Differential association

• Social approach

  Suggests that the situations we find ourselves in determine our behaviour
• differential association theory

  proposed by sunderland

  • we learn values, attitudes and motives for criminal behaviour through association and interaction
• differential association 


  we spend different amounts of time with people who have different views on crime
• assumptions of the differential association theory

  • offending behaviour is acquired through the processes of learning
  • offending is more likely to occur where social groups value criminal behaviour
• two factors criminality arises from (according to differential association theory)

  • learning attitudes toward crime
  • learning criminal techniques
• Osborn & West (1979)

  looked at criminality in fathers and sons

  • 40% of sons with a father with a criminal record also had one by the age of 18
  • 13% of sons with a father without a criminal record had one by the age of 18

  suggests that exposure to criminality in the family increases the likelihood of the child becoming a criminal
• Farrington et al (2006)

  longitudinal study following 411 boys, started in 1961 when they were 8

  • 41% had been convicted of at least one offence before the age of 50
  • 7% had been responsible for half of all the crimes
• Akers et al (1979)

  Surveyed 2500 male and female adolescents about underage drinking and drug taking

  • the most important influence was found to be the attitudes of their peer group
• positive evaluation of differential association theory

  • supporting evidence e.g. Farrington et al
  • Challenged existing views from blaming individual factors to blaming social experiences
• negative evaluations of differential association theory

  • challenging existing views could lead to labelling and stereotyping
  • Limited explanations - less able to explain child abuse/serial murders and why criminality decreases with age
  • Data is correlational - peer group may not cause someone to offend