Theories of Offending: The Differential Association Theory - Forensic Psychology

THE DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY (PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPLANATION):

-        Sutherland (1939) proposed that individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motives for criminal behaviour through association and interaction with different people.
-        If pro-criminal attitudes that individuals are exposed to outweigh pro-social attitudes, then Sutherland proposed they were at greater risk of offending. Differential association suggests it may be possible to mathematically predict the likelihood someone would commit a crime if we knew the frequency, intensity and duration of which a person is exposed to criminal and noncriminal norms and values.
-        Criminal attitudes and values may be learned from family or peer groups, as well as specific criminal acts and techniques. This explains how crime breeds amongst specific social groups and communities as well as explain why released prisoners have high reoffending rates. For example, whilst in prison they may learn specific techniques of offending from one another either through observational learning, imitation or direct tuition that they put into practice on release.


Farrington et al (2006) carried out a longitudinal survey, using 411 boys aged 8 from a working-class family in a deprived inner-city of South London – he monitored their criminal careers up to the age of 50. He found that 41% of the sample were convicted of at least one offence between the age of 10 and 50 and that the most important childhood ‘risk factors’ for later offending were measures of family criminality, poverty and poor parenting – suggesting that criminality breeds in certain areas and between groups of people (eg. family members) which provides support for the Differential Association Theory.

P: There is a large body of evidence that provides support for the idea that children can learn criminal behaviour through observation and imitation of models
E: For example, offending behaviour does appear to run in families
E: However, it may run in familys due to genetics (biological factors) or due to psychodynamic factors (eg. having the same superego as your parents) – therefore this theory potentially needs to be questions for validity

P: It cannot explain criminal behaviour on an individual level
E: For example, it is not clear why some people who are raised in persistent contact with ‘criminogenic’ influences do not go on to commit offences.

E: Potentially an incomplete theory and therefore we should question its credibility and validity.

P: There is a very high recidivism rate for released prisoners
E: This theory can explain this
E: They would suggest that they have spent so much time surrounded by pro-criminal attitudes, that it’s led to them to acquiring new techniques to carry out criminal behaviour – this is something that other explanations struggle to explain, therefore this is a strength of this theory.

Comments