Science for Everybody

Mark value: 2 marks

AO focus: AO1 – knowledge and understanding

Bullet-point answer points

• Offending behaviour is learned through interaction or communication with other people.
• Learning is especially likely within close or intimate personal groups.
• A person learns attitudes or definitions that support offending and may also learn criminal techniques.
• Offending is more likely when pro-criminal definitions outweigh anti-criminal definitions.

Full model answer

Differential association theory states that offending behaviour is learned through interaction with other people, particularly close social groups. Offending becomes more likely when a person learns more attitudes that support law-breaking than attitudes that support obeying the law.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not describe the theory as simply “copying criminals”. State that both attitudes and techniques can be learned, and refer to the balance between pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions.

Mark value: 4 marks

AO focus: AO1 – knowledge and understanding

Bullet-point answer points

• Criminal behaviour is learned rather than automatically inherited.
• Learning takes place through communication with others, especially intimate personal groups.
• People learn motives, attitudes, rationalisations and practical techniques.
• Associations vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
• Offending becomes more likely when definitions favourable to law-breaking outweigh definitions favourable to law-abiding behaviour.

Full model answer

One feature is that criminal behaviour is learned through interaction and communication with other people, especially close groups such as family and friends. A second feature is that people are exposed to both pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions. Sutherland argued that offending becomes more likely when the definitions supporting law-breaking are stronger or more numerous than those supporting obeying the law.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Avoid listing two terms without explaining them. Each feature needs a clear sentence showing what it means. Do not confuse differential association theory with social learning theory’s specific concepts of vicarious reinforcement unless you explain that Sutherland’s theory is broader.

Mark value: 6 marks

AO focus: AO1 and AO2 – knowledge and application

Bullet-point answer points

• Callum has frequent contact with a group that presents pro-criminal definitions.
• “The companies can afford it” is a rationalisation that makes theft seem acceptable.
• The group teaches practical criminal techniques, such as removing security tags and selecting exits.
• Spending “most evenings” with the group demonstrates high frequency of association.
• The six-month relationship gives the association some duration.
• The older friendship group may have intensity if Callum values or admires them.
• His offending becomes more likely because pro-criminal messages may outweigh anti-criminal messages.

Full model answer

Differential association theory would explain Callum’s shoplifting as learned behaviour. He spends most evenings with an older friendship group, so he experiences frequent exposure to their attitudes. The statement that stealing from large companies is harmless is a pro-criminal definition because it justifies law-breaking and reduces the perceived seriousness of theft. Callum is also taught specific criminal techniques, including how to remove security tags and which exits are less closely watched. Sutherland argued that offending becomes more likely when definitions favourable to law-breaking outweigh definitions supporting the law. Therefore, Callum’s repeated association with this group may have shifted his attitudes towards theft while also giving him the practical skills to commit it.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not merely retell the scenario. Every detail should be linked to a named part of the theory. Use terms such as pro-criminal definitions, frequency, techniques and intimate personal groups.

Mark value: 6 marks

AO focus: AO3 – analysis and evaluation

Bullet-point answer points

Strength options:

• Broad explanatory power across street, organised and white-collar crime.
• Practical applications because social environments can be changed.
• Support from longitudinal research showing family and social risk factors are associated with later offending.

Weakness options:

• Key concepts such as intensity are difficult to operationalise.
• Evidence is often correlational, so direction of causality is unclear.
• Individual differences are underexplained.
• Family effects may reflect genetic as well as learned influences.

Full model answer

One strength is the theory’s broad explanatory power. It can explain both conventional offences and white-collar crime because people in any social class can learn attitudes and techniques that support offending. For example, fraudulent practices may be learned within a workplace. This makes the theory more flexible than explanations that imply offenders are a biologically distinct group.

One weakness is that the theory is difficult to test precisely. Sutherland argued that associations differ in frequency, duration, priority and intensity, but concepts such as intensity are hard to measure objectively. This means researchers cannot easily calculate when pro-criminal influences have become strong enough to cause offending. Therefore, the theory has weaker scientific testability than its apparently systematic language suggests.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not give two undeveloped points. For each point, explain why it matters for the value of the theory. A strong answer follows a point-evidence-explanation-link structure rather than naming a strength or weakness only.

Mark value: 8 marks

AO focus: AO1 and AO3 – knowledge, comparison and evaluation

Bullet-point answer points

Similarities:

• Both aim to explain individual differences in offending behaviour.
• Both can be described as relatively deterministic because behaviour is strongly shaped by factors outside immediate conscious choice.
• Both generate predictions that can be investigated using offender and non-offender groups.

Differences:

• Differential association is primarily social and environmental; Eysenck emphasises biologically based personality dimensions.
• Differential association focuses on learned attitudes and techniques; Eysenck focuses on extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism plus conditioning.
• Differential association can readily explain white-collar or group-specific techniques; Eysenck explains offending through a general personality profile.
• Differential association suggests changing social networks may reduce offending; Eysenck’s account places greater emphasis on stable personality and conditioning processes.

Full model answer

Differential association theory and Eysenck’s theory both attempt to explain why some people are more likely to offend than others, but they locate the cause in different places. Sutherland’s differential association theory is mainly a social explanation. It argues that people learn pro-criminal attitudes, rationalisations and practical techniques through interaction with influential groups. Offending becomes more likely when definitions favourable to law-breaking outweigh definitions supporting law-abiding behaviour.

In contrast, Eysenck’s theory begins with biologically influenced personality dimensions. He argued that high extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism can make conditioning to social rules less effective or make antisocial behaviour more likely. Therefore, Eysenck gives a larger role to inherited temperament, while Sutherland gives a larger role to the social environment.

The theories also differ in what they explain most naturally. Differential association theory can explain why particular crimes cluster within groups or occupations because people can learn specialised techniques from others. This is especially useful for offences such as fraud or organised crime. Eysenck’s theory offers a more general explanation based on personality, but it may struggle to explain why an individual learns one specific form of offending rather than another.

However, both theories can be criticised for determinism. Sutherland may imply that strong pro-criminal associations push a person towards crime, while Eysenck suggests stable personality characteristics increase risk. Neither theory alone fully explains why two people with similar social experiences or personality profiles can make different choices. A complete explanation may therefore need to combine social learning, personality, cognition and opportunity.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not write two separate mini-essays with no comparison. Use explicit comparative phrases such as whereas, in contrast, similarly and both. Make sure each theory is accurately described before evaluating the difference.

Mark value: 16 marks

AO focus: AO1 and AO3 – detailed knowledge and evaluation

Bullet-point answer points

AO1 knowledge:

• Sutherland first proposed the theory in 1939.
• Criminal behaviour is learned through communication and interaction.
• Learning occurs particularly within intimate personal groups.
• People learn attitudes, motives, rationalisations and techniques.
• Offending becomes more likely when definitions favourable to law-breaking outweigh definitions supporting the law.
• Associations vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.

AO3 evaluation:

• Broad explanatory power, including white-collar crime.
• Shift away from biological “criminal type” explanations and towards modifiable social factors.
• Farrington et al. provides supportive longitudinal evidence for family and social risk factors.
• Evidence is correlational and does not directly demonstrate learned criminal definitions.
• Direction of causality may be reversed because offenders may choose criminal peers.
• Concepts such as intensity are difficult to operationalise, weakening testability.
• Individual differences and biological influences are underplayed.
• Sample bias and cultural limits reduce generalisability of some supporting studies.
• Ethical constraints prevent direct experimental tests.
• Online associations raise temporal-validity questions but may also show how the basic learning principle can be extended.

Full model answer

Differential association theory was proposed by Edwin Sutherland in 1939 as a social explanation of offending behaviour. Sutherland argued that criminal behaviour is learned rather than simply inherited or caused by a biological “criminal type”. Learning occurs through interaction and communication with other people, particularly within intimate personal groups such as family members and close friends.

According to the theory, people learn both the attitudes that support offending and the practical techniques required to commit offences. For example, a person may learn a rationalisation such as “stealing from a large company does not really hurt anyone” and may also learn how to avoid security systems. Sutherland argued that offending becomes more likely when a person experiences an excess of definitions favourable to law-breaking over definitions that support law-abiding behaviour. The influence of an association also depends on its frequency, duration, priority and intensity. Therefore, repeated contact with an admired group over a long period may be particularly influential.

A strength of differential association theory is its explanatory power. It can explain a wide range of crimes because learning can occur in any social group. This includes white-collar crime, where employees may learn illegal techniques and attitudes from colleagues. This was important because it challenged older explanations that linked crime mainly with poverty or biological abnormality. The theory therefore provides a broader account of offending across social classes.

There is also some empirical support for the importance of social and family factors. Farrington et al. followed 411 South London males from childhood into adulthood. By age 50, 41% had received at least one conviction, and family criminality and poor parenting were among the childhood risk factors associated with later offending. These findings are consistent with the idea that close social environments influence the development of offending. However, they do not show that participants directly learned criminal definitions or techniques from family members. The evidence therefore supports the importance of social context more strongly than it proves the exact mechanisms proposed by Sutherland.

A further weakness is that much research in this area is correlational. If an offender has criminal friends, those friends may have influenced the offender, but the offender may also have chosen friends with similar attitudes. A third factor such as impulsivity, deprivation or family disruption could influence both friendship choices and offending. Therefore, cause and effect cannot be established confidently.

The theory also has problems with scientific testing. Concepts such as frequency can be measured reasonably easily, but intensity is much harder to operationalise. The emotional importance of a relationship cannot be reduced confidently to a simple score. This makes it difficult to calculate the exact point at which pro-criminal associations should produce offending. As a result, the theory may be less falsifiable than Sutherland intended.

Another limitation is that differential association theory underestimates individual differences. Many people are exposed to criminal peers or relatives but do not offend. Personality, biological vulnerability, moral reasoning, self-control and perceived consequences may all affect whether a person adopts the attitudes of a group. The theory may therefore be socially deterministic because it gives heavy emphasis to the environment and less attention to personal agency.

Finally, some supporting evidence has limited generalisability. Farrington et al.’s sample consisted of males from one area of South London, so findings may not generalise fully to women or to other cultural and social groups. Modern online communities also challenge the original focus on intimate face-to-face groups. However, the basic idea that people learn attitudes and techniques through meaningful communication may still apply to digital communities.

Overall, differential association theory is valuable because it explains offending as a learned social behaviour and can account for many different types of crime. Its strongest contribution is showing how social groups can transmit both criminal values and practical skills. However, difficulties with measurement, causality and individual differences mean that it is unlikely to provide a complete explanation of offending on its own.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Do not spend the whole answer describing the theory. A 16-mark response needs sustained evaluation. Use named evidence, explain why each evaluation point matters and avoid presenting Farrington et al. as a direct experimental test of differential association. Keep the conclusion balanced: the theory has useful explanatory scope, but it is not a complete account of offending.