ask whether:

• inequality contributes to crime

• laws reflect unequal interests

• policing and enforcement affect the recorded pattern

• powerful crime is less visible.

A social action explanation

A labelling theorist might ask whether:

• some groups are more likely to be defined as suspicious

• labelling changes later treatment

• a self-fulfilling prophecy develops.

The same pattern can therefore receive very different sociological explanations.

Explaining crime versus explaining recorded crime

A particularly useful theoretical distinction concerns what exactly needs explaining.

A theory may attempt to explain:

• criminal behaviour itself, or

• patterns in officially recorded crime.

These are not automatically identical.

Structural inequality might be used to explain why offending occurs. Conflict and labelling perspectives may also investigate how policing, labelling and enforcement influence which offences enter official statistics.

Keeping this distinction clear helps when studying recent patterns and trends in crime [Recent patterns and trends in crime].

Comparing theories effectively

A high-quality comparison should identify the exact point of disagreement.

Avoid:

Functionalists believe one thing. Marxists believe another thing.

Instead explain the theoretical difference:

Functionalism treats social order primarily as the result of shared norms and therefore examines how crime challenges or reinforces collective values. Marxism instead treats society as divided by unequal class interests, so it questions whether law and social control operate equally for all groups.

The second version compares the assumptions behind the theories, not just their conclusions.

Evaluating theoretical explanations

Evaluation should ask how far a perspective successfully explains the issue.

Useful questions include:

• Does the theory explain both offending and reactions to offending?

• Does it explain differences between social groups?

• Does it recognise unequal power?

• Does it recognise individual agency?

• Does it explain why people in similar structural positions behave differently?

• Does it explain why some behaviour becomes criminalised?

• Does it concentrate too heavily on one type of inequality?

The next lesson, modernity, post-modernity and crime [Modernity, post-modernity and crime], develops the theoretical debate further by examining whether changing social conditions require different ways of understanding contemporary crime.

Key Words 🔑

Key word	Student-friendly definition	How it may be used in an exam
Consensus theory	An approach emphasising shared norms, values and interests as the basis of social order.	Apply functionalist explanations to crime and social control.
Conflict theory	An approach emphasising unequal interests, resources and power between social groups.	Analyse Marxist or feminist explanations of crime and law.
Structural theory	An explanation that emphasises the influence of wider social structures on behaviour.	Explain crime using class, capitalism, institutions or other structural forces.
Social action theory	An approach focusing on individuals, meanings, interaction, choice and agency.	Apply labelling or interactionist approaches to crime and deviance.
Functionalism	A consensus structural perspective examining how different parts of society contribute to social order.	Explain functions of crime, shared values or structural pressures towards deviance.
Marxism	A conflict structural approach that focuses on capitalism, class inequality and power.	Evaluate explanations involving inequality, law creation and selective enforcement.
Labelling	The process of defining a person or behaviour in a particular way through social interaction.	Explain the social construction of deviance and reactions to offenders.
Self-fulfilling prophecy	A process in which a label influences behaviour or treatment in ways that help make the label appear true.	Explain how social reactions may contribute to further deviance.
Agency	The capacity of individuals to make choices and act rather than being completely determined by social structures.	Compare social action with structural approaches.
Social construction	The idea that meanings and classifications are produced through social processes rather than simply existing naturally.	Explain how definitions of crime and deviance may vary or be created through interaction.

Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡

Examiner hint: Know the theoretical approaches in sufficient depth. In the 2022 Theory and Methods question on social action theory, examiners reported that some students had limited knowledge and simply repeated the item rather than developing its ideas. Retrieval and spaced practice of sociological theory were specifically recommended.

Examiner hint: Do not evaluate by simply putting another theory next to the first one. In 2022, evaluation was the weakest skill in the functionalism essay and many students relied on juxtaposed alternative theories. Examiners recommended explicit evaluation instead.

Examiner hint: Make comparisons purposeful. A different theory earns its place when you explain how it challenges the assumption or explanation you have just discussed.

Examiner hint: Keep your evaluation focused on the exact wording of the question. The 2023 report states that the most successful evaluation weighs strengths and limitations and reaches a reasoned judgement, rather than giving a memorised criticism or simply saying that two theories disagree.

Examiner hint: Develop the item rather than recycling it. AQA reports that stronger students identify the theoretical idea in an item, add their own sociological knowledge and then explain why it matters to the question.

Examiner hint: Naming a theory or sociologist can help structure an answer, but the name alone does not demonstrate understanding. The examiner report stresses that references such as "some sociologists argue" become useful only when the idea is developed.

Common Mistakes ⚠️

Mistake: Treating consensus and structural as the same thing

Why this is incorrect: They describe different theoretical features. Consensus concerns shared interests and values. Structural theories explain behaviour through wider social arrangements.

How to improve: Remember that functionalism is both consensus and structural, while Marxism is conflict and structural.

Mistake: Treating all structural theories as functionalist

Why this is incorrect: Marxism is also structural, but it gives a conflict explanation based on inequality and power.

How to improve:

Ask two questions separately:

1. Does the theory emphasise consensus or conflict?

2. Does it emphasise structure or social action?

Mistake: Saying conflict theory means that everyone is constantly in open conflict

Why this is incorrect: Conflict theories focus on competing interests and unequal power. Conflict does not have to involve continuous visible confrontation.

How to improve: Discuss the ability of some groups to influence institutions, laws and social control.

Mistake: Saying functionalists think crime is simply "good"

Why this is incorrect: Functionalist arguments concern the social functions that crime or reactions to crime may perform. This is different from claiming that every crime is beneficial.

How to improve: Identify the process precisely, such as boundary maintenance, social cohesion or social change.

Mistake: Assuming official crime rates directly prove one theory

Why this is incorrect: Different theories interpret recorded patterns differently. Conflict and labelling perspectives may question how law enforcement and recording produced the data.

How to improve: Distinguish offending from recorded offending.

Mistake: Describing labelling without explaining social action

Why this is incorrect: A list of labels and self-fulfilling prophecy does not show why labelling is a social action approach.

How to improve: Explain that the theory focuses on meanings created through interaction and how individuals respond to those meanings.

Mistake: Treating people as completely controlled by structure

Why this is incorrect: This ignores the social action emphasis on choice, meaning and agency.

How to improve: Use evaluation to ask why people exposed to similar structural pressures may respond differently.

Mistake: Using another theory as an undeveloped criticism

Why this is incorrect: Writing "However, Marxists disagree" is juxtaposition rather than evaluation.

How to improve: Complete the reasoning: explain what assumption Marxism challenges, why that weakens the original explanation, and how far the criticism is convincing.

Exam-Style Questions ✍️

Question 1

Which one of the following is best described as a conflict structural theory?

A. Functionalism

B. Marxism

C. Labelling theory

D. Interpretivism

[1 mark]

Question 2

Define the term social action theory.

[2 marks]

Question 3

Outline two ways in which crime may perform functions for society according to a consensus approach.

[4 marks]

Question 4

Outline three ways in which conflict theories may explain patterns of crime and deviance.

[6 marks]

Question 5

A sociologist argues that high levels of recorded offending among a disadvantaged group are caused by unequal opportunities and wider social inequalities.

Another sociologist argues that the pattern partly results from the way the group is labelled and treated by agencies of social control.

Explain how these two explanations illustrate the difference between structural and social action approaches.

[6 marks]

Question 6

Outline and explain two ways in which structural theories may explain crime and deviance.

[10 marks]

Question 7

Read Item A below and answer the question that follows.

Item A

Some sociologists argue that laws reflect the shared values needed to maintain social order. Others argue that powerful groups have greater influence over which behaviour is criminalised and how laws are enforced.

Applying material from Item A, analyse two differences between consensus and conflict explanations of crime.

[10 marks]

Question 8

Read Item B below and answer the question that follows.

Item B

Some sociologists explain crime by examining social structures such as inequality and the distribution of power. Social action theorists instead emphasise interaction, choice and the meanings individuals attach to behaviour.

However, focusing on either structure or action alone may produce an incomplete explanation of crime.

Applying material from Item B and your knowledge, evaluate the usefulness of social action theories for understanding crime and deviance.

[20 marks]

Question 9

Read Item C below and answer the question that follows.

Item C

Consensus theories emphasise shared norms and values and suggest that responses to crime may help maintain social order. Conflict theories argue that societies contain unequal groups and that power can influence both definitions of crime and the operation of social control.

Applying material from Item C and your knowledge, evaluate the view that conflict theories provide a more useful explanation of crime and deviance than consensus theories.

[30 marks]

Answers and mark scheme

Question 1

Answer: B, Marxism. [1 mark]

Marxism is a conflict approach because it emphasises unequal class interests and power, and a structural approach because it explains behaviour in relation to the organisation of capitalist society.

Question 2

Award up to 2 marks:

• 1 mark for identifying social action theory as an approach focusing on individuals or social interaction.

• 1 additional mark for explaining its emphasis on meanings, interpretation, choice or agency.

Question 3

Award 2 marks for each of two clearly outlined functions.

Possible answers include:

• Boundary maintenance: reactions to crime clarify the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.

• Social cohesion: condemnation of crime may bring members of society together.

• Social change: deviance may contribute to changes in accepted norms or policies.

• Warning function: crime may reveal social problems requiring attention.

Maximum 4 marks.

Question 4

Award 2 marks for each of three developed points.

Possible answers include:

• social inequality may contribute to offending

• powerful groups may influence law creation

• selective law enforcement may affect patterns of recorded crime

• crimes committed by powerful groups may be less visible or less heavily punished

• patriarchal power may contribute to gendered patterns of crime and social control.

Maximum 6 marks.

Question 5

Award up to 6 marks.

A strong answer should explain both sides of the contrast.

Structural explanation:

The first sociologist explains offending using wider social forces such as inequality and unequal opportunities. Behaviour is therefore linked to the individual's position within the social structure.

Social action explanation:

The second sociologist focuses on labelling and interaction. The recorded pattern may partly result from the meanings attached to the group, how agencies react to them and how people respond to labels.

For full marks, the answer should explicitly explain that structural theories emphasise external social forces, whereas social action theories emphasise meanings, interaction and agency.

Question 6

A strong response should develop two different structural explanations.

Indicative content includes:

Functionalist explanation:

• social structure creates shared goals and approved means

• unequal or blocked opportunities may create pressure towards deviance

• social integration and socialisation influence conformity.

Conflict explanation:

• structural inequalities may contribute to crime

• capitalism may create unequal experiences and pressures

• powerful groups may influence law creation

• selective enforcement may shape recorded crime

• patriarchy may structure gendered experiences of crime and control.

8 to 10 marks: Very good knowledge and understanding of two developed structural explanations, with clear application and analysis.

4 to 7 marks: Reasonable knowledge of one or two explanations, with some development.

1 to 3 marks: Limited knowledge, little development or weak focus on structural explanations.

Evaluation is not required.

Question 7

A strong answer should use both hooks from Item A.

Difference 1: shared values versus unequal interests

A consensus theory views law as largely reflecting shared norms needed for social order. Crime represents behaviour that breaches these norms. A conflict theory instead argues that groups have unequal interests and that more powerful groups may have greater influence over which behaviour becomes criminalised.

Difference 2: social control versus unequal enforcement

Consensus approaches may see agencies of social control as helping maintain order. Conflict theories question whether enforcement operates neutrally and may argue that some groups are criminalised more heavily than others while powerful crime is less visible.

For higher marks, each point should:

1. identify an item hook

2. apply appropriate sociological theory

3. develop the contrast

4. explain why the difference matters for understanding crime.

8 to 10 marks: Two developed applications with clear comparison and analysis.

4 to 7 marks: Some successful application and comparison.

1 to 3 marks: Limited application or largely descriptive theory.

Question 8

A strong answer should explain social action theories before evaluating them against structural approaches.

Arguments supporting social action theories:

• behaviour cannot be understood without examining meanings

• labelling helps explain how deviance is socially constructed

• interactions with agencies of social control may influence criminal identities

• self-fulfilling prophecies can explain how labelling contributes to further deviance

• social action approaches recognise choice and agency

• they may explain why people exposed to similar structural conditions behave differently.

Structural criticisms:

• social action theories may underestimate class inequality

• they may neglect capitalism or patriarchy

• they may explain reactions to crime more effectively than the original causes of some offending

• focusing on micro interaction can overlook large-scale patterns between social groups

• power may influence who is most likely to be labelled in the first place.

Further evaluation:

A useful judgement may argue that social action approaches add something structural theories cannot easily provide, particularly an explanation of meaning and social reaction. However, interaction takes place within unequal structural conditions, so a complete explanation may need to recognise both agency and structure.

17 to 20 marks: Conceptually detailed knowledge, accurate application, explicit analysis and evaluation, with a reasoned conclusion.

13 to 16 marks: Good but incomplete knowledge and some explicit evaluation.

9 to 12 marks: Largely accurate but limited knowledge, with evaluation tending towards juxtaposition.

5 to 8 marks: Limited undeveloped knowledge of social action theory.

1 to 4 marks: Very limited relevant knowledge.

AQA's 2022 assessment used this same broad theoretical debate between social action and structural approaches and rewarded explicit comparison rather than repetition of the item.

Question 9

A strong answer should keep the central comparison between conflict and consensus running throughout.

Consensus arguments may include:

• social order depends partly on shared norms and values

• crime can contribute to boundary maintenance

• social reactions to crime may strengthen cohesion

• deviance may contribute to adaptation or social change

• structural pressures such as blocked opportunities can help explain offending.

Conflict arguments may include:

• society contains unequal interests rather than complete value consensus

• social inequality may contribute to crime

• powerful groups may influence law creation

• selective law enforcement may shape recorded crime

• crimes of powerful groups may receive less attention

• class, gender and other inequalities can influence experiences of social control.

Evaluation of consensus approaches:

• they may underestimate unequal power

• the functions of crime may not benefit all groups equally

• claiming that crime has functions does not necessarily explain every type of crime

• agreement about some laws may nevertheless support the idea that genuine value consensus exists.

Evaluation of conflict approaches:

• they may explain why law and enforcement affect groups differently

• concentrating on class alone can be too simplistic

• other forms of inequality, including patriarchy and racism, may also matter

• not every law can necessarily be explained simply as serving a dominant group's interests

• conflict explanations may need to account more fully for individual meanings and choices.

Judgement:

A reasoned conclusion should weigh the explanatory strengths of the approaches rather than simply choosing one. Conflict theory may provide a stronger account of unequal power, law creation and selective enforcement, while consensus theories remain useful for understanding shared norms, social order and some structural causes of deviance. The strongest sociological explanation depends on which aspect of crime is being explained.

25 to 30 marks: Sound, conceptually detailed knowledge of a range of relevant theory, accurate application to Item C, explicit analysis and evaluation, and a well-supported conclusion.

19 to 24 marks: Accurate, broad or deep knowledge with good application but more limited evaluation.

13 to 18 marks: Largely accurate but limited range or depth, with evaluation often taking the form of juxtaposed alternatives.

7 to 12 marks: Limited and undeveloped theoretical knowledge with weak application.

1 to 6 marks: Very limited relevant material.

For the highest level, compare the perspectives within each paragraph where possible. Do not write an essay that describes functionalism for half the answer and Marxism for the other half without making the disagreement explicit.