Differential

association

This article includes a list of references, but its

sources remain unclear because it has Learn
insufficient
more

In criminology, differential association is a

theory developed by Edwin Sutherland
proposing that through interaction with
others, individuals learn the values,
attitudes, techniques, and motives for
criminal behavior.
The differential association theory is the
most talked about of the learning theories
of deviance. This theory focuses on how
individuals learn to become criminals, but
does not concern itself with why they
become criminals. Learning Theory is
closely related to the Interactionist
perspective; however, it is not considered
so because Interactionism focuses on the
construction of boundaries in society and
persons' perceptions of them. Learning
Theory is considered a positivist approach
because it focuses on specific acts,
opposed to the more subjective position of
social impressions on one's identity, and
how those may compel to act. They learn
how to commit criminal acts; they learn
motives, drives, rationalizations, and
attitudes. It grows socially easier for the
individuals to commit a crime. Their
inspiration is the processes of cultural
transmission and construction. Sutherland
had developed the idea of the "self" as a
social construct, as when a person's self-
image is continuously being reconstructed
especially when interacting with other
people.

Phenomenology and ethnomethodology

also encouraged people to debate the
certainty of knowledge and to make sense
of their everyday experiences using
indexicality methods. People define their
lives by reference to their experiences, and
then generalise those definitions to
provide a framework of reference for
deciding on future action. From a
researcher's perspective, a subject will
view the world very differently if employed
as opposed to unemployed, if in a
supportive family or abused by parents or
those close to the individual. However,
individuals might respond to the same
situation differently depending on how
their experience predisposes them to
define their current surroundings.
Differential association predicts that an
individual will choose the criminal path
when the balance of definitions for law-
breaking exceeds those for law-abiding.
This tendency will be reinforced if social
association provides active people in the
person's life. Earlier in life the individual
comes under the influence of those of high
status within that group, the more likely
the individual to follow in their footsteps.
This does not deny that there may be
practical motives for crime. If a person
feels hungry but has no money, the
temptation to steal will become present.
But, the use of "needs" and "values" is
equivocal. To a greater or lesser extent,
both non-criminal and criminal individuals
are motivated by the need for money and
social gain.

Sutherland's theory of
differential association
The principles of Sutherland's Theory of
Differential Association key points:[1]

1. Criminal behavior is learned from other

individuals.

2. Criminal behavior is learned in

interaction with other persons in a process
of communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of
criminal behavior occurs within intimate
personal groups.

4. When criminal behavior is learned, the

learning includes (a) techniques of
committing the crime, which are
sometimes very complicated, sometimes
simple; (b) the specific direction of
motives, drives, rationalizations, and
attitudes.

5. The specific direction of motives and

drives is learned from definitions of the
legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because
of an excess of definitions favorable to
violation of law over definitions
unfavorable to violation of the law.

7. Differential associations may vary in

frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.

8. The process of learning criminal

behavior by association with criminal and
anti-criminal patterns involves all of the
mechanisms that are involved in any other
learning.

9. While criminal behavior is an expression

of general needs and values, it is not
explained by those needs and values,
since non-criminal behavior is an
expression of the same needs and values.

Explanation
Furthermore, some new and additional
theoretical specifications about the social
influence of others on the individual, all in
accordance with the original ideas of
Sutherland are proposed and empirically
tested. The differential association theory
according to the version of K.-D. Opp is
fairly well corroborated by the data. Only
three of the postulated relationships are
rejected. The theory explains 51% of the
variance of criminal behavior, even
considering that no criminal population is
used for the test and only minor offenses
are measured. The test also shows that
the impact of the frequency of contacts
with deviant behaviour patterns on the
development of positive definitions and on
the frequency of communication about
relevant techniques is substantial and
cannot be ignored by criminologists.
Furthermore, special analysis show that
several propositions favour the theory. It is
the deviancy of others that has the most
substantial impact: the more youngsters
have contact with their friends, the
stronger the impact of the deviancy of
their friends on the development of
positive definitions or on the frequency of
communication about techniques. The
tests also show that the more youngsters
identify themselves with others, the
stronger the impact of the deviancy of the
others on their norms. These results
support the modification of the DA theory
according to Opp and falsify some
propositions of social control theory.

An important quality of differential

association theory concerns the frequency
and intensity of interaction. The amount of
time that a person is exposed to a
particular definition and at what point the
interaction began are both crucial for
explaining criminal activity. The process of
learning criminal behaviour is really not
any different from the process involved in
learning any other type of behaviour.
Sutherland maintains that there is no
unique learning process associated with
acquiring non-normative ways of
behaving.[2]

One unique aspect of this theory is that

the theory purports to explain more than
just juvenile delinquency and crime
committed by lower class individuals.
Since crime is understood to be learned
behaviour, the theory is also applicable to
white-collar, corporate, and organized
crime.[3]

Critique
One criticism leveled against this theory
has to do with the idea that people can be
independent, rational actors and
individually motivated. This notion of one
being a criminal based on his or her
environment is problematic. This theory
does not take into account personality
traits that might affect a person's
susceptibility to these environmental
influences.[4]
See also
Tabula Rasa

References
1. Scarpitti, F. R., Nielsen, A. L., & Miller,
J. M. (2009). A Sociological Theory of
Criminal Behavior. Crime and
Criminals Contemporary and Classic
Readings in Criminology (2 ed., p
211). New York: Oxford University
Press.
2. Crime in Canadian Context: Debates
and Controversies by William O'
Grady (2nd edition)
 3. Crime in Canadian Context: Debates
and Controversies by William O'
Grady (2nd edition)
4. Crime in Canadian Context: Debates
and Controversies by William O'
Grady (2nd edition)

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Differential_association&oldid=867002697"

Last edited 7 months ago by Titodut…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.