Differential association theory

• differential association theory


  Sutherland proposed this theory. explains offending behaviour in terms of learning theory, how interactions with others leas to formation of attitudes about crime as well as acquiring specific knowledge about how to commit crimes. suggesting people are socialised into a life of crime.
• socialisation


  the process that we learn our norms and values, we are socialised by from the people around us (we associate with) e.g. parents, friends.
• what is learned


  a child learns attitudes towards crimes, desirable or undesirable. potential of criminal, someone who has learned pro criminal attitudes from those around them. children will lean which type of crimes are acceptable within their community and also desirable (worth doing). e.g. may learn burglary=acceptable, violent=unacceptable. child may learn specific methods for committing crimes. some more techniques more complicated than the other.
• who is it learned from

  attitudes and behaviours are learned from intimate personal groups e.g. family, peer group. could be learned from wider neighbourhood. degree to which local community supports or opposes criminal involvement determines differences in crime rates from one area to another. individuals or social groups may not be criminals, but may still hold deviant attitudes or an acceptance of such attitudes.
• how is it learned

  Sutherland suggested that frequency, length and personal meaning of the social associations will determine degree of influence. mode of learning, direct and indirect operant conditioning. child may be directly reinforced for deviant behaviours through praise, or punishments for such behaviours by family/peers. role models provide opportunity to model behaviours, if successful in criminal activity, this would provide indirect (vicarious) reinforcement.
• Sutherland's nine key principles

  -criminal behaviour is learned rather than inherited

  -learned through associations with others

  -association is with intimate personal groups

  -what is learned are techniques and attitudes/motivation

  -learning is directional - either for or against crime

  -if number of favourable attitudes outweigh unfavourable, a person becomes an offender

  -learning experiences (differential association) vary in frequency and intensity of individual

  -criminal behaviour is learned through same processes as any other behaviour

  - general 'need' (e.g. for money) is not sufficient explanation for crime, not everyone with those needs turn to crime.
• strengths of differential association theory

  -changed people's views on origins of criminal behaviour (not blaming individuals). suggests crimes do not need to be explained in terms of personalty but in terms of social experiences. real world application as learning environments can be changes, genes cannot.

  -practical applications include, not putting first time offenders in same prison as experienced criminals who may reinforce pro-criminal attitudes and pass on techniques. also attempting to change opinions on criminality within social groups and providing an alternate reward.
• limitations of differential association theory

  -absence of biological factors, diathesis-stress model may offer a better account by combining social factors with vulnerability factors like genetic ones or early experiences e.g. maltreatment. so social approach on its own may be insufficient.

  -DA does not account for individual differences. not everyone who comes from crime-ridden backgrounds will become criminals. so this theory demonstrates environmental determinism.

  -DA is difficult to test. the amount of socialisation cannot be measured. so it lacks scientific credibility and internal validity.

  -evidence from Osborne found where fathers has a criminal conviction, 40% of sons did too by 18 compared to 13% of sons of non-criminal fathers, however it is difficult to separate socialisation from biology.

  -data collected is correlational, does not tell us cause and effect. in terms of peer influences, could be that offenders seek out other offender, explains why offenders are likely to have peers who are offenders.