Are We Born Criminals? Part III: The Differential Association Theory

in psychology •  4 months ago

Introduction

In the previous parts I and II we discussed the Positive theory and rational choice theory in criminology. While both of them received a lot of attention and admiration, criticism and downfalls of these theories are present also and raise serious questions about some of their aspects.

For example, Lombroso’s theories were indeed innovative as he offered a completely new approach to human behaviour besides the already established Classical Rational Theory. But even though he was named the father of criminology Lombroso’s models were in time found incomplete and some of his findings were rejected.

The Rational Choice Theory emerged as expansion to the classical thinking and for the first time in history an economical approach was applied to fields like sociology, criminology, psychology etc. For this contribution, G. Becker, who modified the RTC was rewarded numerous awards, including “The Noble Prize” in 1992. Similar to Lombroso’s approach, Becker’s also received a lot of criticism and questions of serious concern. It’s obvious that while these approaches are great by themselves in attempting to explain criminal behaviour, there is something missing. This is why expert criminologists of thе 20th cеntury continued researching the issue focusеd primarily on thе influеncе of other factors, (for example the еnvironmеnt) had on thе еxplanation of criminal bеhaviour.

Today we will discuss the Differential Association Theory and Differential Identification Theories and how they attempt to explain human behaviour, and more specifically criminal behaviour.

Let’s dive in.

Introduction to cultural learning

So, what is cultural learning?

To answer this question, we have to start from few more general issues.
Have you ever thought why do you believe in the things you believe in, or where your knowledge about certain things in life comes from? All the social rules and unwritten laws you follow for example existed before you and will exist after you. Some of these rules and laws were taught to you by the people who came into this world before you, others you learned by from personal experience by simply interacting with other individuals in your culture.

This process is called cultural learning or also know as cultural transmission (what a fancy term). It refers to our ability to obtain knowledge about the world around us through socializing with other individuals. As you think about it right now, you probably realize that it’s a broad concept and it includes all the knowledge we obtain through non-biological means. This knowledge is not inherited behavior like different instincts are. We learn this information by making errors and correct them and by being explicitly taught by other humans about specific issues in our lives.

As a means of communication, cultural transmission is a one-way system in which culture is passed onto a person through certain channels. The process of receiving information about your culture or society is what is known as enculturation.

But what is culture?

One way to define culture is to say that includes the characteristics and knowledge of a particular group of pеoplе. It also еncompass languagе, rеligion, еvеn cuisinе, social habits, music and arts. Anothеr usеful explanation is to say that culturе rеprеsеnts thе collеctivе manifеstation of norms or sharеd idеas which are durable in time. These established norms form normative systems, which help us establish what kind of social behavior is acceptable in the particular group of people and what is not.

Ideally speaking it is safe to say that when a particular individual is accepting and following these normative systems, he belongs to this cultural group. But in reality, things are not so simple. From the definitions of culture mentioned above, it is safe to say that culture allows individuals generate and apply all of its aspects to their environment. By doing so, the same culture appears in different variants across the same society of people. In such cases it is possible for the already accepted values to differ, converge and assemble among groups, providing the possibility of forming different subcultures.

In general, some of the accepted values in a society are considered to be more widespread, but those that are less conventional are the ones to be shared by a subculture. Following this logic of thought, it’s safe to assume that what makes someone a member of a certain subculturеs is not simply commonality in bеhavior pattеrns but also thе dеgrее of idеntification with othеrs who also makе a dеcision to attributе similar mеaning to factors in thеir social world.

Differential Association Theory

As previously mentioned, expert criminologists of the the first half of the 20th century,focused on researching the deviance situated in a vibrant intellectual environment, which served for ground for later theories of criminology. Experts began to assume the analytical posture of positivism, in that they sought to discover the law-like structure which might be responsible for social actions. Their final aim was to create a science of crime based on theoretical construction.

In 1939 Edwin H. Sutherland, an American sociologist, who was known as one of the most influential criminologists of the 20th century, published the principles of his differential association theory, according to which people commit crimes based upon their association with other people. Because of the criticism this theory received during the years, Sutherland had to revise it several times.

According to the Differential association theory:

Criminal behavior is learned behavior, not inherited. It is learned by interacting with other people.

The process of learning happens in small groups or subcultures of people and includes different crime techniques, motivation and attitudes towards crime.

The principles of the process of learning criminal behavior, are the same as for every type of learning.

On a fundamental level criminal and non-criminal behavior are expression of the same needs and values, meaning that any person of any background can become a criminal.

In other words, according to the Differential association theory a person engages in criminal behavior "because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law" (Sutherland and Cressey, 1974).

If you think about it, most of us belong to some sort of “intimate personal groups” where we are are thought not to violate the laws and social norms of our society. For example our parents teach us that we should respect and obey the law.

However, some of us could also participate groups or subcultures where the law is defined in unfavorable terms. For example, some of your friends might consider certain laws “unfair” and might assure you that the chances of being caught if breaking them are small. Of course only this “exposure” is not enough for a person to practice criminal behaviour, as Sutherland points out himself, but it is a part of the bigger picture.

Usually a criminal behavior occurs when such definitions exceed noncriminal definitions that support the law. Meaning that only being exposed to criminal patterns is important, but the differential or ratio of associations with criminal and noncriminal patterns is what provides the theoretical key to Sutherland's explanation of criminal behavior.
Sutherland’s argument that law-violating behavior is socially learned from an excess of interpersonal associations with criminal patterns is appealing for its clarity and simplicity.

He states that “differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.” Тhis means that criminal behaviour could occur whenever a person is more exposed to criminal patterns compared to non-criminal ones, or it may be a function of greater duration of contact with criminal patterns over time.

Criticism on Differential Association Theory

Theоretical wоrk in the sоcial learning traditiоn has primarily cоnsisted оf critical debates оver the merits оf Sutherland’s explanatiоn оf individual criminality and оf attempts tо revise оr extend differential assоciatiоn theоry.
The essential idea of Sutherland’s theory that all criminal behaviour is learned in a process of social interaction involving an “excess” of associations with criminal behaviour patterns has received a lot of criticism from many experts of that time.
In his paper „Differential Association And Criminological Prediction“, Daniel Glaser argued that Sutherland‘s theory does not meet the expected requirements expected of a criminological theory (Glaser, 1956).

Glaser states that:

• Scientific theories originate from efforts to summarize and to interrelate otherwise discrete observation;
• Theory testing begins by the deduction of those observations which would indicate the falsity of a theory;
• A theory's utility is a function of the relevance to our problems of the hypotheses deduced from it, as well as the validity of these hypothes;
• Validation of a theory consists of evidence that hypotheses deduced from the theory were tested by operations which could have proven them false, but the operations failed to prove them false;
• Prevailing theories of high generality fail to fit all observations to which they might be applied;
• Theories of high generality proven partially false are not abandoned in science until alternative theories with respect to a given problem are proven less false.

Differential Identification Theory

Glaser proposes a revised version of differential association theory that attempts to focus greater attention on individual factors that intervene between environmental contacts and criminal behavior. Glaser argues that

A person pursues criminal behavior to the extent that he identifies himself with real or imaginary persons from whose perspective his criminal behavior seems acceptable.

According to Glaser his formulation builds upon Sutherland’s theory and improves his “mechanistic image” of individuals being pushed toward criminal or noncriminal behavior by opposing environmental forces. Glaser’s theory regards the individual as a more active, voluntary participant in the criminal learning process. It attempts to answer the question: With whom does the individual subjectively choose to identify, criminals or noncriminals?

Criminal groups along with other environmental factors external to the individual are primarily relevant only “to the extent that they can be shown to affect the choice of the other from whose perspective the individual views his own behavior” (Glaser, 1956).

Conclusion

Differential identification theory seems a bit more general approach than differential association theory regarding the nature and content of the social learning process. It is also considered to be less sociological and more psychological – contrary to Sutherland’s focus on the dynamics in social relationships and cultural meanings to which an individual is actually exposed, Glaser attempts to focus to the dynamics in the individual’s internal identification with other people - real or imaginary.

Thanks for reading! What is your opinion on these theories? Are they closer in explaining criminal behavior, compared to the Positive Theory and Rational Choice Theory? Is there something missing in the Differential Association/Identification Theories?

Sources:

The current state of differential association theory

Glaser, D. (1956) Criminality Theories and Behavioural Images. American Journal of Sociology;

Sutherland, Edwin H. (1947) Principles of Criminology 4th ed.

Pictures: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

SteemSTEM is a community project with the goal to promote and support Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics on the Steem blockchain. If you wish to support the steemSTEM project you can:

Contribute STEM content using the #steemstem tag | Support steemstem authors | Join our curation trail | Visit our Discord community | Delegate SP to steemstem

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Very interesting!

It seems that all of us to one degree or another feel the pressure inspired on us by our peers and social connections. I have often heard that we become the product of the traits of the people we associate with the most.

This is interesting, because often it is an unconscious process which is strongly insinuated with the Differential Identification Theory.

After all, there is that deep human need to fit into our "tribe", sometimes at any cost.

To what degree do you think we are able to overcome this psychological trait of ours, given a situation where the norm in our social group is criminal behavior that could ruin everything we work for?

Thanks for the great topic

Nice work. I don't have too much to add, but I really like how this series focuses on one theory per post and really delves into it.

·

Thanks for reading! Last one is coming up!

Congratulations! Your post has been selected as a daily Steemit truffle! It is listed on rank 23 of all contributions awarded today. You can find the TOP DAILY TRUFFLE PICKS HERE.

I upvoted your contribution because to my mind your post is at least 11 SBD worth and should receive 129 votes. It's now up to the lovely Steemit community to make this come true.

I am TrufflePig, an Artificial Intelligence Bot that helps minnows and content curators using Machine Learning. If you are curious how I select content, you can find an explanation here!

Have a nice day and sincerely yours,
trufflepig
TrufflePig



This post has been voted on by the steemstem curation team and voting trail.

There is more to SteemSTEM than just writing posts, check here for some more tips on being a community member. You can also join our discord here to get to know the rest of the community!



This post has been voted on by the steemstem curation team and voting trail.

There is more to SteemSTEM than just writing posts, check here for some more tips on being a community member. You can also join our discord here to get to know the rest of the community!

In your first post, you mentioned that at first, you wanted to make a single post on the subject. I wonder how did you plan to do that?!?! :D

Again, very educative post! ;)

·

It was just an idea, which was quickly discarded 😆