Differential Association Theory
Uses social learning theory to explain offending, suggests that people are socialised into a life of
crime
Individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motivation for criminal behaviour through
associating with others, mainly their family and peers, and the neighbourhood. Particularly learn
from intimate personal groups.
Differential associations (number of contacts with criminals over non-criminals) may vary in
frequency, duration and intensity
The process of learning criminal behaviour is the same as any other learning – classical and operant
conditioning, social learning theory.
Evaluation:
There is supporting evidence for the differential association theory
A study found that when the father was a criminal, 40% of the sons had committed a crime
by the time they turned 18, compared to 13% of sons of non-criminal fathers.
The father is usually the role model in the family for boys growing up, therefore this suggests
that they learned the criminal behaviour from their father, developing the same attitudes
and behaviours
However this does not explain why some people with criminal parents do not go on to
offend themselves. It suggests other factors such as moral reasoning and free will influence
their choices.
A criticism is that it is only a partial explanation of offending, which makes it reductionist
It is likely that the theory only accounts for smaller crimes such as fraud or theft, rather than
more serious violent or impulsive crimes like rape or murder.
This is because DAT only looks at environmental factors which can easily account for
common crimes. However more complex crimes are likely to be based on a variety of
factors, such as hostile attribution bias or psychoticism.
However it does provide an explanation for high levels of reoffending after prison, as the
prisons act as ‘schools of crime’, with offenders learning from mixing with other anti-social
peers.
Uses social learning theory to explain offending, suggests that people are socialised into a life of
crime
Individuals learn the values, attitudes, techniques and motivation for criminal behaviour through
associating with others, mainly their family and peers, and the neighbourhood. Particularly learn
from intimate personal groups.
Differential associations (number of contacts with criminals over non-criminals) may vary in
frequency, duration and intensity
The process of learning criminal behaviour is the same as any other learning – classical and operant
conditioning, social learning theory.
Evaluation:
There is supporting evidence for the differential association theory
A study found that when the father was a criminal, 40% of the sons had committed a crime
by the time they turned 18, compared to 13% of sons of non-criminal fathers.
The father is usually the role model in the family for boys growing up, therefore this suggests
that they learned the criminal behaviour from their father, developing the same attitudes
and behaviours
However this does not explain why some people with criminal parents do not go on to
offend themselves. It suggests other factors such as moral reasoning and free will influence
their choices.
A criticism is that it is only a partial explanation of offending, which makes it reductionist
It is likely that the theory only accounts for smaller crimes such as fraud or theft, rather than
more serious violent or impulsive crimes like rape or murder.
This is because DAT only looks at environmental factors which can easily account for
common crimes. However more complex crimes are likely to be based on a variety of
factors, such as hostile attribution bias or psychoticism.
However it does provide an explanation for high levels of reoffending after prison, as the
prisons act as ‘schools of crime’, with offenders learning from mixing with other anti-social
peers.
