Differential Association Essay

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association theory is about an individual learning criminal behaviour through interaction with intimate groups. His theory includes four modalities, which are frequency, duration priority and intensity. Sutherland’s theory is seen

Psychology plays a very important role in the field of criminal justice. It is needed to help assess individuals who commit crimes, as well as, help to be a predictor of criminal behavior. Utilizing theories such behaviorism and operant conditioning, individual behavior is able to be assessed by the response to learning what actions result in rewards and what actions result in punishment. As a result of how individuals respond to rewards and punishment, learned behaviors have the possibility to be deterred or corrected.

Factors that may affect criminal behaviour may include a persons upbringing from parents and educational upbringing which are the main types of factors, Although,there are some times when people are conditioned to believe that the crime is right and not against the law or different politcal beliefs may insight violence and/or rebellion.

High crime rates are an ongoing issue through the United States, however the motivation and the cause of crime has yet to be entirely identified. Ronald Akers would say that criminality is a behavior that is learned based on what an individual sees and observes others doing. When an individual commits a crime, he or she is acting on impulse based on actions that they have seen others engage in. Initially during childhood, individuals learn actions and behavior by watching and listening to others, and out of impulse they mimic the behavior that is observed. Theorist Ronald Akers extended Sutherland’s differential association theory with a modern viewpoint known as the social learning theory. The social learning theory states that

And on the other hand how “Code of the Streets” shows links to the Differential Association and Social Learning theories of crime. The Differential Association (closely related to Social Disorganization theory), developed by Edwin Sutherland, and Social Learning theory, developed by Ronald Akers, both theories of crime are theories that try to explain, at a micro-level, why individuals rather than groups of individuals commit crime (Feldmeyer, Differential Association and Social Learning, 2015).

From birth, our families, friends, and society influenced our choices. We were told what we could and could not accept. The music we listened to, the food we ate, and the clothes we wore were all influenced by someone in our community or household. These experiences from your childhood tend to determine the choices we will make as adults. We are living in a world that approaches life with a black or white perceptive, meaning decisions in life are either morally right or morally wrong. Differential Association Theory is defined as a criminological theory created by Edwin Sutherland that focuses on criminal behavior being learned through association with others (Walsh, 559). The theory focuses on an individual’s life that could lead them to a life of crime.

It is known that crime is caused through imitation, arousal and desensitising. The social Learning theory (2009), looks at how people engage in crime due to their associations. It explains that a person’s behaviour is a product of the people who surround ourselves – people imitate those who people admire. Theorist Bandura (1997) had completed an experiment in which looked at

Trying to understand why crime happens if a very important concept. Throughout history, criminologist have debated on which theory of crime is most accurate. Currently, social bond and social learning theory are two of the leading theories in the criminological world. Between these two theories there are a variety of differences and similarities. In addition to these theories Gottfredson and Hirschi have published a book where they use the concept of self control to describe crime. Analyzing these three theories can be important to understanding the current criminological world.

The objective of this study is to examine whether it is nature or nurture who plays the most vital role in a human’s behavior, specifically an individual’s criminal behavior. Criminal behavior is defined as an act or failure to act in a way that violates public law. Some believe that criminal behavior can be identified as early as conception, meaning that criminal behavior is because of your genes. While others believe that one’s upbringing and social learning environment directly contributes to the individual’s criminal behavior. This paper will provide the history on the ongoing debate of nature vs. nurture and answer the question of whether it is

Criminal behavior is something that affects everyone, even if you don’t particularly engage in the act itself. Every time a crime is committed, we often find ourselves wondering what led that person to do that crime. We wonder why they did it because it is something that we could never do, so therefor we cannot fathom the act of engaging in criminal activity. Some people feel that people only engage in it just because they lack the thing that they try to steal or because of their specific background and race. In actuality, there is a link between criminal behavior and the lack of education. However there is also a link between the attainment of education and criminal behavior.

When looking at criminal activity and the direct connection to the criminal behavior we see that there have been many research trials that have taken place over the history of humankind (Mishra & Lalumiere, 2008). Two of these research areas that have been developed to attempt to understand the causes of criminal behavior are known as biological and psychological perspectives of crime causation. These two sectors have their principles that are held in their theories as a standard scientific understanding of the basics that each evaluation of criminal behavior is built on (Dretske, 2004).

What determines criminal behavior? Are they born to be a natural born killer, is it in their genes, or is it a learned behavior? There are multiple factors resulting in criminal behavior, from genes to environmental factors. Although it is said and believed that criminal behavior is biologically determined there are even more learned or environmental factors that play a role in criminal behavior.

Differential Association theory was designed by Sutherland and Cressey (1960) which has a concept that mainly states criminal behavior is learned. The theory itself brings forward nine separate points that’s described what can lead to criminal behavior being learned. Some of those include; criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons, the setting is within intimate personal groups, techniques of committing the crime are learned, a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of the law. However the final point of this theory defines that while “criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values”

The Behavioral Learning Theory believes that behavior is learned from either the environment, the people in the individual's life, the media, or society as a whole. This theory contradicts the Biological theory, which states that criminals are "born to be bad" and that criminal behavior is inherited. The behavioral theory looks at the environment as well as society's impact on how an individual acts which might be the reason for criminal behavior. This theory blames the environment as well as the individual by saying it is a learned behavior and that it also was a choice they made. A basic assumption is that behavior is learned and modeled by individuals, groups, the media, and society as a whole.

Mr. Reploge, I agree with your point of view. Criminal behavior is a learned behavior, not inherited. Gabriel Tarde challenged the concept of the born criminal developed by Cesare Lombroso. He believed that one becomes a criminal through their environment, not birth. Group dynamics validate this theory. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making and criminal behaviors. It allows the principle of differential association to be examined through the rule of law.