Forensics - Differential Association Theory Flashcards
What is differential association theory?
An explanation for offending which proposes that, through interaction with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behaviour.
What is the scientific basis of differential association theory?
Sutherland believed it was possible to develop a scientific principle explaining all offending. His theory set out to predict how a person’s exposure to pro-criminal attitudes would influence their likelihood of offending. He argued that crime should be explained through social experiences, rather than biological or environmental factors.
What is meant by ‘crime as a learned behaviour’?
Offending is learned like any other behaviour through the process of learning. This includes learning attitudes towards crime and techniques for committing it. The theory focuses on two factors: learned attitudes towards crime and the learning of specific criminal acts.
What is meant by pro-criminal attitudes in differential association theory?
When a person is socialised into a group that endorses pro-criminal attitudes, they are more likely to offend. If the number of pro-criminal attitudes exceeds anti-criminal attitudes, offending becomes more likely. Sutherland emphasised the frequency, intensity, and duration of exposure to these attitudes.
How is learning criminal acts explained in differential association theory?
Learning involves techniques for committing crime, such as breaking into a car. This allows offenders to learn how to carry out specific criminal activities. It also explains why convicts reoffend, as prison acts as a place to learn criminal skills from other offenders.
What is one evaluation point highlighting the strengths of differential association theory?
Point: Differential association theory has strong explanatory power.
Evidence: It explains crimes that occur across all sectors of society. Sutherland highlighted ‘white-collar crime,’ which is often committed by middle-class individuals in corporate contexts. He also described how deviant norms and values influence these crimes.
Explanation: This shows the theory’s versatility in explaining a broad range of criminal behaviours, from burglary in working-class communities to fraud in corporate settings.
Link: The wide applicability of this theory strengthens its credibility in understanding criminal behaviour.
What is one evaluation point about the shift of focus achieved by differential association theory?
Point: The theory moves the focus away from early biological explanations of crime.
Evidence: Sutherland argued that dysfunctional social circumstances and environments, rather than individual immorality or biological factors, lead to offending.
Explanation: This approach is more realistic, offering a solution to crime based on changing social conditions rather than moral failings or biological determinism.
Link: This shift in focus makes the theory a progressive step in criminological explanations.
What is one evaluation point about the difficulty of testing differential association theory?
Point: Testing the theory scientifically is challenging.
Evidence: It is hard to measure the frequency, intensity, and duration of pro-criminal attitudes to which someone is exposed. For example, calculating the number of pro-criminal attitudes an individual is exposed to versus anti-criminal attitudes is nearly impossible.
Explanation: The inability to operationalise these concepts undermines the scientific credibility of the theory, as its predictions cannot be tested or falsified.
Link: This lack of empirical testing weakens the theory’s validity as a scientific explanation of crime.
What is one evaluation point related to individual differences in differential association theory?
Point: The theory does not account for individual differences in susceptibility to pro-criminal influences.
Evidence: Not everyone exposed to criminal influences becomes a criminal. For instance, some people resist social influences due to personality traits or situational factors.
Explanation: This suggests that individual differences play a significant role in determining who offends, which the theory fails to address.
Link: This limitation questions the universality of differential association theory as an explanation for all offending behaviour.
