Differential Association Theory

• Who proposed the differential association theory and in what year?

  Sutherland proposed the differential association theory in 1939
• What does the differential association theory suggest about criminal behavior?

  It suggests that we learn values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior through interactions with others
• How does the differential association theory explain the breeding of crime among specific groups?

  It explains that crime breeds among specific groups and communities due to time spent with family from a young age
• What role do vicarious reinforcers play in criminal behavior according to the theory?

  Vicarious reinforcers help individuals learn to repeat criminal behavior through direct operant conditioning if the behavior is reinforced
• What factors influence the learning of criminal behavior according to the differential association theory?

  The amount of time, frequency, and intensity spent with people who have pro-criminal attitudes influence learning criminal behavior
• What happens if exposure to pro-criminal attitudes outweighs pro-social exposure?

  If exposure to pro-criminal attitudes outweighs pro-social exposure, individuals will offend
• The DAT can explain why released prisoners have a high reoffending rate. Whilst in prison, they can learn offending techniques through imitation and observation, and practice these on release.
• Farrington conducted a longitudial study, investigating 411 delinquents. He found that:

  • 41% were convicted at least once between the ages of 10 and 50.
  • The average conviction career is 19-28, including 5 convictions.
  • The most important childhood risk factor in later offending is family criminality, poverty, low school attainment, poor parenting and risk taking.
• How does Farrington's study link to the DAT?


  In the study, they found that one of the most important risk factors leading to criminality is family criminality. This supports the DAT as it suggests we learn crime like any other behaviour, through socialisation and being exposed to criminal attitudes and behaviour which we may imitate. This links to the DAT as some may have criminal family role models, whose behaviour and attitudes we are exposed to.
• How does Farrington's study link to the DAT?


  In the study, they found that one of the most important risk factors leading to criminality is family criminality. This supports the DAT as it suggests we learn crime like any other behaviour, through socialisation and being exposed to criminal attitudes and In the study, they found that one of the most important risk factors leading to criminality is family criminality. This supports the DAT as it suggests we learn crime like any other behaviour, through socialisation and being exposed to criminal attitudes and behaviour which we may immitate.
• Evaluation Points: DAT


  • Wider Application
  • Research Support
  • Free Will and Individual Differences
• DAT: Wider Application

  The DAT can explain a wider range of crimes than other explanations. The theory adequately explains white collar and corporate crime, as it claims that anyone, regardless of race, intelligence or background, can be influences by criminal attitudes, values and motivations of those around them. Therefore, the DA shifts the focus of criminology away from the stereotype of solely working class criminality. This shows that the DAT has wider application.
• DAT: Research Support

  A number of studies have shown that the frequency, intensity and duration of interactions with delinquent peers are significant in offending behaviour. Juveniles who report committing delinquent acts also report having delinquent friends. For example, studies have found an association between smoking weed and having friends who smoke weed. Farrington's study also shows the influence of family criminality in offending behaviour, supporting the DAT. This suggests that the DAT has good external validity, however this evidence is correlation only, not causation.
• DAT: Free Will and Individual Differences


  The DAT has been criticised for not considering free will and individual differences. It assumes that people have no free will in offending or not; effectively claiming that criminal exposure in the correct proportion is necessary and efficient in causing offending. However not everyone who is exposed to pro-criminal attitudes will offend, and some exposed to pro-social attitudes do go on to offend. The DAT cannot explain these anomalies. This suggests that the DAT is too rigid and lacks validity, and is environmentally deterministic.