psychological explanations: differential association theory

differential association theory

Origins and Scientific Aims

• Proposed by Edwin Sutherland (1939)

• Aimed to create scientific, general principles to explain all types of crime, across social class and background

  “The conditions which are said to cause crime should be present when crime is present, and absent when it is absent.”

Offending as Learned Behaviour

• Offending is learned through interactions with others (particularly close personal groups – e.g. family, peers).

• This includes:

  • Values, attitudes, and beliefs (toward the law)

  • Techniques for committing crimes
    → Learning can occur via observation, imitation, and direct instruction

  Differential Association

  • People are exposed to different ratios of pro-crime and anti-crime attitudes.

  • If pro-criminal attitudes > anti-criminal, the person is more likely to offend.

  • Suggests it may be possible to mathematically predict offending by analysing:

    • Frequency

    • Intensity

    • Duration of exposure to deviant norms

  Learning Techniques

  • Learners may acquire specific methods of committing offences:

    • E.g. disabling alarms, picking locks, scamming systems

  • This helps explain how criminal skills are transmitted, especially in prison or among experienced offenders

  Reoffending & Prison

  • In prison, inmates may be socialised into criminal norms.

  • Learn new criminal techniques from others, increasing risk of recidivism.

  • Supports Sutherland’s idea that environments can breed offending.

Farrington et al. (2006) – Cambridge Study

• Longitudinal study of 411 working-class boys in South London (from age 8 to 50)

• 41% convicted at least once

• Risk factors at age 8–10 for later offending:

  • Family criminality

  • Poverty

  • Poor parenting

  • Risk-taking personality

  • Low academic attainment

• 7% of boys = chronic offenders (accounted for ~50% of crimes)

Shifted Focus to Environment + counterpoint

• Moved away from biological theories (e.g. Lombroso’s atavism) and moral explanations

• Highlights social context and learned behaviour rather than inherited traits
  🡺 More realistic and humane understanding of crime causes

Encourages social reforms over punishment or eugenics

COUNTERPOINT

May lead to assumptions that people from poor or crime-heavy areas will offend
🡺 Overlooks free will – not everyone exposed to pro-crime values commits crime
🡺 Sutherland emphasised individual differences, but theory still generalises too much

Wide Applicability (White Collar Crime)

• Can explain crime across all social classes:

  • Burglary (lower-class, community-based)

  • White-collar crime (fraud, embezzlement, insider trading) – coined by Sutherland himself

• Shows crime isn't only linked to poverty, but to cultural norms in any group

Hard to Test Scientifically

• Sutherland wanted DAT to be predictive and scientific

• But:

  • Can’t quantify the number of pro-crime vs anti-crime attitudes

  • Can’t measure “point of tipping” into criminal behaviour
    🡺 Therefore, lacks falsifiability and empirical validity

Nurture vs Nature Debate

• Emphasises environmental learning

• BUT: Offending often runs in families
  🡺 Could reflect genetic factors or neurobiological predispositions (e.g. MAOA gene)
  🡺 Farrington’s study also supports potential biological vulnerability