Psychological explanations: differential association theory. Flashcards
Definition of differential association theory.
explanation for offending, proposes through interaction learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour.
How did Sutherland give the differential association theory scientific basis?
could explain types of offending.
Designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who don’t, whatever social class/ ethnic background.
How is offending behaviour acquired?
Learning occurs through interactions with significant others who child values/ spends most time with.
Differential association suggests the possibility to predict likelihood of individual committing crime, how is this done?
need-to-know frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values.
What 2 factors does offending arise from?
learned attitudes towards offending
learning of specific offending acts/techniques.
Describe learning attitudes as a factor of something offending arises.
Person socialised into group exposed to values and attitudes towards law. Some values pro-crime, some anti-crime.
Sutherland- number pro-crime attitudes person comes to acquire outweighs number of anti-criminal attitudes, go and offend.
Learning process, the same whether person learning offending or conformity to law.
Describe learning techniques as a factor which offending arises from.
Would-be offender learn techniques for committing offences.
E.g., how to break into someone’s home through locked window.
How does socialisation occur in prisons and how does it affect reoffending?
Sutherland- theory accounts for why convicts released from prison re-offend.
Whilst in prison inmates learn techniques of offending, put into practice upon release.
Learning occur through observational learning and imitation.
Give a strength of differential association theory, in terms of the fact that when it was published it changed the focus of offending explanations.
Sutherland- successful in moving emphasis from bio accounts of offending (Lombroso’s atavistic theory) and theories that explained offending as product of individual weakness.
Draws attention to deviant social circumstances and environments, more to blame for offending than deviant people.
Approach more desirable because offers realistic solution to problem of offending instead of eugenics (bio solution) or punishment (moral solution).
Counterpoint of a strength of differential association theory, in terms of the fact that when it was published it changed the focus of offending explanations.
Theory runs risk stereotyping individuals come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as unavoidable offenders- Sunderland took care saying offending considered on individual case-by-case basis.
Exposure to crime produces offenders.
Ignores that pp may choose not to offend despite influences, not everyone exposed to crime offends.
Give a strength of differential association theory, in terms of the fact that he theory can account for offending within society.
Sutherland interested in corporate offences, share deviant norms and values.
Not just lower classes commit offences, theory used to explain all offences.
Give a limitation of differential association theory, in terms of the fact that its difficult to test predictions of the theory.
Sutherland aimed provide scientific framework, so future offending behaviour could be predicted, predictions testable.
Problem- concepts aren’t testable, can’t be operationalised.
E.g., hard to see how number pro-crime attitudes person has/ exposed to, to be measured.
Theory built on assumption offending behaviour occurs when pro-crime values outnumber anti-crime values.
Without measuring these, can’t know when urge to offend realised/ offending career triggered.
Theory doesn’t have scientific credibility.
