Differential association theory

• Outline the differential association theory.


  The differential association theory proposes that individuals learn the attitudes and techniques for criminal behaviour through their association with family, peers etc.

  Offending behaviour is suggested to arise from two factors: Learned attitudes towards crime and the learning of specific criminal acts.
• Outline the differential association theory.


  With regards to learned attitudes towards crime: when a person is socialised into a group, they will be exposed to the group’s pro-crime or anti-crime values and attitudes.

  If the number of pro-criminal attitudes the person is exposed to outweigh the number of anti-criminal attitudes, they will go on to offend. Offending is therefore more likely to occur in groups that value criminal behaviour.
• Outline the differential association theory.


  With regards to the learning of specific criminal acts: when a person is socialised into a group, they may learn particular techniques for committing crime.

  This learning may occur through social learning (observing and imitating criminal behaviour) or direct tuition (being taught how to commit a crime).
• Evaluate the differential association theory: supporting evidence. 


  Research has found that offending behaviour tends to run in families in that there is a higher likelihood of a child later engaging in criminal behaviour if their parents/older siblings committed crimes. This is a strength because such findings can be explained by the proposal that pro- crime attitudes may have been shared within these families and they may have learned criminal acts by observing and imitating their criminal behaviour.
• Evaluate the differential association theory: supporting evidence could equally be explained by alternative theories. 


  The finding that offending behaviour tends to run in families could be explained by genetics. This is because individuals may be inheriting genes that make them more likely to commit crimes. This is a limitation as it means the research cannot establish cause and effect, thus casting doubt on the differential association theory itself.
• Evaluate the differential association theory: supporting evidence. 


  Adoption studies have found that children who had criminal adoptive parents and non-criminal biological parents were more likely to go on to offend than children whose biological and adoptive parents were non-criminal. This is a strength as it supports the proposal that associations with others (e.g. family members) who are pro-crime can lead to offending behaviour.
• Evaluate the differential association theory: better implications than biological explanations. 


  This is because it suggests the offending behaviour is learned in a social context rather than due to biological factors such as genetics. This is a strength because individuals have the ability to change their social settings whereas they do not have the ability to change their genetics and so the differential association theory offers a more realistic solution to crime.
• Evaluate the differential association theory: negative implications. 


  This is because the theory proposes that individuals who grow up around criminal behaviour will go on to offend. This is a limitation because it can lead to individuals from crime-ridden backgrounds into being stereotyped as unavoidably criminal when, in reality, not everyone exposed to criminal associates will go on to offend.