Differential association theory-EVAL Flashcards
One STRENGTH of the DAT is that it has MOVED away from the BIO explanations of offending behaviour and gives a NEW perspective around learning.
Sutherland moved away from BIO accounts (e.g. Lombrosos atavistic) aswell as theories of offending being due to IMMORALITY. Instead DAT says DEVIANT social circumstances and ENVRIO may be to blame for offending insread.
Therefore this may be more BENEFICIAL as it can give more REALISTIC solutions to offending rather than BIO or MORALITY so we would try to CHANGE social circumstances to REDUCE offending instead.
HOWEVER, a criticism of DAT is that it may STEREOTYPE individuals who come from poor, crime-ridden backgrounds as UNAVOIDABLY offenders
This is an issue as it is ENVIRO deterministic and suggests that we have NO choice on whether we will offend due to our enviro.
This is HARD determinism and does NOT acknowledge any FREE-WILL and ignore that many people CHOOSE not to offend despite having these kind of influences. Also can’t explain offenders who DONT have these enviro but still commit crimes.
one STRENGTH of DAT is that it can account for offending within ALL sectors of society.
Sutherland recognised that some type of offences like BUGALRY may be clustered within WORKING class communities but some offences are clustered amongst more WEALTHY groups in society.
therefore this may be a feature of MIDDLE class social groups who share DEVIANT norms and values and is a strength as DAT can explain crimes at ALL social levels.
one ISSUE with DAT is that social interactions/influences are HARD to test and are NOT opperationalised making PREDICTIONS based on this theory very difficult.
E.g. it’s hard to see how the number of PRO-crime attitudes a person has or has been EXPOSED to can be measured. But the theory is based on the assumption that offending behaviour occurs when PRO-crime values OUTNUMBER anti-crime ones. Without being able to measure these we DONT know at what point the URGE to offend is realised and offender career TRIGGERED to begin.
Therefore as its HARD to test it means that this theory is LOW in scientific credibility and it LOWERS the scientific credibility of psych.
Nature/Nurture.
Sutherland suggests that the family is CRUCIAL in offending e.g. if they support offending activity and make it seem REASONABLE to their children then this will INFLUENCE the childs VALUE system and they will be MORE likely to offend. This supports the NURTURE side of debate and supports DAT.
HOWEVER this idea that offending runs in FAMILIES may be NATURE argument as it could be passed down through GENES or an INNATE neural ABNORMALITY passed down through genes that make them have a genetic PRE-DISPOSITION for offending.
Therefore it’s better to take a NN interaction as it’s LIKELY that BOTH are involved.
