Differential Association Theory

Question 1

Who developed differential association theory (DAT) and what does it suggest?

Answer 1

Sutherland (1947)- suggests people learn the attitudes, motives and skills needed for offending behaviour

Question 2

What is socialisation within DAT?

Answer 2

The process of learning acceptable behaviours (including attitudes) in childhood, taught through parent, schools, etc.

Question 3

What did Sutherland want to ensure and how did he do this?

Answer 3

His theory was grounded on scientific evidence- developed a list of principles that distinguished between offenders and non-offenders

Question 4

How did Sutherland suggest it was mathematically possible to predict who will commit crime?

Answer 4

Based on SLT- learning can occur through interactions with others during development- record how intense interactions are with those with pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes- predict who will have these attitudes 9

Question 5

How dos this maths explanation link to offending?

Answer 5

If the number of pro-crime attitudes outweighs the number of anti-crime attitudes then a person will go on to offend in the future- also learn skills to commit crimes from those people- continue if reinforced

Question 6

What is recidivism?

Answer 6

When a person reoffends following punishment

Question 7

How does Sutherland’s theory explain recidivism?

Answer 7

Prisons referred to as ‘universities of crime’- criminal surrounded with inmates of different offences- learn new techniques- surrounded by pro-crime attitudes

Question 8

What is a strength of DAT?

Answer 8

Provided an alternative explanation of crime- moves away from earlier biological socially sensitive explanations- focus on how deviant socialisation may be the cause- shifts blame- more positive solution- can be changed so doesn’t reinforce eugenic policies

Question 9

What are the limitations of DAT?

Answer 9

Socially sensitive- if number of pro-crime attitudes outweighs they will go on to offend- may reinforce stereotypes of certain groups being destined to offend- deterministic ignoring free will- damaging to certain groups

Reductionist- fully takes nurture side- ignores biology- socialisation may account for some but we cant ignore if the groups are within family there may be an inherited gene- narrow view

Lack of cause and effect- may offend as it is valued within a group or maybe the people with the views gravitate towards each other- could be a consequence not a cause- cant be determined so lowers validity