Differential association:

  • psych exp

SUTHERLAND

  • a set of scientific principals to explain offending

clear cause and effect links to social background of people who become criminals and those who don't

  • social experience should clearly predict criminal behaviour
  • theory ignores race, class and ethnicity

Crime is learned through interactions with significant others

process of learning - child associates with people e.g. family and peers

  • 'differential' association refers to the degree to which a person associates with the individuals

they learn attitudes towards crime and specific criminal acts

Crime occurs if exposure to pro-crime values outweigh anti-crime values

When a person is socialised into a group they will be exposed to certain values and attitudes towards the law

We can make mathematical predictions about committing a crime

based on our knowledge of the frequency intensity and duration of an individuals exposure to deviant and non-deviant norms and values

Shows that both attitudes and techniques are learned e.g. how to break into a house

Re-offending may be due to socialisation in prison

Inmates will be exposed to pro-criminal attitudes and also learn specific techniques of offending from more experiences criminals which they can put into practice upon release

Explanatory power

The theory can account for crime in all sectors of society. Sutherland recognised that some crimes are clustered in working-class areas (affluent society crimes)

  • he showed how middle-class social groups who share deviant norms and values = crime
  • theory can help understanding of different types of crimes

Difficult to test - unfalsifiable

Despite efforts to set scientific and mathematical framework -its unclear how we can measure the no of pro and anti-criminal attitudes exposed

  • the theory doesn't provide a satisfactory solution to these issues undermining scientific credibility

show bio explanations may be better as they have been proven

Alternative explanations

Family attitudes crucial according to S in determining crime - this is supported by studies showing that criminal behaviour runs in families

  • however, this evidence could also point to genetic influences
  • this makes it hard to draw any conclusions from the data about crime running in families being nurture or nature
  • likely both - diathesis-stress

Overly determinist explanation

Not everyone exposed to pro-criminal attitudes commits a crime

  • the theory suggests that exposure to pro-criminal values is enough to produce offending in those who are exposed and ignores the fact that people may not choose to offend despite such influences
  • showing it ignores the role of free will
  • this sees criminal action as having a cause