Lesson 7 – Differential Association Theory

Question 1

Differential Association Theory

Answer 1

Differential association theory (Sunderland, 1939) proposes that offending is learnt through socialisation. Pro-criminal attitudes/behaviour occur through association and relationships with other people (friends, family etc.).

From other people we learn our norms and values, even deviant ones. Offending behaviours/techniques are passed on from one generation to another or between peers.

Everyone’s associations are different (differential association). Expectations/attitudes of those around us act to reinforce our behaviours (criminal or otherwise) through acceptance/approval.

Reinforcement also affects offending behaviour – if rewards for offending are greater than the rewards for not offending.

Learning pro-criminal attitudes/behaviours can occur through imitation, vicarious reinforcement, direct reinforcement or direct tuition from criminal peers.

Question 2

Advantages of Differential Association Theory

Answer 2

+ This theory is able to account for crime within all sectors of society. While Sutherland (1924) recognised that some types of crime, such as burglary, may be clustered within inner-city, working class communities, it is also the case that some crimes are most prevalent among affluent groups. White-collar (sometimes referred to as corporate crime) is a feature of middle-class social groups.

+ Sutherland was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological
explanations of crime and those explanations which saw offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality. Differential association theory draws attention to the role of dysfunctional social circumstances and environments in criminality.

+ Differential association theory offers a more desirable and realistic solution to offending behaviour than the biological solution (eugenics) or the morality solution (punishment).

Question 3

Disadvantages of Differential Association Theory

Answer 3

• Differential association theory is difficult to test scientifically, most of the evidence to support it is correlational (does not demonstrate cause and effect). How can the pro-crime attitudes a person has been exposed to be measured? Similarly, the theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro criminal values outnumber anti-criminal ones. However, without being able to measure these values, it is difficult to know at what point the urge to offend will trigger a criminal career.
• Not everyone who is exposed to criminal influences goes on to commit crime. There is a danger that this theory could stereotype individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably criminal’. The theory ignores the fact that people might choose not to offend despite criminal influences, in other words it ignore people’s free will. For example, offenders may seek out people with criminal values rather than being passively influenced by them.