Differential Association Theory for Offending

• Sutherland’s (1939) proposed the differential association theory.
• The theory of differential association is a social explanation for crime.
• Differential association theory assumes that criminal behaviour is learned through interaction with others.
• Differential association suggests that criminal behaviour allows individuals to learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives from other people.
• The differential association theory is based on principles from the learning theory which suggests that criminal behaviour is learned through association or interaction with others.
• The principal part of the learning of criminal behaviour occurs within intimate personal groups.
• The process of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning (e.g. classical conditioning, operant conditioning, social learning theory).
• Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration and intensity.
• Criminal behaviour is often learned from other people around the individual that are also committing crime.
• Offending behaviour arises from 2 factors; learned attitudes towards offending, and the learning of specific offending techniques.
• Learned attitudes towards offending can be positive or negative.
• Positive attitudes towards offending include the belief that it will bring rewards such as money, status, power, excitement etc.
• Negative attitudes towards offending include the belief that it brings punishment such as imprisonment, fines, loss of job etc.
• Learning attitudes stems from social interactions where individuals are exposed to the values and attitudes of the group. If these beliefs are negative or anti-social, offenders are more likely to learn and conform to these norms.
• Learning techniques in criminal behaviour occur when individuals are exposed to pro-crime attitudes and are shown particular techniques for committing offences.
• Socialisation in prison can encourage offenders to adopt learned criminal techniques, which may help them commit more crime on the outside.
• Many criminals, despite time in prison will go on to reoffend and it is reasonable to assume that whilst inside prison they learn specific techniques to aid offending from other people.
• The differential association theory of offending is supported by the Cambridge Study in delinquency development by Farrington et al (2006).
• Farrington et al (2006) conducted a longitudinal study using 411 boys from the East End of London. Results showed at 41% had criminal convictions between the ages of 10 and 50 years, and 91% of those who started committing crimes between 10 and 13 years were reconvicted at least once.
• Farrington et al (2006) identified key risks for criminality such as poor parenting, poverty, family criminality and low school achievement.
• Alarid et al (2000) found that differential association could explain convicts offending as a product of their social associations.
• Osborne & West (1982) found that 40% of the sons of convicted criminals also had convictions by the age of 18, whereas only 13% of sons of non-criminal fathers had a conviction.
• Walmsley et al (1992) found that 1/3 of the prison population in the UK also had relatives in prison too. 
• Differential association theory can explain all types of offending not just violent crime.
• The theory of differential association has been shown to have some validity, as on the surface it helps explain anti-social behaviour such as gang related crime, where gang members learn from each other.
• Sutherland (1939) was fundamental in the social explanation of crime as his theory moved emphasis away from biological accounts of offending.
• Sutherland’s (1939) differential association theory accounts for offending within all sectors of society, from the working class to the middle class.
• The differential association theory supports the nurture debate, suggesting offending behaviour is caused by environmental factors.
• Social explanations of crime are very deterministic, focusing on factors in the environment which ignores any influence from free will.
• Differential association does not explain crimes of passion or impulsive, opportunistic crime.
• The social explanation of crime fails to explain individual differences such as morality or thinking styles.
• Sutherland’s (1939) differential association theory lacks scientific credibility as many of the concepts he describes are not testable because they cannot be operationalised.
• Differential association runs the risk of stereotyping individuals who come from less affluent backgrounds or are exposed to more crime in their community.
• The differential association theory does not explain why some people who are exposed to criminality do not go on to become criminals themselves. 
• The differential association theory does not account for genetic factors which may play a part in criminal behaviour.