Differential association theory

• Differential Association Theory (Sutherland, 1939) is an explanation for offending which proposes that, through interactions with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour.
• Sutherland proposed that criminal behaviour is learned through interactions with others, particularly within intimate personal groups (e.g., family, peers).

  • Criminality arises from two factors: learning attitudes towards crime and the learning of specific criminal acts.
• Pro-criminal Attitudes

  • If individuals are exposed to more pro-criminal than anti-criminal attitudes, they are likely to adopt criminal behaviour if these pro-criminal attitudes come to outweigh the anti-criminal attitudes.
  • This explains why crime may run in families or certain communities.
• Learning Criminal Acts

  • Criminals learn techniques for committing a crime, making crime easier to commit.
  • This explains reoffending, as time in prison may allow inmates to learn new criminal skills from others.
• Sutherland suggested that it may be possible to predict criminal behaviour by measuring the frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure to pro-criminal attitudes.

  • Frequency – How often the individual is exposed to pro-criminal attitudes (e.g. regular contact with offending peers).
  • Intensity – How strong or emotionally influential the relationship is (e.g. a parent vs. an acquaintance).
  • Duration – How long the individual is exposed to such attitudes over time.
• A strength of Sutherland’s theory is that research supports the role of family and peer influence in criminal behaviour. Farrington et al. (2006) conducted the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a longitudinal study of 411 boys from working-class backgrounds. He found that those with criminal parents or delinquent peers were more likely to offend, supporting the idea that criminal behaviour is learned through associations. However, the study is correlational, meaning it cannot establish cause and effect; other factors, such as genetics or poverty, may also contribute.
• Another strength is that differential association theory can explain a wide range of crimes, from violent street crime to white-collar crime (e.g., fraud and corporate crime). Unlike biological explanations, which focus on individual traits, Sutherland’s theory highlights the importance of environment and learning in offending. This makes it a more flexible and applicable explanation of criminal behaviour.
• A limitation is that not everyone who associates with criminals goes on to offend, suggesting that free will and personal choice also play a role. For example, some people are exposed to pro-criminal attitudes but still choose not to engage in crime. This suggests that differential association theory may oversimplify human behaviour and ignore factors such as morality, intelligence, or personality differences that may influence criminal decision-making.
• Another issue is that the theory is difficult to test scientifically. Concepts like "pro-criminal attitudes" are vague and hard to quantify, making it impossible to measure an individual's exact exposure to criminal influences. Without clear definitions, the theory lacks falsifiability, meaning it cannot be proven wrong or right, weakening its scientific credibility.