Psychological explanations: Differential association theory Flashcards
what does DAT propose?
Proposes that individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending behaviour through association and interaction with different people.
Scientific basis
Sutherland developed a set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending. He stated that ‘the conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and they should be absent when crime is absent.’ His theory is 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
Offending behaviour may be acquired the same as any other behaviour through the processes of learning. This learning occurs most often through interactions with significant others who the child values most and spends most time with.
Offending arises from two factors: learned attitudes towards offending, and the learning of specific offending acts/techniques.
Learning attitudes
when a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to values and attitudes towards the law. Sutherland argues that if the number of pro-criminal attitudes the person acquires outweighs the number of anti-criminal attitudes, they will go on to offend.
learning techniques
the would-be offender may also learn particular techniques for committing offences.
socialisation in prison
Sutherland’s theory can also account for why so many convicts released from prison go on to reoffend. Whilst inside, prison inmates will learn specific techniques of offending from other more experienced offenders. This learning may occur through observational learning and imitation or direct tuition from offending peers.
Evaluation of differential association theory (brief)
strength - shifted focus of offending
strength - account for offending within all society
weakness - difficult to test
strengths of differential association theory
when differential association was first published, it changed the focus of offending explanations. Sutherland was successful in moving the emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending, such as Lombroso’s atavistic theory. Differential association 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 or punishment. However, 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 attitudes goes on to offend.
this theory can account for offending within all sectors of society. Whilst Sutherland recognised that some types of offences may be clustered within inner-city working class communities, it’s also the case that some offences are clustered among more affluent groups in society. Sutherland was interested in white collar crime and how this may be a feature of middle class social groups who share deviant norms and values. This shows that it is not just the lower classes who commit offences and that the principles of differential association can be used to explain all offences.
weakness of differential association theory
one limitation is that it is difficult to test the predictions of differential association. Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be predicted and this means that the predictions must be testable. However, many of the concepts are not testable because they cannot be operationalised. For example, it is hard to measure the number of pro-crime attitudes a person has, or has been exposed to. Therefore, this means the theory lacks scientific credibility.
