Differential association theory

• What is the differential association theory?

  • In 1939 Sutherland proposed that individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for offending behaviour through association and interaction with different people
  • People who associate with people who have positive attitudes to crime are socialised or conditioned into committing it
• What is Sutherland's scientific basis for offending behaviour?

  • To predict future offending behaviour, we need to know how long and how frequently individuals interact with deviant and non-deviant norms and values
  • Pro-criminal attitudes > anti-criminal attitudes = more likely to commit crime
• How is offending a learned behaviour?

  • Learning attitudes towards offending - being socialised into a group means they will be exposed to their attitudes towards the law - if someone is exposed to more pro-criminal attitudes than anti-criminal attitudes they are more likely to offend
  • Learning techniques towards offending - learning what is required to commit crimes e.g. how to break into someone's house through a locked window
  • These may be learned from families/peers through operant conditioning, role models, vicarious reinforcement, etc.
• How does the DA theory account for reoffending rates?


  • Whilst inside, prison inmates may learn specific techniques of offending from other criminals and put this into practice upon their release
  • Once released they may be exposed to the same community of pro-criminal attitudes that reinforces their will to commit crime again
• What is one strength of the differential association theory?

  • Shift of focus: Sutherland moved emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending like Lombroso's atavistic theory as well as theories thinking offenders were weak or immoral - it drew attention to deviant social circumstances being more to blame for offending than deviant people
  • More desirable approach as it offers a more realistic solution instead of eugenics or punishment
• What is another strength of the differential association theory?

  • Research support: Farrington et al. (2006) conducted a longitudinal survey on 411 boys from a deprived area in South London starting when they were 9 - found that 41% were convicted at least once between the ages of 10-50
  • Also found that their childhood risk factors included family criminality and poor parenting
  • Supports idea that children exposed to pro-criminal attitudes are likely to offend later in life
• What is a limitation of the differential association theory?


  • Difficulty testing: many concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised
  • It is difficult to see how the number of pro-criminal attitudes that someone is or has been exposed to can be measured
  • Without being able to measure these we cannot know at what point the urge to offend is realised, showing the theory has low scientific credibility
• What is another limitation of the differential association theory?


  • Environmentally determinist: Sutherland's explanation is based on nurture, ignoring evidence supporting the biological basis for offending behaviour thus making it limited
  • Idea that offending behaviour often seems to run in families could even be interpreted as supporting biological theories e.g. a particular gene combination or innate neural abnormality could be inherited from family members