Differential association theory Flashcards
Sutherland (1939) - name of theory
Differential association theory.
Sutherland (1939) - theory
He argued that if someone was socialised around people who held pro-crime attitudes as the norm and would then take on these same attitudes and and views.
The term “differential association” refers to the fact that people vary the frequency with which they socialize with various groups.
Differential association - crime
If you mix more with people who had positive views towards crime, the more likely you are to develop pro-criminal views.
What is learned
An individual will learn about which types of crime are considered acceptable.
Most people break some laws almost daily.
We can use differential association to explain these attitudes.
What is learned (example)
A person may see smoking cannabis as an acceptable behaviour if they socialise with people who smoke it.
However, someone who never encounters cannabis smokers or those who hold anti-drug views are unlikely to see it as acceptable.
What is learned (Sutherland)
Suggested the degree of influence is determined by the frequency, length and meaningfulness of the interactions.
Therefore, it’s easy to see how parents, family and peer groups have the biggest effect as they meet all three criteria.
Social learning theory - theorist
Bandura
Social learning theory - 4 elements
Status.
Likeability.
Age.
Gender.
Differential association - key principles
Criminal behaviour is learned.
Criminal behaviour is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication (association).
The association is with intimate personal groups.
The learning includes: techniques of committing the crime, the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalisations and attitudes.
The learning is directional - for or against.
The number of favourable attitudes outweighs unfavourable ones.
Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
Criminal behaviour is learned by the same processes as other behaviours.
“Need” is not an explanation as not everyone with these needs turns to crime.
Osborn and West (1979)
Found that 13% of sons with non-criminal fathers had criminal records, while 40% of sons of criminal fathers had records.
Farrington (2002)
Investigated criminal behaviour in families by looking at three generations of relatives, including parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins.
It was found that if one relative had been arrested, there was a high probability that another relative had also been arrested.
The most important relative was the father - if the father had been arrested, there was a high chance of sons being arrested too.
Methodological issues
The data collected is correlational, which doesn’t tell us what is cause and what is effect in terms of peer influences, it could be that criminals seek out other criminals and this would explain why criminals are likely to have peers who are criminals.
Methodological issues - critics
Argue that the theory is not testable.
The issue is about how one measures the effect of number and strength of associations on subsequent attitudes.
It is not clear what ratio of favourable to unfavourable influences would tip the balance.
Can’t account for all kinds of crimes
Social learning influences are confined to “smaller” crimes rather than violent offences.
Differential association is therefore only a partial account of offending behaviour.
However, this kind of “smaller” crime accounts for a bigger percentage of crimes committed than violent and impulsive offences.
Evaluation
A strength of this theory is that it doesn’t place the blame for crime inside the criminal.
Society needs to take part of the responsibility for criminal behaviour.
