Differential association

• Sutherland’s (1924) Differential Association Theory suggests that crime is a learned behaviour, and can be explained using the principles of social learning theory where the ‘role models’ are criminal peers or a ‘criminal university’ (in the form of a prison). The scientific emphasis of this theory suggests that it is possible to accurately predict the likelihood that an individual will become criminal, based on their exposure to pro-criminal and anti-criminal attitudes.
• Observers / individuals learn general attitudes towards crime as well as the skills and knowledge required to carry out specific crimes. If the frequency and intensity of an individual’s exposure to pro-criminal attitudes is greater than their exposure to anti-criminal attitudes (using the same mathematical terms of frequency and intensity), then it is highly likely that the individual will become criminal.
• Behaviours are reinforced by the expectations of the people we associate with as they provide approval / disapproval (eg - criminals will approve of criminal behaviour).
• Specific offending techniques and behaviour are passed down to the next generation or within peer groups (eg - learning how to pick a lock or committing tax fraud).
• Strengths of the differential association theory:

  • Offers environmental explanations - This means that the extreme policies of eugenics (the solution for criminality from a biological perspective) are rightfully not an option as a method for dealing with offending behaviour. Therefore, this theory provides a fair and realistic explanation of crime which does not hold the individual entirely accountable.
• Strengths of the differential association theory:

  • Wider reach - Whilst some crimes (eg - burglary) are clustered in inner-city working class communities, other crimes are clustered in more affluent groups. Sutherland was particularly interested in so called ‘white-collar’ or corporate offences and how this may be a feature of middle class groups who share deviant norms. This shows that it is not just the ‘lower’ classes who commit offences and that differential association can be used to explain all offences.
• Limitations of the differential association theory:

  • Difficult to measure objectively and reliably - Any conclusions or predictions drawn about the likelihood that an individual will become criminal is likely to be lacking in validity. Even if such a measure was created, it would likely be a self-report measure which does not avoid the problems of retrospective research and memory decay.
• Limitations of the differential association theory:

  • Limited explanation - Incorrect to assume that simply because an individual has been exposed to more pro criminal attitudes compared to anti-criminal attitudes that they will become criminal. Such a determinist approach may lead to increased crime itself through the realisation of self-fulfilling prophecies or, in addition, may lead to ‘scientific justification’ for discrimination and justification.
• Limitations of the differential association theory:

  • Generalisability - Does not explain why younger males are more likely to commit crime compared to older males, even though the older males would have had more exposure. As well as this, it does not explain why males are more likely to commit crimes as compared to females, when females also socialise within criminal families.