8 - Differential Association Theory Flashcards
Describe the differential association theory
Through interaction with others (such as family, peer groups etc.), individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour.
When a person is socialised into a social group they will be exposed to the group’s norms and values towards the law. Some groups will be pro-crime, some will be anti- crime.
If the number of pro-criminal attitudes out-weigh the number of anti-criminal attitudes then they will become an offender.
The learning process is the same whether the person is learning criminality or conformity to the law.
How can learning crime / law occur?
Imitation, vicarious reinforcement, direct reinforcement or direct tuition from criminal peers.
How can we predict if someone will commit a crime?
Differential association suggests that it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that someone will commit crime, if we have knowledge of the frequency, intensity and duration of which they have been exposed to criminal and non-criminal norms and values.
Apart from pro-criminal attitudes what else may an offender learn?
Particular techniques for committing crime e.g. how to pick locks, hot wire a car etc.
This theory explains how crime can spread among specific social groups and communities.
Many convicts released from prison go on to reoffend - whilst in prison inmates will learn specific offending from more experienced criminals that they use once released.
What are the advantages to Sutherlands theory?
Accounts for crime in all sectors of society. Recognised some types of crime, such as burglary, may be clustered within inner-city, working class communities, it is also the case that some crimes are most prevalent among affluent groups. White-collar (sometimes referred to as corporate crime) is a feature of middle-class social groups. Sutherland was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological explanations of crime (i.e. Lombroso) and those explanations which saw offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality. Draws attention to the role of dysfunctional social circumstances and environments in criminality. More desirable and realistic solution to offending behaviour than the biological solution (eugenics) or the morality solution (punishment).
Longitudinal study of offending and anti-social behaviour in 411 males. Started when the males were aged 8, they were all living in a working class, deprived, inner-city area of South London. The study describes their criminal careers up to the age of 50, looking at official convictions and self-reported offending. 41% were convicted of at least one crime. One of the most important risk factors for offending behaviour was family criminality. The participants had learnt pro-criminal values in childhood.
What are the disadvantages to this theory?
Difficult to test scientifically. How can the pro-crime attitudes a person has been exposed to be measured? Built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-criminal values outnumber anti-criminal ones. However, without being able to measure these values, it is difficult to know at what point the urge to offend will trigger a criminal career.
Not everyone who is exposed to criminal influences goes on to commit crime. There is a danger that this theory could stereotype individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably criminal’. The theory ignores the fact that people might choose not to offend despite criminal influences, in other words it ignore people’s free will.
