Differential Association Theory

Question 1

Outline differential association theory

Answer 1

Sunderland developed set of scientific principles that could explain all types of offending
- people learn values, techniques + motives for offending behaviour via association + interaction with different people
- ignores effect of class/ethnic background

Question 2

Outline two factors thought to lead to offending

Answer 2

Learned attitudes towards crime and learning of specific criminal acts

Question 4

How are learned attitudes to crimes involved in offending

Answer 4

When a person is socialised, exposed to values and attitudes towards the law —> either pro or anti law
= Sutherland argued if more pro criminal behaviours than anti criminal attitudes are acquired, they will go on to offend

Question 5

How can a person’s likelihood of offending be predicted?

Answer 5

Frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant values/ non deviant norms and values = likelihood of offending

Question 6

How is learning of specific criminal acts involved in offending?

Answer 6

Individuals may be exposed to techniques for committing offences as well as pro crime attitudes
- can occur in prison by learning from more experienced criminals, may occur indirectly via observational learning (SLT) and direct tuition

Question 7

Give strengths for differential association theory

Answer 7

Less biologically deterministic than other approaches
- shifts emphasising from earlier biological accounts like atavistic form or explanations focues on immoraltiy/weakness
- instead draws emphasis onto dysfunctional social circumstances and environment rather than dysfunction people
- more of a holistic approach, less social implications of eugenics and also returns responsibility to the offender
Research support
- Farrington et al carried out longitudinal study of development of offending + antisocial behaviour in 411 boys; 41% convicted of a crime between 10-50
- most important risk factor at ages 8-10 found to be measures of family criminality, poverty, low attainment + poor parenting
however evidence for crime running in families can also be explained by biological explanations, weakening validity as we cannot be decipher between the two factors

Question 8

Give weaknesses of differential association theory

Answer 8

Difficulty testing
- Sutherland aimed to provide a scientific, mathematical framework to predict future offending
- however this is almost impossible to test in reality, cannot accurately measure no of pro and anti law attitudes
- unfalsifyable and hard to quantify, lacks scientific credibility + practical application
Danger of stereotyping
- May stereotype people from impoverished, crime ridden backgrounds as ‘unavoidably criminal’ —> ignores that people may choose not to offend despite being exposed to pro criminal attitudes
- environmentally deterministic; ignores the power of free will
- also can be socially sensitive as implies people from certain backgrounds are more dangerous, reinforces stereotypes + promotes discrimination