Explanation for offending that suggests individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motivation for criminal behaviour through interaction with others
If individual experiences repeated attitudes that are positively associated with crime, rather than negatively (in terms of punishment), then they are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour
Theory that the likelihood of an individual committing crime can be mathematically predicted based on the frequency, intensity and duration of their exposure to deviant/criminal attitudes
Differential Association Theory - A theory developed by Edwin Sutherland which suggests that criminal behaviour is learned through interaction with others.
Individual differences
This theory does not account for individual differences. Some people are much more susceptible (easily led) to the influence of others. Therefore the theory neglects to consider the role of temperament and personality.
Criminality is complex, explanations that reduce offending behaviour to an environmental level may be inappropriate and overly simplistic. There is evidence for learnt criminal behaviours, however, we cannot rule out the role of biology. For example, the biological approach would argue abnormalities in certain genes cause aggressive behaviour and ultimately criminal behaviour. Even within Bandura's research there is evidence for a biological cause for criminal behaviour, males were found to replicate aggressive behaviour more often than females.
Differential theory runs into problems when required to explain criminal behaviour on an individual level. For example, it is not clear why some people raised in persistent contact with criminal influences do not go on to commit offences. Therefore this theory is not a full explanation of offending behaviour.
Differential association theory does not adequately explain the developmental pattern of offending. Criminal behaviour in adolescence is common, 40% of offences are committed by people under the age of 21. However, offending declines rapidly after adolescence: many youths do not remain offenders in adulthood. It is not clear how differential association theory could explain this pattern - the biological approach does (neural explanations).