Differential Association Theory- A03
- Created by: MollyL20
- Created on: 01-11-21 15:59
View mindmap
- Differential Association Theory- A03
- Matsueda
(1988) criticises the differential association theory because he argues that
there needed to be much more research conducted to improve the theory's ability
to predict offending behaviour.
- He also stated that one of the main problems with the theory was that the concepts were vague.
- This means that the theory is not necessarily reliable as it does not have enough research evidence.
- He also stated that one of the main problems with the theory was that the concepts were vague.
- Research
to support this theory was conducted by Alarid et al (2000) where he tested
1,153 newly convicted criminals for the extent to which differential
association theory could explain their offending behaviour.
- He found that it served as a good general theory of crime and that it could explain offending behaviour, especially in men. .
- However, this means the theory is not entirely generalisable but valid
- He found that it served as a good general theory of crime and that it could explain offending behaviour, especially in men. .
- A
strength of Sutherland's theory is that it accounted for crime within all
sectors of society. Whilst he recognised that some types of crime may be
clustered within certain inner-city, working-class communities, it is also the
case that some crimes are more prevalent amongst more affluent groups in
society.
- Therefore, this theory is generalisable for all social groups and good for explaining white-collar crime.
- A limitation to this theory is that it's difficult to test. For
example, it is hard to measure the number of pro-criminal attitudes a person
has or has been exposed to.
- Similarly, the theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-criminal attitudes outweigh anti-criminal attitudes.
- However, without being able to measure these, it is difficult to know at what point the urge to offend is realised.
- Similarly, the theory is built on the assumption that offending behaviour will occur when pro-criminal attitudes outweigh anti-criminal attitudes.
- A
strength of the differential association theory is that it introduces
environmental factors, taking the emphasis away from biological and immorality
factors.
- This theory draws attention to the fact that dysfunctional social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for criminality than dysfunctional people. .
- Therefore, this approach is more desirable because it offers a more realistic solution to the problem of crime instead of eugenics or punishment
- This theory draws attention to the fact that dysfunctional social circumstances and environments may be more to blame for criminality than dysfunctional people. .
- Matsueda
(1988) criticises the differential association theory because he argues that
there needed to be much more research conducted to improve the theory's ability
to predict offending behaviour.
Comments
No comments have yet been made