Differential association theory

• Differential association theory

  Proposes individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through association and interaction with different people.
• Learning attitudes

  When a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law.

  Sutherland proposes that if the pro-criminal attitudes outweighs the anti-criminal attitudes then they will go on to offend.
• Learning techniques

  Offender can learn particular techniques for committing offences from the people they socialise with.

  E.g. how to break into someones house
• Socialisation in prison

  DAT accounts for why many convicts released from prison go onto reoffend.

  Reasonable to assume inmates will learn techiques of offending from other offenders which they may practice upon release
• Strength - shift of focus

  When published, DAT moved emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending. E.g. Lombroso's atavistic theory.

  Draws attention to the fact that environment may be more to blame than deviant people.

  Favoured explanation as it is more realistic.
• Counterpoint - Shift of focus

  Risks stereotyping individuals who come from crime-ridden backgrounds.

  Suggests exposure to pro-crime values is sufficient enough to produce offending in those exposed to it.

  Ignores the fact people may not offend despite influences.
• Strength - Wide reaching in society

  DAT can account for offending within all sectors of society.

  Sutherland was interested in 'white collar crime' and how it may be a feature in middle-class social groups who share deviant values.

  Shows it isn't just lower classes who commit offences.
• Limitation - difficulty testing

  Difficult to rest the predictions of differential association.

  Many of the concepts in DAT cannot be operationalised.

  E.g. number of pro-crime attitudes someone has.

  Limits scientific credibility.