psychological explanations of offending behaviour: differential association theory Flashcards
what is differential association theory
sutherland (1939)
social learning explanation where criminals are conditioned into crime through their interaction with others and the values, attributes, techniques and motivations they hold for criminal behaviour
how did sutherland propose a scientific basis?
- promised to create a mathematical formula that could predict future offending behaviour
- He said to do this, we need to know how long and how frequently individuals interact with deviant and non-deviant norms and values.
- Whilst this was never delivered, he was adamant that a set of scientific principles could explain all types of offending behaviour, based on those who do and do not commit crime
how is offending learned behaviour?
- learn offender attitudes - social transmission of values, motivations + rationalisations for committing a crime
- learn offender techniques for committing offences - in addition - can include break into house
how does learning attitudes towards behaviour affect offending
if the values of a group (family, friends, neighbourhood) the individual in socialised into is more pro-crime than anti-crime they will go on to offend
how does learning attitudes towards behaviour affect offending
how does learning attitudes towards behaviour affect offending
if the values of a group (family, friends, neighbourhood) the individual in socialised into is more pro-crime than anti-crime they will go on to offend
what is socialisation in prison
- offending may ‘breed’ amongst specific social groups + communities
- theory can also account for why so many convicts released from prison go on to reoffend
- reasonable assumption that whilst inside prison inmates learn specific techniques of reoffending from other more exp
- practice on release
- learning can occur through observational learning + imitation/direct tuition
evaluate differential association theory
-
how is shift of focus a strength of the differential association theory
- when published moved emphasis away from early biological accounts of offending like lombroso atavistic + theories that explained offending as being product of individual weakness/immorality
- argues deviant social circumstances + environments more to blame for offending > deviant personality
- desirable - realistic solution > eugenics/punishment
what is a counterpoint to shift of focus?
- risk of stereotyping individuals who come from impoverished, crime-ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably offenders’
- but sutherland did say offending considered case by case
- but does suggest exposure sufficient to produce offending in those exposed - ignores idea people may choose not to offend
what is supporting research for differential association
- farrington et al (2006)
- longitudinal stuffy of 411 males that found that offenders have a history of family criminality and poor parenting
- supports DAT as family criminality increases the environment of pro-crime attitudes the individual has around them so increasing their chance of becoming an offender
- supports environment and role models in contributing to offenders
what is supporting research for differential association
- farrington et al (2006)
- longitudinal stuffy of 411 males that found that offenders have a history of family criminality and poor parenting
- supports DAT as family criminality increases the environment of pro-crime attitudes the individual has around them so increasing their chance of becoming an offender
- supports environment and role models in contributing to offenders
how is differential association arguably unscientific?
- difficult to test DAT
- sutherland aimed to use a mathematical framework to predict future offending
- concepts like number/time of pro-crime attitudes cannot be operationalised
- unsure when there are more pro-crime attitudes and so the likelihood of future offending
- theory is not scientifically credible
how is differential association arguably unscientific?
- difficult to test DAT
- sutherland aimed to use a mathematical framework to predict future offending
- concepts like number/time of pro-crime attitudes cannot be operationalised
- unsure when there are more pro-crime attitudes and so the likelihood of future offending
- theory is not scientifically credible
how is differential association arguably unscientific?
- difficult to test DAT
- sutherland aimed to use a mathematical framework to predict future offending
- concepts like number/time of pro-crime attitudes cannot be operationalised
- unsure when there are more pro-crime attitudes and so the likelihood of future offending
- theory is not scientifically credible
