Psychological explanations of offending behaviour (DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY). Flashcards
(13 cards)
What is the differential association theory? (Sutherland)
People learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour through association and interactions with different people.
Sutherland: Crime as a learned behaviour:
Sutherland believed that offending behaviour may be acquired in the same way as other behaviours, though the process of learning. This occurs most often through interactions with significant others that the child associates with. This can include the family, the peer group etc.
What are the 2 factors from crime as a learned behaviour?
Learned attitudes towards crime
Learning of specific criminal acts
Pro-criminal attitudes:
When a person is socialised into the group, they are exposed to the group’s values and attitudes towards the law and what’s right and wrong. Some of these values will be PRO-CRIME and others will be ANTI CRIME.
Sutherland argues that if the number of pro criminal attitudes a person acquires outweighs the number of anti criminal attitudes, they will go on to offend,
Learning criminality?
Learning process is the same for this. Through both direct and indirect (vicarious) observational learning: praised for deviant behaviour.
Differential association suggests that it should be possible to mathematically predict how likely an individual will commit a crime if we have info on the frequency intensity and duration of which they have been exposed to deviant and non deviant norms.
How else, opposed to being exposed to pro criminal attitudes, might an individual learn criminal acts?
By learning specific techniques, eg: how to break into someone’s home through a locked window.
Sutherland proposes a theory: crime may ‘breed’ amongst specific social groups and communities but also why offenders released from prison are likely to reoffend. Inmates will learn specific techniques of offending. This learning process therefore occurs through observational learning and imitation or direct lessons from criminal peers.
The Cambridge study - FARRINGTON:
Study follows 411 males who, at the beginning of study, lived in a working class deprived inner city area of South London. Longitudinal study of development of offending and ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. Study started when they were 8, and went up to 50. The researchers looked at official records of conviction.
Results of Cambridge study:
by the end, 41% of pp’s had at least one conviction.
The most significant childhoodd risk factors for later offending is family criminality, daring or risk taking, low school attainment, poverty and poor parenting.
Therefore this theory predicts that offenders will come from families and groups who have pro criminal norms and that the criminal activities in which they are involved are similar to the ones they have learned.
Osborne and West
40% of the SONS of convicted criminals also had convictions by the age of 18, compared to only 13% of sons of non criminal fathers gad convictions.
Walmsley et al
1/3 of the prison population in the UK also had relatives in prison too. Can either support genetics or learnt theory.
Strength of differential association theory
Can account for crimes within all parts of society.
Sutherland recognised that some types of crime, such as burglary may be clustered within certain inner city working class communities, and white collar groups are likely to occur in middle class social groups who share criminal norms.
therefore, explanatory power.
Shift of focus?
Moves away from the biological emphasis. Sutherland’s DAF moves away from atavistic form as well as away from labelling people as immoral.
Dysfunctional social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for criminality rather than just dysfunctional people.
More desirable cuz moe realistic.
Limitation of DAF:
difficult to test or predict future criminality based on Sunderland’s theory.
Although he attempted to provide a scientific and mathematical framework within which future offending behaviour could be predicted, it is hard to test.
Hard to see for instance the number of pro criminal attitudes a person has.
