DAT

Question 1

Supporting evidence

Answer 1

Supporting evidence for differential association theory is provided by
Farrington (1994). The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development was a 40 year longitudinal study that investigated over 400 males from when they were 8 years old, up to
the age of 50 (from working class, deprived, inner city area of South London). The findings were that 42% were convicted of at least one offence between ages 10 and 50. One of the most important childhood ‘risk factors’ age 8-10 for later offending were measures of
criminality in the family. In addition, Mednick et al (1984) found that boys who had criminal adoptive parents but non-criminal biological parents were more likely to go on to offend than boys whose both biological and adoptive parents were non-criminal. Both studies therefore illustrate the idea that children learn criminal behaviour through associating with family members who were already offenders and so this illustrates the importance of family
influence.

Question 2

Psychology as a science

Answer 2

Despite Sutherland’s promise to provide a mathematical framework
within which future offending behaviour could be predicted, differential association theory
suffers from being difficult to test empirically and therefore falsify. This is because it is hard to see how, for instance, the number of pro-criminal attitudes a person is associated with, could be measured. Without being able to measure these, it is difficult to know at what point offending behaviour starts and a person develops and becomes a criminal. The theory does not provide a satisfactory solution to these issues, therefore undermining its scientific credibility.

Question 3

Individual differences

Answer 3

One criticism against the differential association theory is the idea
that people can be independent, rational and individually motivated. This notion of being a criminal based on his or her associations in their environment is problematic. This is because not everyone who is associated with criminal influences, goes on to commit crime. This
theory also does not take into account the personality traits that might affect a person’s susceptibility to these environmental influences. For example, Eysenck’s theory of personality proposed that people with high extroversion and neuroticism had nervous systems that were difficult to condition and would be more likely to act antisocially in situations where the
opportunity presented itself. This therefore suggests that personality, associations and learned behaviour may all influence criminality so it is essential that we take individual
differences into account.