Differential explanation

• What does the differential association theory link to ?

  SLT of crime - learning criminal behaviour from associations and contacts 
• -Establishment of scientific principles that could explain all forms of crime 

  -the conditions which are said to cause the crime should be present,when crime is present,and absent when crime is absent 
• Where is the offending behaviour learned from?

  Via contact without nearest and dearest 
• Where do we learn pro criminal attitudes and the specifics of carrying out criminal acts ?

  Via the socialisation process
• What’s Farrington set als aim ?

  To see what factors are involved in criminal behaviour 
• What’s Farrington set als method?

  Details of family background,parenting styles and school behaviour obtained plus criminal record 
• What’s Farrington set als result?

  Key risk factors were family criminality,poverty,poor parenting and low school achievement 
• What’s Farrington set als conclusion?

  Criminality develops in a context of inappropriate role models and dysfunctional systems of reward and punishment.
• What’s a critism of Farrington set als study?

  This could be taken as evidence for a genetic theory as a high percentage had biological parents who were offenders 
• One strength of differential association theory is the shift of focus.Sutherland moved emphasis away from early biological explanations (e.g Lombroso) and from theories of offending as an individual weakness/immorality.Differential association theory talks about deviant social circumstances and environment as being more to blame for offending than deviant people.Therefore this matters because this approach offers a more realistic solution to offending instead of the biological solution or punishment (morality situation).
• One limitation is difficulty testing the theories predictions.Suntherland promised scientific and mathematical framework for predicting offending behaviour,but the concepts can’t be operationalised.It’s unclear how we can measure the numbers of pro or anti crime attitudes a person is exposed to.Furthermore, this matters because the theory doesn’t have scientific credibility.
• Another strength is that the theory has a wide reach.Whilst some crimes (e.g burglary) are gathered in inner-city-working-class communities,other criminals are gathered in more affluent groups.Sutherland was particularly interested in corporate offences and how this may be a feature of middle class groups who share deviant norms.Furthermore,this matters because it shows that it’s not just lower classes who commit offences and that differential association can be used to explain all offences.