psych- differential association theory Flashcards
differential association theory
individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour through association and interaction with different people
i.e. one person may associate with people with negative attitudes towards crim while another exposed to more possitive attitudes
scientific basis
sutherland (1924)- ‘the conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and absent when crime is absent.’
designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who do not, whatever their social class or ethnic background
offending as a learned behaviour
criminality can be seen to be learnt through a child’s interactions with signficiant others and from two factors:
- learned attitudes towards crime
- the learning of specific criminal acts
DA suggests it is mathematically possibly to predict how likely a person is to offend
- using the frequency, intensity and duration of their association with deviant and non-deviant norms and values
pro-criminal attitudes
through the process of socialisation a person comes to acquire possitive and negative values and attitudes towards crime and the law
- if the number of pro-criminal attitudes outweigh the number of anti-criminal attitudes, then they will go on to offend
learning criminal acts
an offender may also learn particular techniques for committing crime e.g. how to disable car radio before stealing it
- may offer an account of how crime breeds amongst specific social groups/communities, and why convicts released from prison reoffend
- learning may occur through observational learning and imitation or direct tuition from peers
strength
shift of focus
moved emphasis away from early bio accounts of offending e.g. atavistic theory and theories suggesting offending product of individual weakness/immorality
draws attention to importance of deviant social circumstances/environments over deviant people
offers more realistic solution to problem of offending than eugenics or punishment
strength
shift of focus
moved emphasis away from early bio accounts of offending e.g. atavistic theory and theories suggesting offending product of individual weakness/immorality
draws attention to importance of deviant social circumstances/environments over deviant people
offers more realistic solution to problem of offending than eugenics or punishment
counter
stereotypes individuals from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably offenders’
tends to suggest exposure to pro-crime values sufficient to produce offending
ignores fact that people may choose not to offend despite influences. not all exposed then offend.
strength
accounts for offending within all sectors of society
working class communities display certain types of offences e.g. burglary sutherland 'white-collar' crimes (1939)- e.g. tax evasion. may be feature of middle-class social groups sharing deviant norms and values.
demonstrates how not just ‘lower’ classes offending. principles of DA can explain all offences.
limitation
difficult to test
aimed to produce scientific, mathematical framework to predict future offending behaviour
many concepts untestable as can’t be operationalised. diff to measure number of pro-crime attitudes someone has or has been exposed to.
can’t know at what point offending begins because unclear when number of pro-crime values larger than anto-crime ones.
lacks scientific credibility
nature or nurture?
sutherland- if family supports offending activity this majorly influences child’s value system. farrington et. al found intergenerational crime to be key feature of his findings (crime flourished within dysfunctional family environments)
could be interpreted to support bio theories. particular combo of genes, or innate neural abnormality, that predisposes person to commit crime, may be inherited by family members. e.g. APD can stem from reduced activity in frontal lobe. explains why crime ‘runs in families’
