Crime: Differential Association (Social Explanation) Flashcards
Who came up with differential association?
Sutherland
What is the general theory?
People vary in the frequancy they associate with people who hold a good view of crime.
Criminals are socilised based on their social interactions
What points can be made when describing the theory?
What is learned
Who it’s learned from
How it’s learned
What is learned?
A child learns attitudes towards crimes with potential criminals learning that crime is desirable. They also learn if some crimes are more accceptable than others and methods on how to commit them
Who is it learned from?
Family, role models and peers
How much the local community supports criminal involvement
Social groups may not be criminal but may hold deviant attitudes
We may become deviant for social approval
How is it learned?
Direct and indirect operant conditioning
The frequancy, length and meaning of social interactions will decide their influance
Modelling the behaviour of others.
What evaluative points can be made?
Major contribution
Supporting evidence
Methodological issues
Can’t explain all types of crime
How has the theory provided a major contribution to our understanding of criminal behaviour?
Shift away from blaming the person
Real world implications as learning environments can be changed
Explains white collar crime
Which psychologists had supporting evidence?
Osborn and West
Akers
Mednick
What supporting evidence is provided by Osborn and West?
When the father was criminal, 40% of sons were also criminal
13% with non criminal fathers
What supporting evidence is provided by Mednick?
When neither biological or adopted parents had a criminal record, the criminal liklihood if the sons was 13%
If adopted parents were criminal this jumps to 15%
In Osborn and West’s study, what percentage of sons were criminal if the dad was also criminal?
40%
What supporting evidence is provided by Akers?
Surveyed 2500 teenages and found peers were an important factor and accouned for 68% variance in weed use and 55% in underage drinking
What variance of underage drinking was due to peer pressure in Aker’s study?
55%
What are the methodological issues with the study?
Correlational so no cause and effect
Not testable
Unclear when too many associations
Self-report so could lie
