psychological explanations - differential association theory

Question 1

differential association theory

Answer 1

• proposes that individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through association and interaction with different people
• for example, one person may associate with people who have negative attitudes towards crime, while another person may be exposed to more positive attitudes
• assumption is that this can be quantified and therefore correlated
• situational explanation about how our dispositions are changed

Question 2

differential association theory - scientific basis

Answer 2

• Edwin Sutherland set himself tasks of developing set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending
• ‘the conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and they should be absent when crime is absent’
• theory was designed to discriminate between individuals who become offenders and those who do not, whatever their social class or ethnic background

Question 3

differential association theory - offending as a learned behaviour

Answer 3

• offending behaviour may be acquired in the same way as any other behaviour through learning processes
• this learning occurs most often through interactions with significant others who the child values and spends time with
• differential association suggests that it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that an individual will commit offences
• to do this we need to know frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values
• offending arises from 1) learned attitudes towards offending and 2) the learning of specific offending acts / techniques

Question 4

differential association theory - learning attitudes

Answer 4

• when someone is socialised into a group, they are exposed to values and attitudes towards the law
• some of these will be pro-crime and some will be anti-crime
• Sutherland argues that if the number of pro-criminal attitudes outweighs the number of anti-criminal attitudes that someone is exposed to, they will go on to offend
• learning process is the same whether a person is learning offending or conformity to the law

Question 5

differential association theory - learning techniques

Answer 5

• in addition to being exposed to pro-crime attitudes, person would also learn particular techniques for committing offences
• these might include how to break into someone’s house through a window or how to disable a car stereo before stealing it

Question 6

differential association theory - socialisation in prison

Answer 6

• Sutherland’s theory can also account for why so many convicts release from prison go on to reoffend
• reasonable to assume that whilst inside prison, inmates learn specific techniques of offending from each other that they may put into practice upon their release
• this learning may occur through observational learning and imitation or direct tuition from offending peers

Question 7

evaluation strength - shift of focus

Answer 7

• Sutherland successfully moved emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending such as Lombroso’s atavistic theory, as well as away from theories that explained offending as being the product of individual weakness or immorality
• differential association theory draws attention to the fact that deviant social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for offending than deviant people
• this approach is more desirable as it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of offending instead of eugenics (biological solution) or punishment (morality solution)

Question 8

evaluation limitation - counterpoint to shift of focus

Answer 8

• differential association runs risk of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably offenders’, even though Sutherland took care to point out that offending should be considered on an individual basis
• the theory tends to suggest that exposure to pro-crime values is sufficient to produce offending in those who are exposed to it
• this ignores the fact that people may choose not to offend despite such influences, as not everyone who is exposed to pro-crime attitude goes on to offend

Question 9

evaluation strength - wide reach

Answer 9

• theory can account for offending within all sectors of society
• whilst Sutherland recognised that some types of offence may be clustered within inner-city, working class communities, it is also the case that some offences are clustered amongst more affluent groups
• Sutherland was particularly interested in white-collar / corporate offences, and how this may be a feature of middle-class social groups
• not just lower classes who commit offences, principles of differential association can be used to explain all offences

Question 10

evaluation limitation - difficulty testing

Answer 10

• difficult to test predictions of differential association
• Sutherland aimed to provide scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending could be predicted, meaning that predictions must be testable
• however, many concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised, for example it is hard to see how the number of pro-crime attitudes a person has could be measured
• the theory is also built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-crime values outnumber anti-crime values, and these cannot be measured so it is difficult to at what point the urge to offend is realised
• the theory does not have any scientific credibility

Question 11

evaluation limitation - only explains some crimes ⭐️

Answer 11

• better at explaining group / gang crimes that would be talked about in groups
• not as good at explaining crimes that are normally done alone or secretly, such as murder or pedophilia
• does explain some crimes but not a complete explanation

Question 12

evaluation strength - supporting evidence

Answer 12

• longitudinal study on boys from 8-50, looked to see if and what crimes they were committing
• found risk factors including poverty, poor parenting, low school attainment, family criminality etc.
• about 7% were considered as chronic offenders
• this links to hard and environmental determinism, individuals have no control over what family they are born into

Question 13

evaluation - free will and determinism

Answer 13

• soft determinism
• a little bit of free will because not everyone who associates with people with pro-crime attitudes goes on to offend, they have to make a choice about whether to offend or not
• environmental determinism (we associated with others and this influences whether we offend)
• impact of individual differences as well