Differential association theory

• Sutherland developed a set of scientifc principles that can explain all types of offending
• Individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through interaction with others (SLT). Sutherlands theory ignored the effects of class or ethnic backgrounds, what matters is who you associate with
• Offending behaviour is acquired through learning. Learning occurs most with interactions with significant others, whom the child values the most and spends the most time with
• Differential association suggests that it can be mathematically predicted to find out how likely an individual will commit offences. The frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values come from 2 factors:

  • learning attitudes
  • learning techniques
• When a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to certain values and attitudes. This includes values and attitudes towards the law - some will be pro-crime and some anti-crime
• Sutherland argues that if the number of pro-crime attitudes the person comes to acquire outweighs the number of anti-crime attitudes, they will go on to offend
• In addition to being exposed to pro-crime attitudes, the would-be offender may also learn techniques for committing offences e.g: how to break into someones house
• Sutherlands theory can account for why so many prisoners released from prison go on to re-offend. It is reasonable to assume that whilst inside prison inmates will be exposed to pro-crime attitudes and also learn specific techniques of offending from more experienced offenders which they can practice upon release. This learning may be done through observational learning and imitation of direct tuition from offending peers
• Sutherland conducted a longitudinal study of the development of offending and antisocial behaviour in 411 males.
• The study began when the children were aged 8 in 1961 and all living in a deprived, inner city area of South London.
• 41% of the participants were convicted of at least one offence between the ages of 10 and 50.
• The average conviction career lasted from age 19 to 28 and included 5 convictions.
• The most important risk factors in the study were measures of family criminality, daring or risk-taking, low school attainment, poverty and poor parenting.
• A small proportion of participants (7%) were defined as "chronic offenders" because they accounted for about half of all officially recorded offences in this study.
• One strength is the shift of focus. Sutherland moved emphasis away from early biological explanations and from theories of offending as the product of individual weakness or immortality. Differential association draws attention to deviant social circumstances and environments as being more to blame for offending than deviant people. This approach offers a more realistic solution to offending instead of eugenics or punishment
• A counterpoint to the shift of focus is that the theory risks stereotyping people from impoverish, crime-ridden backgrounds. This ignores that people may choose not to offend despite such influences, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend. This can be seen as determinist as it suggests hat the background automatically leads to criminal behaviour
• Another counterpoint to the shift in focus is that it is environmentally reductionist - it all depends on people coming from impoverished backgrounds and doesn't conser other factors
• One limitation is difficulty testing the theory's predictions. 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 theres no way of knowing when offending behaviour is triggered. This means the theory does not have scientific credibility
• If the family supports offending activity, making it seem legitimate and reasonable, then this becomes a major influence on the childs value system. However, the fact that offending behaviour seems to run in the family could also be interpreted as supporting biological explanations. The solution may be that some offences are related to nurture and some nature (diathesis-stress)