Differential association theory

• • Differential association theory: An explanation for offending which proposes that, through interactions with others, individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour
• • Sutherland set himself the task of developing a set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending
  • 'the conditions that cause crime should be present when crime is present, and absent when crime is absent'
  • His theory was designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who don't, whatever their social class or ethnic background
• Offending as learned behaviour

  • This learning occurs through interactions with significant others who the child values most and spends most time with, such as family or friend group
  • Differential association suggests that it should be mathematically possible to predict how likely it is an individual will commit an offence,
  • To do this we need to know the frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values
  • Offending arises from 2 factors
  • Learned attitudes towards offending
  • Learning of specific offending acts/techniques
• Learning attitudes

  • When a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law
  • Some of these attitudes will be pro-crime, some anti-crime
  • Sutherland says if the number of pro-criminal attitudes outweighs the number of anti-criminal attitudes the person acquires, they will go on to offend
• Learning techniques

  • In addition to being exposed to pro-crime attitudes, the would be offender may also learn particular techniques for committing crime
  • These might include how to break into someone's locked window, how to steal a car etc.
• Socialisation in prison

  • Sutherlands theory can also explain why so many convicts released from prison reoffend
  • Whilst in prison inmates will learn specific techniques of offending from each other or from more experienced offenders, they can then put this into practice upon release
  • This learning may occur through observational learning and imitation, or direct tuition from peers
• A03: changed shift of focus of offending explanations

  • Sutherland was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending , such as Lombroso's atavistic theory
  • Differential association theory draws attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environment may be to blame for offending
  • This approach is more desirable as it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of offending instead of eugenics (biological)
• CC: Differential association does run the risk of stereotyping people who come from crime-ridden backgrounds

  • Even though Sutherland took great care to consider offending in an individual case-by-case basis, the theory suggests that exposure to pro-crime values is sufficient to produce offending behaviour
  • This therefore ignores people who choose not to offend despite being exposed to it, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend.
• A03: theory can account for all sectors of offending

  • Whilst Sutherland recognised some types of offence, such as burglary, may be clustered to certain inner-city working-class areas, it is also the case that some offences cluster amongst more affluent groups
  • Sutherland was particularly interested in 'white-collar' crime , and how this is a feature if middle class social groups who share the same deviant norms and values
  • This shows it is not just 'lower' classes that commit crimes, and that differential association theory can be used to explain all offences
• A03: (-) it is difficult to test the predictions of differential association theory

  • Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending can be predicted, prediction must be testable
  • Problem is many of the concepts are not testable- not operationalised.
  • For example it is hard to see how many pro-crime attitudes a person has can be measured, or how much a person has been exposed to pro-crime attitudes
  • Without being able to measure these how can we know if the number of pro-crime values outnumbers the anti-crime values
  • no scientific credibility