differential association (psychological explanations)

• Sutherland assumptions/view

  • they developed a set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending
  • individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through interaction with others - these 'others' are different from one person to the next (differential association) (nurture but also deterministic)
  • his theory ignores the effects of class or ethnic background, what matters is who you associate with
  • an influential explanation of how individuals learn to become offenders
• behaviour is acquired through the process of learning

  • learning occurs through interactions with significant others who the child values most and spends most time with, such as family and peer group
  • offending arises from 2 factors:
  • learned attitudes towards offending
  • learning of specific offending acts
• learning attitudes

  • when a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to certain values and attitudes
  • this includes values and attitudes toward the law = some of these will be pro-crime, some will be anti-crime
  • Sutherland argues that if the number of pro-crime attitude the person comes to acquire outweighs the number of anti-crime attitudes, they will go on to offend
• learning techniques

  • the would-be offender may also learn particular techniques for committing offences
  • eg = how to break into someones house through a locked window or how to disable a car stereo before stealing it
• mathematical prediction about committing offences

  • it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit offences
  • the prediction is based on our knowledge of the frequency, intensity and duration of an individual's exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values
  • eg how many pro-crime attitudes/techniques vs how many anti-crime
  • makes theory scientific
• reoffending may be due to socialisation in prison

  • Sutherland's theory can account for why so many prisoners released from prison go on to reoffend
  • it is reasonable to assume that whilst inside the prison, inmates will be exposed to pro-crime attitudes and also learn specific techniques of offending from more experienced offenders which they can put into practice upon their release
• strength = good explanatory power/wide reach

  • can account for crime within all sectors of society
  • whilst some crimes (eg burglary) are clustered in inner-city w/c communities, other crimes are clustered in more affluent groups
  • Sutherland particularly interested in 'white-collar' or corporate offences and how this may be a feature of m/c groups who share more deviant norms
  • shows that is is not just the 'lower' classes who commit offences and that differential association can be used to explain all offences
• strength = shift of focus

  • moving emphasis away from biological explanations (eg lombroso/ atavistic)
  • help to draw attention to the fact that dysfunctional social circumstances and environment may be more to blame for criminality
  • this approach offers a more realistic solution to offending instead of for example eugenics (biological solution)
• counterpoint to shift of focus

  • theory risks stereotyping people from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds
  • this ignores that people may choose to not offend despite such influences, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend
  • there are individual differences, people will not just offend because they are surrounded by 'pro-crime'
• limitation = difficult to test the theory's predictions

  • Sutherland promised a scientific and mathematical framework for predicting offending behaviour, but the concept can't be operationalised
  • it is unclear how we can measure the numbers of pro- or anti- crime attitudes a person is exposed to - so how can we know at what point offending would be triggered?
  • means theory doesn't have scientific credibility
• extra evaluation = nature vs nurture

  • DA explanation = if the family supports offending activity, making it seem legitimate and reasonable, then this becomes a major influence on the child's value system
  • BUT = the fact that offending behaviour often seems to 'run in families' could also be interpreted as supporting biological explanations, such as genetics
  • => some offences (eg drug offences) are related to nurture whereas others (eg violent offences) are more due to 'nature'
• differential association definition

  • a learning approach that explains criminal behaviour as learned from environmental influences