js 151 fp-2

docx

School

San Jose State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

151

Subject

Sociology

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by PrivateKouprey7461

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 1 Differential Association Theory: A Thorough Examination Sabrina Hernandez JS 151 San Jose State University

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 2 Abstract Within this essay, we will be discussing differential association theory. We will be describing what differential association theory is, as well as its components, propositions, limitations, and weaknesses. We will also be explaining the article by William J. Miller and Rick A. Matthews which connects differential association theory to juvenile delinquency and how the empirical tests performed help to prove the validity of differential association theory. We will also discuss the theory in general and whether or not it is a good theory to explain crime and why individuals commit crimes.

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 3 Differential Association Theory: A Thorough Examination Differential association theory is imperative to describing crime and why criminals become criminals and commit crimes. While differential association theory can explain this, it also has its own limitations and flaws within its own design. The article by William J. Miller and Rick A. Matthews, which connects differential association theory to juvenile delinquency, will show how their empirical tests help to prove the validity of differential association theory. First, it is important to understand what differential association theory is as well as who created it. Differential association theory was created by Edwin Sutherland in the 1930s. He explained how people resort to crime through what they learn from others. Sutherland believed that people learn to become offenders due to their environment (Tibbetts, 2019). This is through interactions with others. People are able to learn the values, attitudes, methods and motives for criminal behavior. He believed that the criminal association outweighed the non-criminal association. This then turns into offending behavior. What this means is that he believed that the criminal behavior you learn will outweigh the non-offending behavior you've learned and then you become a criminal through this learned behavior. One of Sutherland’s key points is that he does not believe that you are born a criminal like fellow theorists, Lombroso. Sutherland gave his theory nine different principles which help to explain why people resort to doing crime and how they learn it. He stated that criminal behavior was learned. Criminal Behavior is learned through interactions with others is another principle which connects to his third principle that this occurs within intimate and personal groups. The reasoning is because you spend more time with these individuals and in turn learn more from them and in his instance, learn criminal behavior. He also stated that attitudes, acceptability and techniques for

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 4 crime are learned through these intimate groups as well. A big part of his theory is that learning is in one direction or the other, what this means is that you are either solely pro or solely anti- crime. Sutherland also believed that whether someone becomes an offender will depend on which way the pro or anti leans because learning is directional, this direction decides your behavior. Other principles include that learning experiences are different for each individual and not everyone will learn the same thing, also that learning crime is not any different from learning anything else, such as riding a bike. Lastly, Sutherland strongly believed that “need” is not enough reason for crime. What this means is that he believed you must evolve your learning in order to do crime and that since not everyone who is in need of something or struggling commits crime, then “need” is not an exception to his theory (Brookes, 2021). Sutherland also believed, people who engage in criminal activity are "abnormal" (Tibbetts, pg.154, 2019), which then suggests that he believed there is something wrong with people who commit crimes or engage in these activities. However, differential association theory leads to crime through social interactions and learning, it is not believed to be inherited or psychological. This means that individuals just learn through conversations, actions, and engaging with people who believe committing crimes is good or the right thing to do and in turn commit the crimes themselves. With this belief, it can be stated that based on differential association theory, anyone can commit crimes if associated with the “wrong crowd” and learn delinquency from this group. This connects to the article by William J. Miller and Rick A. Matthews that explains the interactions between juveniles and delinquent intimate groups and how they contribute to the juvenile’s delinquency. In the article by William J. Miller and Rick A. Matthews, “Youth Employment, Differential Association, and Juvenile Delinquency,” they attempt to answer the question, “Are

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 5 adolescents who work better off than those who do not?” by examining the relationship between youth employment and juvenile delinquency. Through this study, they found a lot of evidence supporting that adolescents who work are affected negatively. They believed initially how working led to even more stressors for youth and that it would often cause youth to turn to substance abuse. They also considered abusing substances as a form of delinquency. A lot of research that Miller and Matthews presented was that there was a “positive” relationship between work and alcohol use. What this means is that there was a connection that working caused an increase in substance use in youth. They also found that youth who had a bigger group of peers who exhibited delinquent behavior, were likely to increase in their delinquent behavior. This is a great example of differential association theory as their studies showed the youths' intimate group relationships with other delinquents caused them to learn crime and delinquency and adopt this behavior (Miller & Matthews, 2001). The theory was able to be expanded on thanks to the empirical tests done in this article. Miller and Matthews surveyed a large group of college students on their behavior in high school in order to show how differential association theory can contribute to delinquency in youth. After their surveys, they found that females engaged in less delinquency than males did. They were also able to discover that friends at school are much more influential on youth than friends from work, however, friends from work do have an influence on delinquency, it is just not as prominent as the relationships from school. The reasoning for this is that youth see school friends more than work friends and spend more time with them. These are the intimate groups Sutherland mentioned when describing his theory. With this study, they were able to come to the conclusion that “the proponents of DA (Differential Association) who have suggested that contact with delinquent peers- particularly those who are close friends- increases levels of

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 6 delinquency and may well be a more important factor than whether an adolescent works” (Miller & Matthews, pg.262, 2001). With this being said, there are many other articles that are able to support the findings of Miller and Matthews. An article by James Short helps to show how one can measure differential association within intimate groups. One of the questions he provides states, “Think of the friends you have been associated with most often. Were (or are) any of them delinquents?” (Short, pg. 234, 1957) This allows us to research and use similar questions in surveys to discuss the association between intimate groups and who one hangs out with, and delinquency. However, another article by Hoffmann allows us to see the flaws in differential association theory. In their article, they address how while Sutherland’s differential association theory is good because it allows “broader structural implication,” it is also its downfall as it is too broad and cannot be specified (Hoffmann, 2003). While discussing flaws, no theory is perfect and theories are constantly being modified to fit modern times and modern criminals. Differential association theory relishes in its ability to be broad, however this is not always positive as Hoffmann mentioned. It does not allow for specific explanations for different criminals. It also does not account that people can learn this criminal behavior or choose not to act on it. Sutherland was adamant that it was a tipping scale and once it tips, it cannot be put back. We know this to be false since many criminals deter from crime after being released or never offend again due to rehabilitation. Another issue this theory has is, that it does not take into account cases that people are self-motivated which is what Cressey discusses in compulsive crimes. It does not account for these compulsive and impulsive crimes that can be due to psychological or biological motivation. This is similar to kleptomania (Cressey, 1954).

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 7 Differential association theory is imperative to describing crime and why criminals become criminals and commit crimes. It is able to explain how criminals learn behavior through intimate groups and that this learned behavior is what causes them to commit crimes. While differential association theory can explain this, it also has its own limitations and errors as no theory is perfect. It does not account for all crimes and does not recognize psychological crimes. The article by William J. Miller and Rick A. Matthews was able to make a connection between differential association theory to juvenile delinquency. What they found was that juveniles who associated with delinquent crowds at work and school were likely to exhibit delinquent behavior. This theory and article contributes positively to the field of criminology. It allows us to see the relationship between intimate groups and delinquency and how those we surround ourselves with shape us and many times it shapes individuals into criminals. Differential association theory also allows the field of criminology to measure intensity of interactions. What this means is that it is able to measure how longevity of interaction with intimate groups causes criminal behavior. In summation, differential association theory is a respected theory to describe crime and why criminals commit them.

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION 8 References Brookes, E. (2021, July 21). Sutherland's differential association theory explained . Simply Psychology. www.simplypsychology.org/differential-association-theory.html Cressey, D. R. (1954). The Differential Association Theory and Compulsive Crimes. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science , 45 (1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/1139301 Hoffmann, J. P. (2003). A Contextual Analysis of Differential Association, Social Control, and Strain Theories of Delinquency. Social Forces , 81 (3), 753–785. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3598175 Miller, W. J., & Matthews, R. A. (2001). Youth Employment, Differential Association, and Juvenile Delinquency. Sociological Focus , 34 (3), 251–268. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20832123 Short, J. F. (1957). Differential Association and Delinquency. Social Problems , 4 (3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.2307/798775 Tibbetts, S. G. (2019). Criminological Theory: The Essentials . SAGE Publications.

js 151 fp-2

Related Documents