Psychological Explanation: Differential Association Theory
This is the idea that criminal behaviour is learned through association and interaction with different people.
Learning criminal attitudes and behaviour:
Sutherland (1924) believed that it was possible to measure crime in a scientific way by identifying specific conditions that lead to crime, and also that if these specific conditions were not present, you would not turn to crime. Sutherland argues that if an individual is socialised with more pro-crime values (praising or highlighting the positives of crime), compared to anti-crime attitudes (criticising and highlighting the negative consequences of crime), they will go on to offend. Differential association theory suggests that it is possible to predict the likelihood of an individual committing a crime by identifying the frequency, intensity and duration of exposure to deviant, pro-crime values.
Not only can offender behaviour be learnt through observation and imitation of pro-criminal attitudes but also through imitation of specific techniques and skills. These might include how to break into someone’s house through a locked window or how to disable a car alarm. Sutherland also believed that criminal acts could be learned through observation and imitation which could explain why certain crimes tend to expand in certain areas and communities. It may also explain why so many criminals re-offend once released from prison, as they could have learned through their criminal peers.
In a nutshell, when describing Differential Association Theory. You should focus on the following three things:
- Pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime attitudes
- Learning criminal techniques from role models
- Positive reinforcement – could be through physical rewards or social approval
Akers (1979) tested differential association and looked at what the most important factors in determining why some teenagers abuse alcohol and marijuana, and why some don’t. Questionnaires were used to collect data on differential association influences.
- Results found that differential association theory (i.e. the theory that other individuals influenced behaviour in general) accounted for 68% in marijuana taking behaviour, and 55% in drinking behaviour.
- Two main factors which appeared to be significantly correlated with drinking and marijuana behaviour were differential peer association e.g. they had ‘ best friends, friends with whom they associate most often, and friends whom they have known for the longest time using the substance.
- Imitation index e.g. they had “admired” models (parents, friends, other adults) who they reported having observed using the substance.
This study provides great support for Social Learning Theory as it suggests that there is a relationship between individuals turn to crime and imitating role models i.e. learning by copying people they look up to and therefore wish to share similar behaviours. However, more research is needed in order to establish cause and effect between drug and alcohol abuse and differential association as this study was a correlation.
Farrington (2006) conducted a longitudinal study of the development of offending and anti-social behaviour in 411 males who were studied from the age of 8–50 years. They were all living in a deprived working-class inner-city area of London. It was found that 41% of the males had been convicted of at least one offence between the ages of 10 and 50. A small proportion of the participants (7%) were defined as chronic offenders as they committed half of the recorded offences in the whole study. Key risk factors were identified including family criminality, poverty, poor parenting, low school achievement and risk taking. This study therefore supported Sutherland’s differential association theory because the socialisation of the males through inappropriate role models and dysfunctional systems of reward and punishment had led to criminal behaviour.
CGS Psychology Blog: Mrs Harris 