Psychological Explanations of Offending: Differential Association Theory (DAT)

Question 1

What is Differential Association Theory?

Answer 1

Sutherland proposed
=> that individuals learn values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour through association + interaction with different people

Question 2

Offending as a learned behaviour

Answer 2

• occurs most often through interactions with significant others - who child spends most time with and values most e.g. family or peers

2 factors
=> Learned attitudes towards offending
=> Learning of specific offending acts

Question 3

Learning attitudes + how to calculate likelihood of offending

Answer 3

When socialised into a group, they’re exposed to certain values and attitudes including pro-crime and anti-crime

• Sutherland: if pro-crime outweighs anti-crime, they will offend
• prediction can be made by the freq. intensity + duration of exposure

Question 4

Learning techniques + explaining recidivism

Answer 4

The would-be offender may learn specific techniques for commiting a crime

• Sutherland’s theory explains how crime ‘breeds’ in specific groups + recidivism post- incarceration

=> learns techniques from other offenders through observation + imitation or direct tuition

Question 5

Research - Cambridge Study in Delinquent Behaviour - Farrington et al 2006

Answer 5

• A prospective longitudinal survey of offending in 411 males in working class, deprived, inner city SE London, starting in 1961 at 8 yrs

=>41% were convicted of at least 1 offence between 20-50 with avg. crime career from 19-28
=> 7% defined as chronic offenders

Biggest risk factors = family criminality, risk taking, low school attainment, poverty, poor parenting

Question 6

Research - Mednick’s Adoption Study

Answer 6

Found boys who had criminal adoptive parents but non criminal biological parents were likely to offend

Question 7

(S) The theory has good explanatory power / wide reach

Answer 7

• Whilst some crimes e.g. burglary are clustered w/ inner city working class communities, other crimes were w/ affluent groups
• Sutherland was interested in white collar offences + how it may be a feature of middle-class groups who share deviant norms

Shows - it’s not just lower classes who offend + DAT can explain all offences

Question 8

(S) DAT shifts focus from Lombroso’s atavistic theory

Answer 8

• Moved emphasis from biological explanations + from theories of offending as the product of individual weakness/immorality
• Draws attention to deviant social circumstances, enviroment as being more to blame than deviant people

Thus - offers a more realistic solution to offending instead of eugenics (bio solution) and punishment (morality solution)

Question 9

(L) Counter to Shift of Focus

Answer 9

• Theory risks stereotyping people from impoverished backgrounds
  => Ignores those who choose not to offend despite influences
  => not all exposed to pro- crime attitudes will offend

Question 10

(L) DAT is difficult to test

Answer 10

-Sutherland promised a scientific + mathematical framework for predicting offending behaviour but concepts can’t be operationalised

• Unclear how to measure pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes someone is exposed to
• Thus, can’t know at what point urge to offend is realised / triggered

Means => theory doesn’t have scientific credibility + it doesn’t provide solution to these issues