Psychological explanations: Differential association theory Flashcards
Differential association theory
-an explanation for offending where attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour are learned through interaction with different people
Psychological explanations: Differential association theory
parts
Scientific basis
Crime as a learned behaviour
Pro-criminal attitudes
Learning criminal acts
Differential association theory
person
Sutherland (1924)
Differential association theory
Scientific basis
└Sutherland (1924)
└tried to develop a 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’
Differential association theory
Crime as a learned behaviour
└crime is learned in the same way as any other behaviour- through the interactions of others
└criminality arises from 2 factors
└learned attitudes towards crime
└learning of specific acts
Differential association theory
Pro-criminal attitudes
└if number of pro-criminal attitudes > number of anti-criminal attitudes
└=they will go on to offend
└differential association predicts it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely it is that in individual will commit a crime
└id we know the frequency, intensity and duration they have been exposed to pro criminal and anti-criminal attitudes
Differential association theory
Learning criminal acts
└offender learns specific techniques to commit time
└e.g. how to break into a house
└explains why people reoffend after prison
└share techniques
└through observation and imitation or direct tuition
Differential association theory
strengths
summary
Explanatory power
Shift on focus
Differential association theory
strengths
Explanatory power
└can account for a wide range of crimes in society └burglary clustered in inner city, working class areas └white collar/corporate crime in middle class social groups
Differential association theory
strengths
Shift on focus
└moved emphasis away from early biological accounts of crime (like Lombroso’s atavistic theory) and crime being due to individual weakness
└dysfunctional social circumstances more to blame than dysfunctional people
└more desirable approach as more realistic solution to crime
└instead of eugenics (biological solution) or punishment (morality solution)
Differential association theory
limitations
summary
Difficulty of testing
Alternative explanations - Sutherland, Mednick et al (1984)
Individual differences
Differential association theory
limitations
Difficulty of testing
└differential association difficult to test
└difficult to determine number of pro criminal attitudes a person has been exposed to
└if can’t measure, can’t predict when an individual’s criminal career will begin
└reduced scientific credibility
Differential association theory
limitations
Alternative explanations
└Sutherland suggests the response of the family is crucial in determining if an individual is likely to offend
└if family supports it= reasonable= becomes a part of child’s value system
└supported by the fact crime seems to run in families
└Mednick et al (1984)
└study of over 13,000 adoptees
└neither biological of adopted parents had convictions= 13.5% of adoptees did
└biological parents had convictions= 20% of adoptees did
└adoptive and biological parents had convictions= 24.5% of adoptees did
└data suggests inheritance plays an important role in offending
└so does environment
└=support for diathesis stress model of crime (BIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION)
Differential association theory
limitations
Individual differences
└not everyone who is exposed to criminal influences foes on to commit crime
even though Sutherland said crime should be considered case by case
└there is a danger in stereotyping people that come from crime ridden backgrounds
└theory ignores that many people choose not to offend despite exposure to pro criminal attitudes
└determinism
