Differential Association Theory

Sutherland's (1939) Differential Association Theory

As we discussed above, Sutherland attempted to explore and explain offending behaviours. Sutherland argues offending and criminal behaviours may, be learnt behaviours, and those who associate with criminals will naturally begin to pick up on their behaviours and potentially enact them themselves.

Sutherland’s theory attempted to explain all types of crime, from burglaries to middle-class white-collar crimes.

Differential Association Theory: Definition

First, let's define differential association theory.

Sutherland’s differential association theory of crime proposes nine critical factors in how a person becomes an offender:

The theory can also explain:

• Why crime is more prevalent in specific communities. Perhaps people learn from each other in some way, or the community's general attitude is conducive to crime.

• Why offenders often continue their criminal behaviour after being released from prison. Often they have learned in prison how to improve their technique through observation and imitation or even by learning directly from one of the other prisoners.

Differential Association Theory Example

To fully understand how differential association theory applies to real life, let's examine an example.

Fig. 2 - Associations with criminals can lead to a path of crime, according to the differential association theory.

Differential Association Theory of Crime: Studies

Farrington et al. (2006) conducted a prospective longitudinal study with a sample of 411 male adolescents on the development of offending and antisocial behaviour.

In the study, participants were followed from age eight years in 1961 up to 48 years. They all lived in a disadvantaged working-class neighbourhood in south London. Farrington et al. (2006) examined official conviction records and self-reported offences and interviewed and tested participants nine times throughout the study.

At the end of the study, 41% of participants had at least one conviction. Offences were committed most frequently between 17−20 years of age. The main risk factors at age 8–10 years for criminal activity later in life were:

1. Crime in the family.

2. Impulsivity and hyperactivity (attention deficit disorder).

3. Low IQ and low school attainment.

4. Antisocial behaviours in school.

5. Poverty.

6. Poor parenting.

This study supports the differential association theory because some of these factors can be attributed to the theory (e.g., family criminality, poverty – which may create the need to steal – poor parenting). Still, genetics also seem to play a role.

Osborne and West (1979) compared family criminal records. They found that when a father had a criminal record, 40% of sons also had a criminal record by age 18, compared with 13% of sons of fathers who did not have a criminal record. This finding suggests that children learn criminal behaviour from their fathers in families with convicted fathers through differential association.

However, one could also argue that genetics could be to blame since convicted fathers and sons share the genes predisposing them to criminality.

Akers (1979) surveyed 2500 male and female adolescents. They found that differential association and reinforcement accounted for 68% of the variance in marijuana use and 55% of the variance in alcohol use.

Differential Association Theory Evaluation

The studies above explore differential association theory, but there is more to consider, namely the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. Let's evaluate the differential association theory.

Strengths

First, the strengths of the differential association theory.

• Differential association theory can explain different crimes, and crimes people from different socioeconomic backgrounds commit.

  Middle-class people learn to commit ‘white-collar crimes’ by association.

• Differential association theory successfully moved away from biological reasons for crime.approachheory changed people’s view of crime from blaming individual (genetic) factors to blaming social factors, which has real-world applications. A person’s environment can be changed, but genetics cannot.

• Research corroborates the theory, for instance, Short (1955) found a positive correlation between wayward behaviour and levels of association with other criminals.

Weaknesses

Now, the weaknesses of the differential association theory.

• The research is based on correlations, so we do not know if interactions and associations with others are the real cause of crime. It could be that people who already have delinquent attitudes seek out people similar to them.

• This research does not explain why crime decreases with age. Newburn (2002) found that people under the age of 21 commit 40% of crimes and that many offenders stop committing crimes when they get older. The theory cannot explain this because they should continue to be criminals if they still have the same group of peers or the same relationships.

• The theory is difficult to measure and test. For example, Sutherland claims a person becomes a criminal when the number of interpretations in favour of breaking the law exceeds the number of interpretations against it. However, it is difficult to measure this empirically. How can we accurately measure the number of favourable/unfavourable interpretations a person has experienced throughout their life?

• The theory can explain less severe crimes like burglaries, but not crimes like murder.

• Biological factors are not considered. The diathesis-stress model might offer a better explanation. The diathesis-stress model assumes disorders develop because of a person’s genetic predisposition (diathesis) and stressful conditions that play a role in promoting the predisposition.