Differential association theory

• Differential association theory= explanation for offending which proposes that, through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour.

  • Criminal behaviour shaped by surrounding factors.
• Scientific basis

  Sutherland developed a set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending.

  • His theory was designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who do not whatever their social class or ethnic background.
• Offending as a learned behaviour

  • Offfedning behaviour may be acquired by learning attitudes and techniques.
  • Offfedning behaviour may be acquired by learning.
  • This occurs through interactions with significant others who the child values and spends the most time with.
  • Differential association theory suggests it should be possible to predict how likely an individual is to commit offences.
  • This is based on the frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms.
• Learning attitudes

  When a person is socialised in a group they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law. Some will be pro-crime and others anti-crime.

  • Sutherland argues that if the number of pro-crime attitudes the person comes to acquire outweighs the number of anti-crime attitudes they will go on to offend.
• Learning techniques

  The person may also learn particular techniques for committing offences.
• Socialisation in prison

  Sutherland's theory can also explain why so many released prisoners go on to reoffend.

  • Whilst inside prison inmates will learn specific techniques of offending from other, more experienced offenders that they might put into practice after their release.
  • This learning may occur through observational learning or direct tuition from offending peers.
• Evaluation- shift of focus of offending explanations

  • Sutherland successfully moved emphasis away from atavistic theories that explained offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality.
  • Differential association theory draw attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for offending than deviant people.
  • This approach offers a more realistic solution to offending instead of eugenics or punishment.
• Evaluation- counterpoint

  • Differential association runs the risk of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as 'unavoidably offenders' even though Sutherland suggested offending should be considered on an individual case-by-case basis.
  • However the theory tends to suggest that exposure to pro-crime values is sufficient to produce offending in those exposed to it.
  • This ignores the fact that people may choose not to offend despite such influences as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend.
• Evaluation- theory can account for offending within all sectors of society.

  • Whilst Sutherland recognised crime such as burglary may be clustered within certain inner city, working class communities it is also the case that some offences are clustered amongst more affluent groups in society.
  • Sutherland interested in 'white collar' or corporate offences and how this may be a feature of middle class social groups who share deviant norms and values.
  • Shows its not just lower classes who commit offences, differential association can be used to explain all crimes.
• Evaluation- difficult to test predictions of differential association

  • Sutherland aimed to provide scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be predicted so the predictions must be testable.
  • However they are not testable because they cant be operationalised.
  • Theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-crime values outnumber the anti-crime ones.
  • Without measuring these we cant know at wat point the urge to offend is realised and the offending career is triggered.
  • So theory doesn't have scientific credibility.