differential association theory

• PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR: DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY

  -Sutherland put forward his theory of differential association to explain offending behaviour as part of his attempt to establish a set of scientific principles regarding criminal behaviours

  -He claims that the likelihood of engaging in offending behaviour is dependent on the norms and values of an individuals social group

  -Some of these can be classified as 'pro-criminal', while some can br considered 'anti-criminal'.

  Theory suggests that if the number of attitudes in the former category outweighs those in the latter, then an individual will develop and foster the values of a criminal

  According to Sutherland, this is one of the two prerequisites that lead to offending behaviour

  -

  the second of these factor sis the criminal themselves.

  In this same group, 'pro-criminal' attitudes are in the majority and crime is committed, an individual may pick up various skills in relation to committing crimes

  For example, they could learn from others through imitation or they could acquire knowledge of these same acts via direct tuition form others

  According to Sutherland, if an individual adopts ideologies form the group and learns the correct skills to act on these views. This increases the likelihood of offending behaviour.
• Outline the psychodynamic explanation of offending behaviour (BOWLBY)

  Another psychodynamic explanation offending behaviour comes form John Bowlby

  Believed that maternal deprivation leads to affection less psychopathy, which in turn leads to criminality in adulthood.

  In this hypothesis, both juvenile and adult criminality is said to originate from inadequate bonds with the mother in childhood
• Strength- differential association theory- shift of focus

  One strength of differential association theory is, at the time, it was published, it changed the focus of offending explanations

  -sutherland was successful in moving the focus from early biological accounts of offending e.g. lombroso's atavistic theory .

  -Differential association theory draws attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environments may be more to b lame for offending than deviant people

  -This approach is more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of offending than eugenics or punishment
• Counterargument- differential association theory-

  -Differential associations runs the risk of stereotyping individuals who come form impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as 'unavoidable offenders' even though Sutherland too great care to point out that offending should be considered on a. individual case-by-case basis

  -HOWEVER the theory tends to suggest that exposure to pro-crime value sis sufficient to produce offending in those who are exposed to it

  -THIS IGNORES THE FACT THAT PEOPLE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO OFFEND DESPITE SUCH INFLUENCES- as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend
• Strength- Differntial association theory- WIDE REACH

  Another strength is that the theory can account for offending within all sectors of society

  -Whilst Sutherland recognised that some type of offences such as burglary may be clustered within certain inner city, working class communities..

  It is also the case that some offences are clustered amongst more affluent groups -Sutherland was especially interested in white collar crimes

  this shows that it is not just the lower classes who commit offences and that the principles of differential association can be used to explain all offences
• Limitation of differential association theory- difficulty testing

  -One limitation is it is difficult to test the predictions of differential association.

  -sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be predicted- this means that predictions must be testable

  -Problem is that many of the concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised

  For example it is hard to see how the pro-crime attitude a person has or been exposed to .

  This means the theory does not have scientific credibility
• AO3-differential association theory- nurture or nature

  -Sutherland suggests that the response of the family is crucial in determining whether an individual is likely to engage in offending. if the family is seen to support 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 often seems to run in families could also be. interpreted as supporting other explanations such as biological theories. particular combination of genes predisposes the person to commit crime- may be inherited from family

  
  

  The solution may be that the these explanations differ on the type of crime

  E.G. impulsive crimes involving aggression and violence may stem form. inherited predisposition that affects impulse control

  -meanwhile, offences such as drug taking or drug dealing may sarise through shared values within a social group