DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THERAPY AO3

• Supporting evidence is provided by Osborn & West (1979) who found that, where there is a father with a criminal conviction, 40% of the sons had committed a crime by the age 18 compared to 13% of sons of non-criminal fathers. Such findings can of course be explained in terms of genetics as well.
• The findings from Osborn and West’s study supports the theory that frequency of association with intimate groups can lead to criminality. A strength of this is that we could put interventions in place to ensure that children of convicted criminals are exposed to more unfavourable attitudes towards crime so that they do not turn to crime themselves.
• However, it could be argued that Osborn & West study could be explained by inherited criminality which highlights biological factors to explain criminal behaviour rather than learning criminal behaviour. It is very difficult to distinguish between and nature and nurture with this study.
• It has been argued by Matsueda (1988) that there needed to be more research conducted to improve the theory’s ability to predict offending behaviour. He also stated that one of the main problems with the theory was that the concepts were vague. Making the theory easier to test would, he said, have implications for public policy.
• This is a weakness of the theory as is not currently considered one that can be used to effectively inform policy development to reduce crime. However, this does not mean that the theory is not valid but that it needs further development to have significant impact in policy making.
• One methodological is most of the research is based on correlation methods, therefore, does not tell us cause and effect. In terms of peer influences, it could be that criminals seek out other criminals and this would explain why criminals are likely to have peers who are criminals. This is a weakness as this theory cannot tell us if favourable attitudes towards crime come before or after association with others who have them, it cannot be considered an explanation for the cause of crime.
• One issue with social psychological explanations is that they can be seen as being reductionist. The differential association theory only focuses on the social interactions as a cause of criminal behaviour and the gender socialisation theory only focuses on differences in upbringing between males and females. Both explanations fail to consider the important role that other social factors such as poverty may play in causing criminality, as well as biological and cognitive factors too.
• social psychological explanations is that they are deterministic.

  The differential association theory can be viewed as being deterministic. It suggests that frequent association with those who have favourable attitudes will always result in criminal behaviour, when not everyone who does so will always become a criminal.