differential association theory

• Sutherland's scientific principles


  - Sutherland (1924) developed a set of scientific principles that could explain all types offending

  - individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through interaction with others

  - his theory ignores the effects of class or ethnic background
• offending is learned through interactions with significant others

  - behaviour is acquired through the process of learning

  - learning occurs through interactions with significant others who the child values most and spends most time with, such as family and peer group

  offending arises from two factors:

  • learned attitudes towards offending

  • learning of specific offending acts
• learning attitudes


  when a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to certain values and attitudes

  - this includes values and attitudes toward the law - some of these will pro-crime, some will be anti-crime

  - Sutherland argues that if the number of pro-crime attitudes the person come to acquire outweighs the number of anti-crime attitudes, they will go on to offend
• learning techniques


  - in addition to being exposed to pro-crime attitudes, the would-be offender may also learn particular techniques for committing offences
• mathematical prediction about committing offences

  - it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit offences

  - this prediction is based on our knowledge of the frequency, intensity and duration of an individual's exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms values
• reoffending may be due to socialisation in prison


  - Sutherland's theory can account for why so many prisoners released from prison go on to reoffend

  - it is reasonable to assume that whilst inside prison inmates will be exposed to pro-crime attitudes and also learn specific techniques of offending from more experienced offenders which they can put into practice upon their release
• strength


  P - shift of focus

  E - Sutherland moved emphasis away from early biological explanations and from theories of offending as the product of individual weakness or immorality

  E - differential association theory draws attention to deviant social circumstances and environments as being more to blame for offending than deviant people

  L - this approach offers a more realistic solution to offending instead of eugenics (the biological solution) or punishment (the morality solution)

  COUNTERPOINT

  - the theory risks stereotyping people from impoverished , crime-ridden backgrounds

  - this ignores that people may choose not to offend despite such influences, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend
• strength


  P - wide research

  E - whilst some crimes e.g. burglary are clustered in inner-city working-class communities, other crimes are clustered in more affluent groups

  E - 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

  L - shows that it is not just the 'lower' classes who commit offences and that differential association can be used to explain all offences
• limitation


  P - difficulty testing the theory's predictions

  E - Sutherland promised a scientific and mathematical framework for predicting offending behaviour, but the concepts can't be operationalised

  E - it is unclear how we can measure the numbers of pro- or anti-crime attitudes a person is exposed to - so how can we know at what point offending would be triggered?

  L - means the theory doesn't have scientific credibility