Criminal Behaviour (Differential Association Theory) Flashcards
What is this theory?
Our beliefs and attitudes can be heavily influenced by the people with which they socialise, and the circles in which we run
Criminal behaviour and attitudes are seen as being products of socialisation
Inherit the views, behaviour and attitude of people around us
First proposed by Sutherland (1939) who argued instead that criminal behaviour came from how a person was socialised
If someone was socialised around people who hed pro-criminal attitudes, they would accept these views as the norm and would take on these same views
“Differential Association” refers to the fact that people vary the frequency with which they socialise with various groups
From the moment an individual is born they are being conditioning to the norms of society
Learn gender roles
Interaction and observations are the same methods of communication through which criminals learn their deviance
Criminal behaviour is more prevalent in individuals who associate and interact with people who exhibit criminal mindset
Primarily influenced by family, peer group and intimate relationships
A person becomes a criminal when there is an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law
Person is more inclined to act defiantly
Individual will learn about which types of crime are considered to be acceptable
Not a universal agreement on what the crime is, and how serious breaking certain laws is
Criminals may learn to minimise and learn patterns of thinking that do not reflect reality
Hostile Attribution Bias / Minisation
Sutherland suggested that degree of influence is determined by the frequency, length and meaningfulness of the interactions
Greatest influence are those seen more often, which they spend the most time with and where the interaction is significant
Learning may also take place through the usual methods of operant conditioning and social learning from role models
Evaluation
Osborn and West (1979) found that 13% of sons with non-criminal fathers had criminal records while 20% of sons with criminal fathers had records
Akers et al (1979) surveyed 2500 inmates in US to investigate drinking and drug behaviour was from peers and that differential association, differential reinforcement and limitation combined to account for 68% of variance in marjuana use
Farrington (2002) concentration of criminal behaviour in families looking at three generations of relatives, if one had been arrested, there was a high probability that another has been arrested - Most important relative was the father
DA is an important theory when we look at the history of criminology
Majority of theories that came before sought a biological cause for crime
Rather than particular minority groups being inheritability criminal, it was a case of the circumstances in which someone was socialised that causes behaviour
Interventions can be put into place
Does not place the blame for crime inside the criminal
Society needs to take part of the responsibility
Does not take into account biological factors
Raine (1993) reviewed literature comparing the delinquent behaviour of twins, average concordance rate was higher for MZ twins (52%)
Ishikawa and Raine (2002) found a concordance rate for criminality of 44% of MZ twins
Very hard to test
Aimed to be able to make mathematical model where an individual’s likelihood of becoming a criminal could be calculated from the variables measured
These variables are notoriously hard to quantify
Only when criminal behaviour has already taken place that we can identify the factors in an individual’s socialisation
Theory is not used to explain crime in those of a low socio-economic status
Interested in the factors that can explain low collar crime (fraud)
Can be generalised to most types of crime
Social circles can hold pro-crime or anti crime views
Social learning influences are probably confined to smaller crimes rather than violent and impulsive offenses
DA is only a partial account of offending behaviour
Cannot explain why most offences are committed by younger people
Newburn (2002) found that 40% of offences are committed by people under 21
Sutherland makes the false assumption that associating and interacting with criminals was enough to cause criminal behaviour
Not everyone who grows up surrounded with criminals will necessarily become one, not all people who commit crime have been socialised in a criminal environment
Issues with free will - determined by socialisation
If crime is learnt from socialisation with criminals, then where did criminal behaviour originally come from
