A03: Differential Association - Psychological Explanations

• Evaluation

  Research in support.
• +DA: The shift of focus A03


  Sutherland moved emphasis away from early biological explanations (e.g Lombroso) and from theories of offending as the product of individual weakness or immorality.

  • Differential association theory draws attention to deviant social circumstances and environments as being more to blame offending than deviant people.

  This approach offers a more realistic solution to offending instead o eugenics (the biological solution) or punishment (the morality solution).
• +DA: The shift of focus COUNTERPOINT A03

  The theory risks stereotyping people from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds.

  • This ignores that people may choose not to offend despite such influences, as not everyone who us exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend.
• +DA: Theory has wide reach A03

  Whilst some crimes (e.g burglary) are clustered in inner-city working-class communities, other crimes are clustered in more affluent groups.

  • Sutherland was particularly interested in so-called 'white collar' or corporate offences and how this may be a feature of middle-class groups who share deviant norms.

  This shows that it is not just the 'lower' classes who commit offences and that differential association can be used to explain all offences.
• +DA: Difficulty testing the theory's predictions A03

  Sutherland promised a scientific and mathematical framework for predicting offending behaviour, but the concepts cant 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?

  This means the theory doe snot have scientific credibility.
• +DA: Nurture or nature A03

  If the family supports offending activity, making it seem legitimate and reasonable, then this becomes a major influence on the child's value system.

  • However, the fact that offending behaviour often behaviour often seems to 'run in families' could also be interpreted as supporting biological explanations like genetics.

  The solution may be that some offences (e.g drug offences) are related to nurture whereas others (e.g violent offences) are more due to 'nature'.
• +RS: Support by large longitudinal research: Differential Association

  Farrington et al. (2006) conducted a longitudinal study of development of offending & antisocial behaviour in 411 males living in a deprived working-class inner city area of London.

  Found:

  • 41% of males convicted at least once offence (10-50yrs)
  • 7% defined chronic offenders. 
  • Key risk factors: poverty, family criminality, parental conflict, peer influence, lower school achievement, risk taking & poor parenting (pro criminal attitudes)
• +RS: Supported longitudinal research: DA: P2

  Family criminality: risk factor lead to criminality: if crime exist in family, individual more likely become criminal themselves.

  • Support DA: we learn crime thro process of socialisation & being exposed to criminal attitudes/behaviours which we imitate.
  • Kid brought up by criminal parents; exposed to criminal behaviour, see as normal, adopt values, imitate behaviour they learn, see them as acceptable & appropriate.

  Show role of socialisation as inappropriate role models & dysfunctional systems of reward/punishment, led these males to crime.
• +RS: Explanatory power: DA


  EP:

  • Account for crimes in all sectors of society
  • Helps our understanding of different types of crimes:
  • Burglary cluster in working class communities
  • Corporate crime operate in middle class group.

  Sutherland name: 'white collar' or corporate crime & how this may be a feature of MC social groups who share deviant norms & values.

  • His focus was on this type of crime - even coined the term white collar crime

  May also encourage rehabilitation rather than punishment. By identifying causality of crime, interventions be put in place help reduce crime.
• -RS: difficult to measure: DA


  Although Sutherland's attempts to create a scientific framework for predicting criminal behaviour, using concepts like the frequency of exposure to criminal attitudes makes it difficult to measure.

  • Without ways to address these measurement issues, the scientific credibility suffers as it can't definitively explain when criminal behaviour becomes likely.
• -RS: Reductionist: DA


  Reductionist –  Sutherland makes the assumption  we can predict criminality by tracking the frequency, intensity and duration of pro-crime exposure. This oversimplifies the complex interaction between behaviour and the environment not allowing for any other factors to contribute towards criminal behaviour.
• -RS: Individual Differences: DA


  This theory neglects the importance of individual differences. People vary in personality traits, cognitive abilities, and life experiences. These factors can influence susceptibility to environmental pressures. Consider the role of locus of control
• -RS: Deterministic: DA


  Additionally, the theory is deterministic.  

  • People can choose their social circles, and those exposed to environments where criminal activity is normalised may be more likely to engage in it themselves.

  Therefore this theory also doesn't fully account for free will. While it emphasizes the role of external factors, it downplays the role of conscious choices and internal motivations. 
• +Work on a wide range of crimes
• -Nature vs Nurture

  • DA says its nurture but MAO gene shows its nature
  • Probably a mixture of both
  • Diathesis stress model
• -Socially Sensitive