Differential Association Theory

Question 1

What does the DAT propose?

Answer 1

Differential association theory, presented by SUTHERLAND, proposes that individuals learn the value, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through association and interaction with different people.

Offending behaviour is acquired in the same way as any other behaviour, through the processes of learning. Learning occurs most often through interactions with significant others who the child values most and spends most time with, I.e., family and friends. Differential association should be able to mathematically predict how likely it is someone will commit an offence based on the frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant norms and values.

Question 2

How does offending arise

Answer 2

1. Learned attitudes towards offending – when a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law. 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.
2. Learning of specific offending acts/techniques - the offender may also learn particular techniques for committing offences, e.g. how to break into someone’s house.

Question 3

How does prison relate to this theory

Answer 3

As well as offering an account of how offending may ‘breed’ amongst specific social groups and in communities, Sutherland’s 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 experiences offenders that they may put into practice upon their release. This may occur through observational learning and imitation or direct tuition from offending peers.

Question 4

Evaluation

Answer 4

APPLICATIONS TO REAL WORLD
P - one strength of differential association theory is that it changed the focus of offending explanations.
E - Sutherland was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending, such as Lombroso’s atavistic theory, as well as away from theories that explained offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality. Differential association theory draws attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for offending than deviant people.
E - this is a strength as this approach is more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of offending instead of eugenics (the biological solution) or punishment (the morality solution, e.g. prison)

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS/SOCIAL SENSITIVITY
P - One limitation of the differential association theory is that it is an example of socially sensitive research.
E - Sutherland’s theory runs the risk of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably offenders’ - even though Sutherland took great care to point out that offending should be considered on an individual case-by-case basis. However, the theory tends to suggest that exposure to pro-crime values is sufficient to produce offending in those who are exposed to it.
E - this is a limitation as it ignores the fact that people may choose not to offend despite such influences, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend.

DIFFICULTY TESTING CONCEPTS AS CANNOT BE OPERATIONALISED
P - One limitation is it is difficult to test the predictions of differential association.
E - Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be predicted and this means that the predictions must be testable. The problem is that many of the concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised. For example, it is hard to see how the number of pro-crimes 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-crime values outnumber anti-crime ones. Without being able to measure these, we cannot know at what point the urge to offend is realised and the offending career triggered.
E - this means the theory does not have scientific credibility.