7. psychological explanations: differential association theory Flashcards
what does the differential association theory suggest
an explanation for offending which proposes that through association and interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour.
what is the scientific basis of this theory
sutherland set himself the task of developing a set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending - ‘the conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present and they should be absent when crime is absent’.
his theory is designed to discriminate between individuals who become criminals and those who do not whatever their class or ethnic background.
what does this theory suggest about crime as a learned behaviour
offending behaviour may be acquired in the same way as any other behaviour through the processes of learning. this learning occurs most often through interactions with significant others that the child associates with such as the family and peer group.
criminality arises from two factors: learned attitudes towards crime and the learning of specific criminal acts.
what are pro criminal attitudes
when a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law - some of these values will be pro crime and some will be anti crime.
sutherland argues that if the number of pro criminal attitudes the person comes to acquire outweighs the number of anti criminal attitudes they will go on to offend.
the learning process is the same whether a person is learning criminality or conformity to the law.
what does the differential association theory suggest about pro criminal attitudes
it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit crime if we have knowledge of the frequency, intensity and duration of which they have been exposed to deviant and non deviant norms and values.
what does the theory suggest about learning criminal acts
in addition to being exposed to pro criminal attitudes the offender may also learn particular techniques for committing crime - might include how to break into a house through a locked window or how to disable a car stereo before stealing it.
as well as offering an account of how crime may breed amongst specific social groups and in communities - the theory can also account for why so many convicts released from prison go on to reoffend. it is reasonable to assume that whilst inside prison inmates will learn specific techniques of offending from other more experienced criminals that they may be eager to put into practice upon their release = this learning may occur through observational learning and imitation or direct tuition from criminal peers.
how does this theory have explanatory power
the theory has the ability to account for crime within all sectors of society - sutherland recognised that some types of crime (burglary) may be clustered within certain inner city and working class communities but it is also the case that some crimes are more prevalent amongst more affluent groups in society. sutherland was particularly interested in corporate crime and how this may be a feature of middle class social groups who share deviant norms and values.
how is the approach more desirable than other explanations of crime
sutherland was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological accounts of crime such as the atavistic theory as well as away from those that explained offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality.
differential association theory draws attention to the fact that dysfunctional social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for criminality than dysfunctional people = this approach is more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of crime instead of eugenics (the biological solution) or punishment (the morality solution).
how does scientific credibility limit the approach
differential association theory suffers from being difficult to test. for example it is hard to see how the number of pro criminal attitudes a person has or has been exposed to could be measured. similarly the theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro criminal values outnumber anti criminal ones.
however without being able to measure these it is difficult to know at what point the urge to offend is realised and the criminal career triggered = the theory does not provide a satisfactory solution to these issues undermining its scientific credibility.
what alternative explanations are there to this theory
sutherland suggested that the response of the family is crucial in determining whether the individual is likely to engage in offending. if the family is seen to support criminal activity making it seem legitimate and reasonable then this becomes a major influence on the child value system.
this is supported by the fact that offending behaviour often seems to run in families - evident where mednick suggested that children who had criminal adoptive parents and non criminal biological parents were more likely to go on to offend than children whose biological and adoptive parents were non criminal (14.7% compared to 13.5%) = illustrates the importance of family influence.
how does individual differences limit the approach
not everyone who is exposed to criminal influences goes on to commit crime - even though sutherland took great care to point out that crime should be considered on an individual case by case basis there is a danger within differential association theory of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished and crime ridden backgrounds as unavoidably criminal.
the theory tends to suggest that exposure to pro criminal values is sufficient to produce offending in those who are exposed and ignores the fact that people may choose not to offend despite such influences.
