Differential association theory

Question 1

Outline differential association theory.

Answer 1

Sutherland (1947)
 People are more likely to offend if they are socialised by associations who have positive values and motives towards crime, no matter what their class or ethnic background.
 Offending is a learned behaviour
 If a person has more criminal associations (e.g. peers and family members), they are more likely to commit crime themselves.
 Predictions can be made as to how likely it is an individual goes on to offend themselves by analysing frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant/non deviant norms and values:
1. Learning attitudes - If a person is socialised by more pro-crime attitudes than anti-crime attitudes, they are more likely to offend.
2. Learning techniques - A person learns specific techniques to commit offending

Socialisation in prison: prison is a ‘university of crime’ -Learning of specific techniques of offending through observational learning, imitation and/or direct tuition e.g. techniques required to commit the crime, such as the delicate touch of a pickpocket. This leads to re-offending when released from prison

Question 2

Give an example of a study linked to differential association theory.

Answer 2

Farrington et al (2006) the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (longitudinal survey of 411 males from age 8, living in a deprived area of South London) 41% were convicted of at least one offence between 10-50 years old.
They found the risk factors which had most impact on whether a child would go on to offend were:
 Family criminality (intergenerational criminality)
 Loss of mother
 Poor parenting
 Poverty
 Lower academic achievement

Question 3

Evaluate.

Answer 3

+Can explain different types of offending: Sutherland also explained ‘white collar crime’ e.g. fraud amongst middle classes who share the same deviant norms and values.

-Difficulty in testing: Sutherland could not test how many pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes a person has been exposed to.
Research support: Osborne & West found where the father had a criminal conviction, 40% of the sons acquired one by the age of 18. When the father had no criminal conviction, only 13% of sons had one by the age of 18.

• however may be genetic explanation
• Stereotyping: Sutherland’s theory suggests those from pro-crime backgrounds are more likely to commit crime, which could lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy.