Differential association theory Flashcards
Define DAT:
Through interactions of others, individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques + motives for criminal behaviour.
Who came up with the DAT explanatation for crime?
Sunderland (1939)
Social learning explanation for crime
Deviated from biological theories.
Argued criminals socialised into life of crime irregardless of class.
Different people = different values + norms
Waht was Sunderland’s scientific principle?
Pro-criminal attitudes > anti-criminal attitudes = crime
Describe offending as a learning behaviour:
Learning techniques: learning particular skillsfor committing offences (opening lock)
Learning attitudes: Some socialised into group with more pro-crime values others with conformity to law.
Who is offending learnt from?
Families
Peer groups
Neighbourhood communities
Degree in which local community supports/opposes crime explains difference in crime rates from 1 area to another.
Do not need to be criminal themselves to uphold pro-criminal attitudes
How is offending learnt?
Operant conditioning
–> praised for deviant behaviours + attitudes
SLT + role models
Vicarious reinforcement
How does DAT explain reoffending rates?
Relocated to areas of high deprivation –> indoctrination with same pro-criminal attitudes.
Evaluation of DAT
Shift of focus
Changed focus of offending explanations.
Successful in moving remphasis away from early biological accounts of offending –> atavistic theory + offending due to immorality
Draws attention to deviant social circumstances + environment = blame
More desirable = more realistic solution instead of eugenics + punishment
COUNTERPOINT:
Risk of stereotyping people from improvrished + crime-ridden areas –> ‘unavoidable offenders’
Sunderland argued = case-by-case basis
Theory tends to suggest exposure to pro crime values sufficient ti produce offending in those who are exposed
Ignores fact people may choose not to offend despite influences.
Evaluation of DAT
Wide reach
Account for offending in all sectors of society.
Particularly interested in ‘white-collar crimes’ –> among more affluent groups
–> how these crimes present in middle-class social groups who share deviant norms + values
Shows not just ‘lower class’ committ offences + principles of differential association used to explain all offences
Evaluation of DAT:
Difficulty testing
Difficult to test predictions of DAT
Aimed for scientific, mathematical framework –> predictions = testable
However, predictions cannot be operationalised
Hard to see number of pro-crime attitudes
Built on assumption pro-crime values outweigh anti crime.
–> cannot measure .: not know point offending career triggered
No scientific credibility
Evaluation of DAT
Nurture vs Nature?
Sunderland = response of familt crucial in determinig whether individual likley to engage in offending.
Family supports offending activity (legitimises + reasons behaviour) –> major influence on value system.
‘run in families’ –> support biological theory
Combination of genes/ innate neural abnormality = predispose person to offend -> inherited.
Research support:
Farrington et al (2006)
CSDD study = prospective longitudinal survey of development of offending + antisocial behaviour in 411 boys.
Start = aged 8 living in deprived South London
41% convicted of at least 1 offence age 10-50
Average conviction career lasted 19-28 with 5 offences
Childhood risk factor = family criminality + low school attainment + poverty
7% = chronic offenders (accounted for half of all officially recorded offences in study)
