Differential association theory

• Differential association theory

  • Is an explanation for offending which proposes that through interaction with others, individuals learn the value, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour.
  • E.g one might associate with people who have very negative attitudes towards crime while another person might be exposed to more positive attitudes.
• Who introduced differential association theory?

  Edwin Sunderland
• What type of theory is differential association theory?

  Social learning theory
• What does Edwin Sutherland suggest?

  • The theory states people learn attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour through association and interaction with different people.
  • His theory has been designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who do not regardless of social class or ethnic background.
• Who said this “The conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and they should be absent when crime is absent”

  Sutherland, 1924
• How does differential association theory suggests we mathematically predict how likely individuals will offend?

  • To predict how likely an individual is to commit an offence, we need to know the frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values.
• How does learning of a crime occur?

  Through interactions with who the child values the most and spends the most time with e.g family, peer group.
• How does differential association theory suggest learning occurs?

  • Learning attitudes
  • Learning techniques
• Learning attitudes

  • When a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to the values and attitudes towards the law.
  • Some values will be pro-crime, some will be anti-crime.
  • Sutherland argued if the number of pro-criminal attitudes outweigh the number of anti-criminal attitudes they will go onto offend.
• Learning techniques

  • In addition to being exposed to pro-crime attitudes, the would-be offender may also learn techniques for committing crimes.
  • This might include how to break into someone’s home through a locked window or how to disable a car stereo before stealing it.
• How does Sutherland’s theory account for why convicts reoffend?

  • Socialisation in prison
  • It is reasonable to assume whilst inside prison, inmates will learn specific techniques of offending from other more experienced offenders.
  • This learning may occur through observational learning, imitation or direct tuition from offending peers.
• How did the differential association theory cause of shift of focus?

  • At the time the theory was first published it changed the focus of offending explanations.
  • Sutherland was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological explanations like Lombroso’s atavistic theory as well as away from theories that explained offending as the product of individual weakness of immorality.
  • Differential association theory draws attention to deviant social circumstances and environments which may be more to blame for offending than deviant people.
  • SO is a more realistic solution to offending
• How does the theory account for all offending within society?

  • Sutherland recognised that some types of offences e.g burglary may be clustered in inner-city, working-class communities. It may also be the case that some offences are clustered amongst more affluent groups in society.
  • He also proposed white-collar crime (corporate offences) are a feature of middle-class social groups who share deviant norms and values.
  • This shows that it is not just lower classes who commit offences and differential association theory can explain all offences.
• Why is it difficult to test the predictions of differential association?

  • The problem is that many of the concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised.
  • For example it is hard to see how the number of pro-crimes attitudes a person has or has been exposed to can be measured. The theory is built of the assumptions that offending behaviour will occur when pro-crime values outweigh anti-crime values.
  • Differential association theory lacks scientific credibility.
• Family influence on offending

  • Sutherland suggested if the family is seen to support offending activity then this becomes a major influence on the child’s value system
  • Farmington et al found one of the key risk factors identified as leading criminality was family criminality.
  • However the fact offending behaviour seems to run in families could also be interpreted as supporting biological explanations.
  • So is suggests that it is difficult to assess whether criminality is due to nature or nurture.
• Farrington study

  • Cambridge study- Longitudinal study
  • Measured the development of offending and anti-social behaviour in 411 boys
  • Began in 1961, when boys were 8, they all lived in deprived, inner-city area of south London.
  • 41% were convicted of at least one offence between age 10 and 50
  • Average conviction career lasted from age 19-28
  • Most important childhood risk factors were family criminality, daring or risk-taking, low school attainment, poverty
  • 7% classed as a chronic offender