Differential Association Theory (AQA A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes

Differential Association Theory

Overview and development

Differential association theory was created by Edwin Sutherland in 1939 and became highly influential in the study of deviance and criminal behaviour. This psychological explanation suggests that people learn to become criminals through their social environment and interactions with others.

The theory's central premise is that criminal behaviour is acquired through learning processes. Individuals develop criminal tendencies by absorbing the motivations, attitudes and behaviours of those around them, particularly when exposed to messages that favour law-breaking activities.

Key concepts

Sutherland introduced the concept of "favourable differentiations" to describe the pro-criminal messages and attitudes that individuals encounter. When someone is frequently exposed to more favourable attitudes towards crime than unfavourable ones, they become more likely to engage in criminal activity themselves.

The theory emphasises that criminal behaviour is not innate but learned through social interaction. This learning process involves not just observing criminal acts, but also acquiring the underlying motivations and justifications for such behaviour.

Research evidence

Matsueda (1988)

Following an extensive review of differential association research, Matsueda highlighted several important points about the theory's development and application. He argued that more empirical research was needed to improve the theory's ability to predict criminal behaviour accurately.

Matsueda identified a significant limitation: many of the theory's core concepts were too vague and unclear. This made it difficult to test the theory properly and limited its practical applications. He suggested that clarifying these concepts would make the theory more useful for public policy development.

Alarid et al. (2000)

This study examined 1,153 newly convicted criminals to test how well differential association theory could explain their offending behaviour. The researchers found that the theory served as an effective general explanation for criminal behaviour, with particularly strong explanatory power for male offenders.

The study's findings supported the theory's core assumptions but also highlighted the importance of considering the specific context in which offending occurs. The researchers concluded that differential association theory could be valuable for predicting the likelihood of criminal behaviour when contextual factors are properly considered.

Evaluation

Strengths

• Explains crime prevalence in specific areas: The theory provides a compelling explanation for why crime rates are higher in certain locations, typically urban areas. It suggests that criminal behaviour becomes normalised in these environments through repeated exposure to pro-criminal attitudes.

• Supported by research evidence: Studies like Alarid et al. (2000) demonstrate that the theory can effectively explain criminal behaviour, particularly among male offenders.

Weaknesses

• Overly general approach: The theory lacks specificity and shares many similarities with social learning theory. However, it fails to explain the cognitive processes that might underlie criminal decision-making, which Sutherland did not consider necessary to include.

• Cannot explain all types of crime: The theory struggles to account for individualistic crimes such as embezzlement, which appear to be committed independently rather than through social learning. One-off crimes that don't follow patterns are also poorly explained by this approach.

• Vague concepts: As Matsueda (1988) noted, many of the theory's key concepts lack precision, making it difficult to test empirically and apply consistently in practice.

• Limited scope: While the theory explains how criminal behaviour spreads through social groups, it doesn't adequately address why some individuals in the same environment don't become criminals or how initial criminal behaviour begins.