Differential Association Theory | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 7
- 29 min read
Updated: Aug 14
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 60 to 75 minutes
Differential association theory A-Level Psychology revision examines how offending behaviour may be learned through interaction with family members, friends and other close social groups. The theory proposes that people learn both practical offending techniques and attitudes that make law-breaking appear acceptable or rewarding.
You will learn why different social associations produce different behavioural outcomes, apply the explanation to families, peer groups and prisons, and evaluate whether association causes offending or whether offenders simply choose like-minded companions. The AQA specification names differential association theory as a required psychological explanation of offending.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Define differential association theory.
Explain how values, attitudes, motives and offending techniques may be learned.
Explain the balance between pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions.
Apply the theory to family, peer-group and institutional examples.
Distinguish differential association theory from social learning theory and cognitive explanations.
Evaluate the theory using evidence, methodological concerns and wider psychological debates.
Revision Notes 📚
Differential Association Theory A-Level Psychology Revision Focus
Differential association theory is a learning explanation of offending behaviour associated with Edwin Sutherland.
The theory proposes that offending is:
Learned rather than inherited.
Learned through interaction with other people.
Particularly influenced by close or intimate personal groups.
Supported by the acquisition of pro-criminal attitudes.
Made possible by learning practical techniques.
Maintained when social approval and rewards favour offending.
AQA defines differential association theory as the idea that values, attitudes, techniques and motives for offending are learned through interactions with close groups such as family and friends. Offending becomes more likely when attitudes favourable to breaking the law outweigh attitudes favourable to law-abiding behaviour.
Offending Behaviour Is Learned
The central assumption is:
People are not born knowing how or why to offend. Relevant attitudes and behaviours are acquired through social experience.
The person may learn:
Which behaviours are acceptable.
Which laws can supposedly be ignored.
Which victims are viewed as legitimate targets.
How to perform a particular offence.
How to avoid detection.
Which excuses justify the behaviour.
Which rewards may result.
How other group members respond to offending.
Sutherland’s theory therefore treats offending in much the same way as other learned social behaviour.
A person can learn:
Law-abiding values from one group.
Pro-offending values from another group.
Different techniques from different people.
Contradictory attitudes towards different offences.
Socialisation
Socialisation is the process through which people learn the values, expectations and behaviours of their social groups.
Most people are exposed to messages supporting law-abiding behaviour, such as:
Respect other people’s property.
Violence is unacceptable.
Laws protect society.
Offending harms victims.
People should take responsibility for their actions.
However, some groups may communicate alternative messages, such as:
Theft is acceptable from wealthy victims.
Violence is necessary to gain respect.
Avoiding arrest proves that an offender is skilled.
Loyalty to the group is more important than the law.
Fraud is simply clever business.
Retaliation is always justified.
Differential association theory proposes that these messages can become part of the person’s own values.
Intimate Personal Groups
The most influential learning is proposed to occur within intimate personal groups.
These may include:
Family members.
Close friends.
Partners.
Peer groups.
Gang members.
Trusted work colleagues.
Other people with whom the individual has a meaningful relationship.
Close groups are influential because they provide:
Frequent contact.
Emotional attachment.
Approval and disapproval.
Behavioural models.
Opportunities to practise behaviour.
Detailed explanations and justifications.
Rewards for following group expectations.
Official AQA material emphasises interaction with family and friends rather than exposure to strangers or impersonal communication alone.
Why Close Relationships Matter
A message is likely to have more influence when it comes from someone who is:
Trusted.
Admired.
Emotionally important.
High in status within the group.
Frequently present.
Able to provide approval or punishment.
Experienced in the relevant behaviour.
For example:
A passing comment from a stranger that shoplifting is acceptable may have little effect. Repeated approval from a close friendship group may have far greater influence.
The theory therefore does not assume that every social contact has equal importance.
What Does “Differential” Mean?
People experience different patterns of association.
One person may be surrounded mainly by people who strongly reject offending.
Another may regularly interact with people who:
Commit offences.
Approve of offending.
Provide rewards for offending.
Teach techniques.
Dismiss the effect on victims.
These different patterns are the person’s differential associations.
The theory attempts to explain why people raised in the same wider society may develop different attitudes towards the law.
Pro-Criminal Definitions
A pro-criminal definition is an attitude, belief or justification favourable to offending.
Examples include:
“Taking from a large company does not harm anyone.”
“Violence is the only way to earn respect.”
“The law is unfair, so breaking it is acceptable.”
“People who leave possessions unattended deserve to lose them.”
“Avoiding the police shows intelligence.”
“Everyone in this area does it.”
“Loyalty to the group comes before the law.”
These definitions make offending appear:
Normal.
Justified.
Desirable.
Necessary.
Rewarding.
Less harmful than it is.
The term definition does not mean a dictionary definition. It refers to an attitude or interpretation concerning whether a law should be obeyed.
Anti-Criminal Definitions
An anti-criminal definition is an attitude or belief that supports law-abiding behaviour.
Examples include:
“Theft causes financial and emotional harm.”
“Violence is not justified by disrespect.”
“People remain responsible even when friends approve.”
“Avoiding detection does not make an offence acceptable.”
“Laws should be challenged through lawful processes.”
“The victim’s rights should be considered.”
Most people encounter both pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions.
The theory focuses on their relative influence.
The Balance of Definitions
Offending becomes more likely when:
Definitions favourable to breaking the law outweigh definitions favourable to obeying it.
This does not need to involve a literal numerical calculation.
The person’s social experience may contain:
More frequent approval of offending.
Stronger emotional attachment to people who offend.
Greater rewards for law-breaking.
Weaker exposure to law-abiding values.
Repeated examples of offending without punishment.
AQA’s official vocabulary describes offending as more likely when exposure to positive attitudes towards criminal behaviour exceeds exposure to positive attitudes towards law-abiding conduct.
An Example of the Balance
Consider two young people.
Person A
Person A regularly hears:
“Do not take what belongs to someone else.”
“Think about how the victim would feel.”
“There are lawful ways to earn money.”
“You will lose our trust if you steal.”
They receive strong approval for law-abiding behaviour.
Person B
Person B regularly hears:
“Shoplifting is harmless.”
“You gain respect by bringing things back for the group.”
“Only careless people get caught.”
“Large shops can afford the loss.”
They receive praise and material rewards for theft.
Differential association theory predicts a greater risk of offending for Person B because the pro-criminal definitions have greater influence.
Frequency of Association
Frequency concerns how often the person is exposed to an association.
Repeated contact provides repeated opportunities to:
Hear attitudes favouring offending.
Observe offending behaviour.
Receive approval.
Practise techniques.
Have doubts challenged by the group.
For example:
Daily contact with friends who praise theft may be more influential than one brief encounter with someone who offends.
Frequency affects the strength of learning, although frequent exposure does not make offending inevitable.
Duration of Association
Duration concerns how long the association continues.
A relationship lasting several years may provide:
Repeated reinforcement.
Stable group expectations.
Long-term identification.
Extensive learning of techniques.
Normalisation of offending.
A brief association may have less influence unless it is unusually intense or significant.
Priority of Association
Priority concerns when the association occurs in the person’s development.
Experiences beginning early in life may be influential because:
Values are still developing.
The child relies heavily on close adults.
Behaviour may be learned before alternative values are encountered.
Early definitions may become treated as normal.
For example:
A child repeatedly exposed to family approval of fraud may learn that deception is an ordinary way of obtaining money.
Early experience is not irreversible. Later relationships and education may provide strong anti-criminal definitions.
Intensity of Association
Intensity concerns the emotional importance or status of the person providing the definition.
An association may be intense when it involves someone who is:
Loved.
Admired.
Feared.
Respected.
Seen as powerful.
Central to the person’s identity.
A single strongly valued relationship may have greater influence than several casual relationships.
The Four Features Together
Feature | Key question | Example |
Frequency | How often does the association occur? | Daily contact with offending peers |
Duration | How long does it continue? | Membership of the group for several years |
Priority | How early did it begin? | Exposure to pro-criminal family values in childhood |
Intensity | How emotionally important is the source? | Approval from a highly respected older sibling |
These features help explain why simply knowing someone who offends is not enough to predict offending.
The overall pattern and importance of the association matter.
Learning Attitudes and Values
Differential association theory proposes that people learn more than observable behaviour.
They also learn:
Values.
Norms.
Beliefs.
Motives.
Rationalisations.
Attitudes towards victims.
Attitudes towards police and courts.
Beliefs about the acceptability of particular offences.
For example, a person might learn that:
Robbery is wrong but fraud is acceptable.
Violence is justified only against rival groups.
Theft is acceptable from businesses but not individuals.
Cooperation with the police is disloyal.
The theory can therefore explain why people may approve of some offences but reject others.
Learning Motives
A motive is a reason or goal behind behaviour.
Groups may teach that offending provides:
Money.
Excitement.
Status.
Protection.
Revenge.
Group membership.
Respect.
Power.
For example:
A peer group may teach that vandalism proves courage and earns acceptance.
The offence becomes associated with an outcome valued by the person.
Learning Rationalisations
A rationalisation is a justification that makes offending appear reasonable or acceptable.
Examples include:
“The victim deserved it.”
“The company is insured.”
“No one was really harmed.”
“The law is unjust.”
“I was helping my family.”
“I had no other option.”
Rationalisations reduce conflict between:
The person’s wish to view themselves positively.
Their awareness that the behaviour breaks social rules.
This connects with hostile attribution bias and minimalisation [Lesson 8: Cognitive distortions].
The distinction is that differential association theory explains how these ideas may be learned from social groups, while cognitive-distortion theory explains how they bias the offender’s interpretation.
Learning Offending Techniques
Differential association theory also proposes that practical techniques are learned.
A person might learn:
How to gain access to a property.
How to select a target.
How to conceal stolen goods.
How to deceive a victim.
How to avoid surveillance.
How to coordinate a group offence.
How to sell stolen property.
How to reduce the chance of identification.
Official AQA mark-scheme material accepts the transmission of specific offending behaviours and techniques between family members and peers as a key part of the theory.
Techniques Can Be Simple or Complex
A technique does not need to involve specialist expertise.
Simple techniques
Distracting a shop worker.
Concealing a small item.
Acting as a lookout.
Selecting a poorly secured target.
Complex techniques
Organising financial deception.
Avoiding electronic monitoring.
Coordinating several participants.
Concealing records.
Using specialist occupational knowledge.
The theory can therefore be applied to many forms of offending rather than only impulsive street crime.
Attitudes and Techniques Must Be Distinguished
A person may learn that an offence is acceptable without knowing how to perform it.
They may also learn a technique without approving of its use.
Attitude or definition | Technique |
“Fraud is a clever way of making money.” | How to alter financial records |
“Stealing from companies is harmless.” | How to avoid store surveillance |
“Violence protects the group’s reputation.” | How to organise an attack |
“Police should never be helped.” | How to conceal evidence |
A complete explanation includes both the motivation or justification and the practical learning.
Reinforcement
Social Approval
Offending may be reinforced when close others respond with:
Praise.
Respect.
Acceptance.
Status.
Laughter.
Admiration.
Continued group membership.
For example:
A person steals an item and receives praise from friends for being brave.
The approval increases the likelihood that the behaviour will be repeated.
Material Rewards
Offending may also produce rewards such as:
Money.
Possessions.
Access to resources.
Shared profits.
Reduced debts.
Improved position within a group.
The 2019 AQA mark scheme accepts the idea that offending is more likely when its rewards exceed the rewards associated with not offending.
Avoiding Social Punishment
Law-abiding behaviour may be discouraged within a pro-criminal group.
For example, refusing to participate could lead to:
Ridicule.
Loss of status.
Exclusion.
Accusations of disloyalty.
Threats.
Withdrawal of approval.
The person may offend partly to avoid these negative social consequences.
Reinforcement and Group Norms
A group norm is an expectation about appropriate behaviour within a group.
If the group norm supports offending:
Participation may be rewarded.
Refusal may be criticised.
Offending becomes ordinary.
Victim concerns may be dismissed.
Successful offenders may gain status.
The behaviour becomes embedded in the social identity of the group.
Learning Through Observation
The person may also observe:
Which offences receive rewards.
Which offenders gain status.
Which methods appear successful.
What happens when someone is caught.
How group members justify their actions.
Differential association theory overlaps with social learning, but its distinctive emphasis is on:
Intimate associations.
Pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions.
Learning motives and techniques.
The relative balance of social influences.
Intergenerational Transmission
Offending Within Families
Intergenerational transmission occurs when attitudes or behaviour pass from one generation to another.
A child may observe and learn from:
Parents.
Older siblings.
Other relatives.
Family friends.
They may acquire:
Approval of offending.
Techniques.
Hostility towards authorities.
Rationalisations.
Expectations about rewards.
Beliefs about which offences are acceptable.
Similar Offences Across Generations
If parents, children and grandchildren commit similar offences, differential association theory might explain this through:
Shared definitions.
Direct teaching of techniques.
Observation.
Approval.
Access to the same networks.
Reinforcement within the family.
The 2019 AQA application question used a study in which sons and grandsons often committed offences similar to those of older family members. The mark scheme accepted this as possible evidence that specific techniques and pro-criminal norms had been passed through generations.
Applying the Theory to a Family
Consider this scenario:
Several members of Rafael’s family make money by selling stolen goods. His uncle teaches him which items are easiest to sell and praises him when he brings home valuable property. Family members describe the activity as normal work and criticise anyone who cooperates with police.
A developed application would state:
Rafael belongs to an intimate personal group that supports offending.
He learns a pro-criminal definition that selling stolen property is normal.
His uncle teaches practical techniques for selecting goods.
Praise acts as social reinforcement.
Money provides material reinforcement.
Criticism of police cooperation provides an anti-law-abiding group norm.
The early and emotionally important family association may have high priority and intensity.
Offending becomes more likely because pro-criminal definitions outweigh anti-criminal definitions.
Families Share More Than Learning
Family patterns do not prove differential association theory.
Biological relatives may also share:
Genes.
Personality vulnerabilities.
Socioeconomic conditions.
Neighbourhoods.
Opportunities.
Stressful experiences.
This creates a challenge when interpreting family evidence.
A family pattern is consistent with social learning, but it cannot isolate association as the sole cause.
Peer-Group Learning
Friends and Offending
Peer groups may provide:
Pro-criminal definitions.
Models of offending.
Opportunities.
Practical guidance.
Approval.
Group pressure.
Material rewards.
A young person may learn that offending is:
Exciting.
Normal.
Necessary for acceptance.
A sign of loyalty.
A route to status.
Peer Approval
Consider this example:
Mia’s friends praise people who steal from shops and share the items with the group. They describe law-abiding students as weak.
Differential association theory would explain that:
Theft is defined favourably.
Group approval reinforces offending.
Law-abiding behaviour is socially punished.
The friendship group is an intimate association.
Mia may learn both attitudes and practical techniques.
Continued exposure increases the influence of the definitions.
Selection or Socialisation?
A central difficulty is deciding whether:
Offending peers teach a person to offend.
or:
A person already interested in offending chooses similar peers.
This is known as a peer-selection problem.
The observed association may involve both processes:
Peer influence increases offending.
Existing offending affects friendship choice.
The friendship group then reinforces the behaviour further.
Offending in Prisons
Prison as a Learning Environment
Differential association theory can be applied to imprisonment.
A person entering prison may interact with:
More experienced offenders.
People who approve of offending.
Groups with strong anti-authority values.
People possessing specialist techniques.
Networks that continue after release.
The individual may learn:
New methods.
New justifications.
How to avoid detection.
How to access offending networks.
That offending earns status.
Prisonisation and Differential Association
Prisonisation involves adopting the norms and values of prison life.
Where these norms favour offending, prison may strengthen:
Pro-criminal definitions.
Hostility towards authorities.
Group loyalty.
Acceptance of violence.
Knowledge of offending techniques.
This creates the possibility that imprisonment may increase rather than reduce later offending.
This prepares you for the psychological effects of imprisonment and recidivism [Lesson 10: Custodial sentencing].
Applying the Theory to Reoffending
Consider this scenario:
Before prison, Theo had committed only minor theft. While in custody, he spends considerable time with experienced offenders who describe fraud as low risk and teach him how false accounts are created. They offer to involve him in their activities after release.
Application:
Theo associates with an intimate group that supports offending.
Fraud is defined as low risk and acceptable.
He learns practical techniques.
Future involvement provides possible financial and social rewards.
Pro-criminal definitions may become stronger.
The prison environment may therefore increase the risk of reoffending.
Prison Contact Does Not Guarantee Reoffending
Not every prisoner adopts pro-criminal values.
Some may encounter:
Educational programmes.
Prosocial staff.
Supportive family members.
Rehabilitation.
Anti-criminal peer groups.
Strong personal opposition to further offending.
The balance of associations remains important.
Applying Differential Association Theory
A Complete Application Chain
Use the following sequence in an application question:
Identify the social group.
Explain why it is influential or intimate.
Identify a pro-criminal definition.
Identify any anti-criminal definition that is absent or weakened.
Identify the technique learned.
Identify social or material reinforcement.
Explain why the balance favours offending.
Link the process to the particular offence.
Worked Application
Nia spends most evenings with a group of close friends who make money by stealing bicycles. They tell her that taking an unlocked bicycle is the owner’s fault. They show her how to remove identification numbers and praise her after her first successful theft.
A developed answer could state:
Nia’s close friends form an intimate personal group.
Frequent evening contact increases exposure to their attitudes.
The claim that the owner is responsible is a pro-criminal definition.
The group teaches a practical technique involving identification numbers.
Praise provides social reinforcement.
Success may provide material reward.
Anti-criminal views about ownership and victim harm receive little support.
The balance of definitions therefore favours bicycle theft.
A Weak Application
Nia commits theft because of differential association theory.
This gains little credit because it does not explain:
What was learned.
Who taught it.
Which definition favoured offending.
Which technique was acquired.
How behaviour was reinforced.
Differential Association and Social Learning Theory
Differential association theory and social learning theory both explain behaviour through experience.
However, they have different emphases.
Differential association theory | Social learning theory |
Focuses on interaction with intimate groups | Focuses on observation and imitation of models |
Explains learning of values, motives and techniques | Explains modelling and vicarious reinforcement |
Uses pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions | Uses attention, retention, reproduction and motivation |
Emphasises the balance of social associations | Emphasises whether models are observed and rewarded |
Developed specifically to explain offending | Applies to a broad range of behaviour |
Direct communication may be important | Behaviour may be learned through observation alone |
The theories can operate together.
For example:
A person belongs to a group that approves of theft.
They observe a high-status member stealing.
The model receives praise and money.
The person learns that theft is rewarded.
The group teaches the necessary technique.
The person imitates the behaviour.
This connects with learning behaviour through modelling and reinforcement [Lesson 6: Social learning theory].
Differential Association and Moral Reasoning
Pre-conventional moral reasoning [Lesson 7: Moral reasoning] explains offending through a focus on personal reward and punishment.
Differential association theory may explain how this reasoning develops.
For example, a group may repeatedly teach:
Offending is acceptable when it produces money.
Behaviour is wrong only when punishment occurs.
Avoiding detection makes someone successful.
Victim welfare is unimportant.
The theories differ because:
Moral reasoning concerns the level at which right and wrong are judged.
Differential association concerns the social learning of attitudes and behaviour.
Differential Association and Cognitive Distortions
Differential association can explain how distorted beliefs are transmitted.
A group may teach:
“The victim deserved it.”
“No one was really harmed.”
“You must attack before they attack you.”
“Large companies do not count as victims.”
These may later appear as:
Hostile attribution bias.
Minimalisation.
Victim blaming.
Differential association explains the social origin of the ideas, while cognitive-distortion theory explains their effect on interpretation and justification.
Differential Association and Eysenck’s Theory
Personality and ineffective conditioning [Lesson 6: Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality] provide a dispositional explanation.
Differential association theory | Eysenck’s theory |
Offending is learned socially | Offending vulnerability is linked with personality |
Focuses on family and peers | Focuses on extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism |
Explains attitudes and techniques | Explains impulsivity, emotional instability and limited empathy |
Primarily environmental | Biosocial |
Behaviour may change when associations change | Personality is relatively enduring |
The explanations may interact.
A sensation-seeking person may be especially attracted to a group that rewards risky offending.
Evaluating Differential Association Theory
Strength: It Explains the Transmission of Offending
A strength is that the theory can explain why offending sometimes appears to spread through:
Families.
Friendship groups.
Gangs.
Work networks.
Prison groups.
Where several closely associated people:
Express similar pro-criminal attitudes.
Commit similar offences.
Use similar techniques.
Reward one another.
the pattern is consistent with the theory.
The official 2019 AQA mark scheme treated similar offending across generations and approval from friends and neighbours as direct applications of differential association theory.
Strength: It Explains Both Attitudes and Behaviour
The theory does not merely state that people copy an action.
It explains the learning of:
Motivation.
Values.
Rationalisations.
Techniques.
Group expectations.
Reinforcement.
This provides a detailed account of why a person might:
Want to offend.
Believe offending is acceptable.
Know how to carry it out.
Continue after the first offence.
Strength: It Can Explain Different Offences
Because the theory focuses on learned definitions and techniques, it can be applied to:
Theft.
Violence.
Fraud.
Property offending.
Group offending.
Organised offending.
Occupational offending.
Different groups teach different:
Motives.
Targets.
Rules.
Techniques.
The explanation does not require every offender to share one biological or personality characteristic.
Strength: It Avoids Assuming Offenders Are Biologically Different
Differential association treats offending as behaviour acquired through ordinary social-learning processes.
This avoids the assumption that offenders form a biologically distinct group.
It can explain why:
Behaviour changes across social environments.
People stop offending after changing groups.
Members of the same biological family may behave differently.
Offending patterns vary between communities.
This emphasis on experience may reduce biologically deterministic interpretations.
Strength: Practical Applications
If offending is learned socially, intervention might focus on changing:
Peer associations.
Group rewards.
Pro-criminal definitions.
Opportunities to learn techniques.
Sources of social approval.
Possible approaches include:
Prosocial mentoring.
Family support.
Education.
Alternative peer groups.
Employment networks.
Rehabilitation focused on criminal attitudes.
Reducing contact with groups that reinforce offending.
The practical implication follows directly from the theory: changing the learning environment may change behaviour.
Limitation: Association Does Not Prove Causation
Evidence that offenders have friends who offend does not establish that the friends caused the behaviour.
Possible explanations include:
The group teaches the person to offend.
The person selects friends with similar existing attitudes.
Offending and friendship choice influence each other.
A third variable produces both.
Possible third variables include:
Neighbourhood.
Poverty.
School exclusion.
Family conflict.
Substance misuse.
Existing impulsivity.
The theory therefore faces a cause-and-effect problem.
Limitation: Peer Selection
People are not assigned randomly to friendship groups.
A person may choose peers because they already share:
Attitudes.
Interests.
Risk-taking tendencies.
Hostility towards authority.
Previous offending experiences.
The theory may overestimate socialisation while underestimating selection.
A more realistic account may involve a reciprocal process:
Existing tendencies influence group choice, and the group then reinforces those tendencies.
Limitation: Difficulty Measuring the Balance
The theory proposes that offending becomes more likely when pro-criminal definitions outweigh anti-criminal definitions.
However, it is difficult to measure:
The strength of each attitude.
The importance of each relationship.
The emotional intensity of approval.
The exact amount of exposure.
The influence of conflicting messages.
Whether an attitude was genuinely learned.
Two researchers might disagree about which association is most influential.
This makes precise prediction difficult.
Limitation: Operationalisation
To test the theory, researchers must operationalise concepts such as:
Intimacy.
Approval.
Pro-criminal definition.
Intensity.
Social reward.
These concepts can be interpreted in different ways.
For example:
Is a person an intimate associate because of time spent together?
Emotional closeness?
Trust?
Family membership?
Influence over decisions?
Poor operationalisation could reduce the validity or reliability of findings.
Limitation: Self-Report Evidence
Research may ask people:
Which friends offend.
Which attitudes they hear.
Whether their family approves.
How often they meet particular groups.
Why they committed an offence.
Responses may be affected by:
Dishonesty.
Memory errors.
Social desirability.
Fear of implicating others.
Lack of insight.
Attempts to avoid responsibility.
An offender might blame peers to reduce personal accountability.
Limitation: Family Evidence Is Confounded
Family members share more than attitudes.
They may also share:
Genes.
Personality vulnerabilities.
Economic conditions.
Opportunities.
Stress.
Neighbourhoods.
Access to the same targets.
Finding similar offending across generations does not show that association and socialisation produced the similarity.
An adoption or longitudinal design may help separate some influences, but complete control is difficult.
Limitation: Not Everyone Exposed to Offending Becomes an Offender
People within the same family or peer group can have different outcomes.
One person may:
Accept the group’s definitions.
Reject them.
Leave the group.
Develop strong anti-criminal values elsewhere.
Fear the consequences.
Identify with a different role model.
This suggests that differential association may need to consider:
Personality.
Moral reasoning.
Intelligence.
Self-control.
Biological vulnerability.
Individual interpretation.
The social environment influences behaviour without determining it completely.
Limitation: It Does Not Fully Explain the Origin of Offending
The theory explains how offending passes between people.
A further question remains:
Where did the first pro-criminal definition or technique originate?
If each offender learned from another offender, the explanation can appear to move the cause backwards without explaining its original development.
Possible original influences might include:
Opportunity.
Frustration.
Economic pressure.
Personality.
Biological vulnerability.
Cognitive distortions.
Differential association may explain transmission more successfully than initial origin.
Limitation: Environmental Determinism
The theory may be criticised as environmentally deterministic because it suggests that a person’s associations govern offending.
A strong deterministic interpretation could imply that:
Exposure to sufficient pro-criminal definitions inevitably produces offending.
The individual has little personal choice.
Responsibility lies mainly with the social group.
This underestimates:
Resistance.
Reflection.
Personal values.
Free choice.
People who reject offending despite extensive exposure.
A more balanced interpretation views association as increasing probability rather than controlling behaviour.
This connects with environmental causes and personal control [Lesson 3: Free will and determinism].
Limitation: Environmental Reductionism
Differential association may also be considered environmentally reductionist.
It reduces complex offending to:
Social contacts.
Learned definitions.
Techniques.
Reinforcement.
This provides clear and testable concepts but may overlook:
Genes.
Neural functioning.
Personality.
Moral reasoning.
Cognitive distortions.
Immediate emotional states.
Wider socioeconomic conditions.
This issue connects with the strengths and limitations of reductionist explanations [Lesson 5: Holism and reductionism].
Limitation: Broader Social Conditions
The theory focuses mainly on close personal groups.
However, group attitudes may be shaped by wider factors such as:
Economic inequality.
Discrimination.
Community deprivation.
Employment opportunities.
Social policy.
Cultural attitudes.
Institutional practices.
The theory may explain how values are transmitted without fully explaining why particular communities develop them.
Limitation: Media and Impersonal Sources
Modern attitudes and techniques can also be encountered through:
Online forums.
Social media.
Videos.
News.
Anonymous digital communities.
These sources may not involve traditional face-to-face intimate groups.
However, online relationships can become emotionally significant and reinforcing. The theory may still apply where digital groups function like close social associations.
Limitation: Social Approval Does Not Always Produce Behaviour
A person may approve of offending without committing it.
Similarly, they may know techniques but choose not to use them.
The step from attitude to behaviour may depend on:
Opportunity.
Self-control.
Expected punishment.
Personal morality.
Emotional state.
Access to a target.
Biological or personality factors.
The theory may explain readiness to offend without explaining when the offence will occur.
Comparison with Cognitive Explanations
Differential association explains where pro-offending attitudes may come from.
Cognitive explanations examine how those attitudes operate within the individual.
For example:
Differential association: Friends teach that victims deserve aggression.
Hostile attribution bias: The person interprets an ambiguous look as a threat.
Minimalisation: The person later says that the victim was barely harmed.
Moral reasoning: The person focuses on status and avoiding punishment.
The explanations are complementary.
Comparison with Biological Explanations
Genetic vulnerability [Lesson 4: Genetic explanations of offending] and neural explanations focus on biological differences.
Differential association focuses on learned social experience.
A biological vulnerability might affect:
Impulsivity.
Emotional control.
Sensitivity to reward.
Differential association may then explain:
Which offence is learned.
Which techniques are acquired.
Why the behaviour is approved.
How it is socially reinforced.
An interactionist account can therefore combine biology and learning.
Overall Evaluation
Differential association theory provides a detailed social-learning explanation of offending. People learn pro-criminal and anti-criminal definitions through interaction with close groups. They may also acquire motives, rationalisations and practical techniques, while approval and material rewards reinforce the behaviour.
The theory is supported by patterns in which offending, attitudes and techniques appear across families and peer groups. It can explain many types of offending and generates useful implications for family, peer and rehabilitation programmes.
However, association does not demonstrate causation. People may select peers who already share their attitudes, and family studies cannot separate learning from genes or shared circumstances. The theory also struggles to measure the exact balance of definitions and does not explain why everyone exposed to pro-criminal groups does not offend.
The most balanced conclusion is that differential association is an important explanation of how offending is transmitted and maintained. It is less successful as a complete explanation of where offending originates or why one individual accepts a group’s values while another rejects them.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Differential association theory | The explanation that offending is learned through interaction with other people | Introduce Sutherland’s psychological explanation |
Sutherland | The psychologist associated with differential association theory | Name the originator of the theory |
Socialisation | Learning the values, expectations and behaviour of social groups | Explain how offending attitudes develop |
Differential association | The individual pattern of social contacts through which behaviour is learned | Explain why people receive different social influences |
Intimate personal group | A close and personally significant group, such as family or friends | Identify the most influential source of learning |
Pro-criminal definition | A belief or attitude favourable to breaking the law | Explain why offending appears acceptable |
Anti-criminal definition | A belief or attitude supporting law-abiding behaviour | Explain the competing influence against offending |
Balance of definitions | The relative influence of pro-criminal and anti-criminal beliefs | Explain when offending becomes more likely |
Norm | A group expectation concerning acceptable behaviour | Explain how offending becomes normalised |
Value | A belief about what is important or desirable | Explain the attitudes transmitted by a group |
Motive | A reason or goal behind behaviour | Explain why the person may want to offend |
Rationalisation | A justification that makes offending appear reasonable | Explain how guilt or conflict may be reduced |
Offending technique | A practical method used to perform or conceal an offence | Explain what is learned in addition to attitudes |
Frequency | How often an association occurs | Assess the strength of exposure |
Duration | How long an association continues | Explain the effect of long-term contact |
Priority | How early in development an association begins | Explain the possible importance of childhood learning |
Intensity | The emotional importance or status of the person providing the definition | Explain why some relationships are more influential |
Reinforcement | A consequence that increases the likelihood of repeating behaviour | Explain the effect of approval, money or status |
Intergenerational transmission | Passing behaviour or values between generations | Apply the theory to family offending patterns |
Peer influence | The effect of friends or similar-age groups on behaviour | Apply the theory to friendship groups |
Peer selection | Choosing friends who already share one’s behaviour or attitudes | Evaluate cause and effect |
Prisonisation | Adopting the norms and values of prison life | Apply the theory to reoffending |
Recidivism | Reoffending after punishment or intervention | Explain a possible effect of learning in prison |
Environmental determinism | The view that external social forces govern behaviour | Evaluate personal choice and responsibility |
Environmental reductionism | Explaining offending mainly through social learning | Evaluate the theory’s limited level of explanation |
Interactionism | The view that social learning combines with personal or biological factors | Reach a balanced conclusion |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
No lesson-specific examiner-report guidance was identified in the provided examiner reports.
The official June 2019 mark scheme nevertheless provides clear topic-specific expectations for describing and applying differential association theory. It rewarded accurate knowledge of socialisation, close relationships, pro-criminal attitudes, learned techniques, differential associations and reinforcement, together with direct application to each relevant detail in the scenario.
Explain More Than Association
Examiner hint: Do not write only that spending time with offenders leads to offending.
A developed answer should explain what is learned:
Attitudes.
Values.
Norms.
Motives.
Rationalisations.
Techniques.
Then explain how approval or reward increases repetition.
Identify the Intimate Group
State who provides the association:
Family.
Close friends.
Gang.
Trusted colleagues.
Prison peers.
Explain why their influence is meaningful.
Apply Every Part of the Scenario
The 2019 mark scheme credited separate links for:
Similar offending across generations.
Similar techniques.
Acceptance within the family.
Approval from neighbours and friends.
Reinforcement through lack of concern or active praise.
Do not compress all these details into:
Their family taught them crime.
Distinguish Attitudes from Techniques
A strong answer might state:
The family’s belief that theft is acceptable is a pro-criminal definition. Teaching the person how to remove security labels is the transmission of a practical offending technique.
This shows two separate parts of the theory.
Explain the Balance
Do not simply mention pro-criminal attitudes.
Explain that offending becomes more likely when:
The influence of definitions favourable to offending outweighs the influence of definitions favourable to law-abiding behaviour.
Use Reinforcement Accurately
Identify the consequence:
Praise.
Status.
Money.
Acceptance.
Avoidance of ridicule.
Then explain:
The rewarding consequence increases the likelihood that the offending behaviour will be repeated.
Do Not Confuse Differential Association with Social Learning Theory
Both are learning explanations, but differential association should include:
Intimate personal groups.
Pro-criminal definitions.
Anti-criminal definitions.
Motives.
Techniques.
Social reinforcement.
Do not rely solely on imitation and vicarious reinforcement.
Use Cautious Language
Appropriate phrasing includes:
“May increase the likelihood.”
“Is consistent with.”
“Could have been learned.”
“Provides social reinforcement.”
“The balance favours offending.”
Avoid:
“Everyone with criminal friends will offend.”
“The family forces the person to commit crime.”
“Association proves causation.”
Develop Evaluation
A useful evaluation paragraph follows this sequence:
Make a clear claim.
Explain the reasoning or evidence.
Identify a limitation or alternative.
Link the point back to differential association.
Reach a judgement.
For example:
Similar offences across generations support the idea that attitudes and techniques are transmitted within families. However, biological relatives also share genes and social circumstances, so the pattern cannot establish that differential association caused the offending.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake 1
Mistake: Saying differential association means that different offences are associated with different punishments.
Why this is incorrect:
“Differential” refers to differences in people’s social associations.
How to improve:
Explain that individuals experience different balances of pro-criminal and anti-criminal influences.
Mistake 2
Mistake: Saying offending is inherited.
Why this contradicts the theory:
Differential association is a learning explanation.
How to improve:
State that values, motives and techniques are acquired through social interaction.
Mistake 3
Mistake: Saying people offend merely because they know an offender.
Why this is too simplistic:
Associations differ in frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
How to improve:
Explain the closeness and influence of the relationship.
Mistake 4
Mistake: Referring to pro-criminal definitions without defining them.
Why this is incomplete:
The examiner needs to see that these are attitudes favourable to breaking the law.
How to improve:
Include an example and explain how it makes offending appear acceptable.
Mistake 5
Mistake: Treating “definition” as a dictionary meaning.
Why this is incorrect:
It refers to an attitude, interpretation or justification concerning the law.
How to improve:
Use phrases such as “belief favourable to offending”.
Mistake 6
Mistake: Explaining only attitudes and ignoring techniques.
Why this is incomplete:
Sutherland’s theory includes learning how offences are performed.
How to improve:
Identify the practical method taught by the group.
Mistake 7
Mistake: Explaining only techniques and ignoring motives or values.
Why this is incomplete:
Knowing how to offend does not explain why the person chooses to do it.
How to improve:
Explain the pro-criminal definition and reward as well.
Mistake 8
Mistake: Saying the person calculates the number of pro-criminal statements mathematically.
Why this is misleading:
The balance refers to relative social influence, not a literal total calculated by the offender.
How to improve:
Discuss strength, frequency and importance of associations.
Mistake 9
Mistake: Calling all reinforcement vicarious reinforcement.
Why this is inaccurate:
Direct praise, money or status following the individual’s own offence is direct reinforcement.
How to improve:
Identify who receives the consequence.
Mistake 10
Mistake: Describing only imitation.
Why this is incomplete:
Imitation is more closely associated with social learning theory.
How to improve:
Include socialisation, definitions, techniques and reinforcement.
Mistake 11
Mistake: Claiming that family patterns prove learning.
Why this is incorrect:
Families also share genes, environments and opportunities.
How to improve:
Describe the pattern as support, then evaluate alternative explanations.
Mistake 12
Mistake: Assuming peers always cause offending.
Why this is too strong:
People may select friends who already share their attitudes.
How to improve:
Discuss peer influence and peer selection.
Mistake 13
Mistake: Claiming that everyone in a pro-criminal environment will offend.
Why this is deterministic:
People differ in personality, moral reasoning, other relationships and resistance.
How to improve:
Use probability language.
Mistake 14
Mistake: Using minimalisation as a substitute for differential association.
Why this is incorrect:
Minimalisation is a cognitive distortion.
How to improve:
Explain that differential association may teach a minimalising belief, but the two theories have different focuses.
Mistake 15
Mistake: Using “reductionist” or “deterministic” as an isolated label.
Why this is incomplete:
Evaluation requires the consequence to be explained.
How to improve:
State which factors the theory overlooks and how this limits its explanatory power.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
What is meant by differential association theory? [2 marks]
Question 2
Explain what is meant by a pro-criminal definition. [2 marks]
Question 3
Explain how differential association theory accounts for the learning of offending techniques. [4 marks]
Question 4
Explain why intimate personal groups are important in differential association theory. [4 marks]
Question 5
Several members of Malik’s family earn money by selling stolen vehicles. Malik’s older brother teaches him how to alter identifying information and praises him when he successfully sells his first vehicle. Family members describe the behaviour as a sensible way to make money.
Use differential association theory to explain Malik’s offending. [6 marks]
Question 6
While in prison, Imogen spends time with people who have committed complex financial offences. They describe fraud as harmless and teach her how false documents can be created. They offer her a role in their activities after release.
Use differential association theory to explain why Imogen may be at risk of reoffending. [4 marks]
Question 7
Researchers compare two groups of 80 young adults.
Dominant pattern of association | Number later recorded as offending | Percentage recorded as offending |
More pro-criminal than anti-criminal definitions | 48 | 60% |
More anti-criminal than pro-criminal definitions | 18 | 22.5% |
Calculate the percentage-point difference between the groups. Describe the results and explain how they relate to differential association theory. [6 marks]
Question 8
Explain one difference between differential association theory and social learning theory. [4 marks]
Question 9
Explain one strength and one limitation of differential association theory. [6 marks]
Question 10
Discuss differential association theory as an explanation of offending behaviour. [16 marks]
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
Award one mark for each of the following:
Offending behaviour is learned through interaction or socialisation with other people.
Values, attitudes, motives or techniques favourable to offending may be learned from close groups.
Maximum: 2 marks
Question 2
Award marks as follows:
One mark for identifying a belief, attitude or justification favourable to offending.
One mark for explaining that it presents breaking the law as acceptable, desirable, necessary or rewarding.
Example:
A belief that stealing from a large company is harmless is a pro-criminal definition because it makes theft appear acceptable.
Question 3
Award one mark for each relevant point, up to four marks:
Offending is learned rather than inherited.
The person interacts with close or intimate groups.
Experienced group members demonstrate or directly teach methods.
The person learns how to perform the offence.
Techniques may include target selection, concealment or avoiding detection.
The technique may be practised.
Approval or material reward may reinforce its use.
Techniques may pass between peers or generations.
Question 4
Award one mark for each relevant point, up to four marks:
Intimate groups include close family members or friends.
The individual has frequent or long-lasting contact with them.
The relationship may be emotionally important.
Their approval and disapproval are influential.
They communicate values and norms.
They can teach techniques.
They can reinforce behaviour through praise, status or rewards.
These associations may outweigh weaker anti-criminal influences.
Question 5
Award up to six marks for effective application:
Malik’s family is an intimate personal group.
The behaviour appears to have been transmitted within the family.
Describing offending as a sensible way to earn money is a pro-criminal definition.
The financial gain provides a material reward.
Malik’s brother teaches a specific technique involving identifying information.
Praise provides direct social reinforcement.
The older brother may be an intense or high-status association.
Pro-criminal definitions appear to outweigh anti-criminal definitions.
Offending therefore becomes more likely.
A full-mark answer should explain attitudes, techniques and reinforcement rather than merely saying Malik copied his family.
Question 6
Award up to four marks for effective application:
Imogen associates with experienced offenders in prison.
Fraud is defined favourably as harmless.
This is a pro-criminal definition.
She learns a practical technique involving false documents.
The offered role provides possible social and financial reinforcement.
Continued contact may strengthen pro-criminal associations.
These influences may outweigh anti-criminal definitions.
This may increase the risk of recidivism after release.
Question 7
Award one mark for the correct calculation:
60% − 22.5% = 37.5 percentage points
Award up to two marks for description:
Recorded offending is higher in the group exposed to more pro-criminal definitions.
Forty-eight people offended in this group compared with 18 in the group dominated by anti-criminal definitions.
The percentages are 60% and 22.5%.
The difference is 37.5 percentage points.
Award up to three marks for explanation:
The results are consistent with differential association theory.
Offending is predicted when pro-criminal definitions outweigh anti-criminal definitions.
Social approval may reinforce behaviour.
The findings show an association rather than causation.
People with existing offending tendencies may select pro-criminal groups.
A third variable may affect both association and offending.
Question 8
Possible answer:
Differential association theory explains offending through interaction with intimate personal groups and the learning of pro-criminal definitions, motives and techniques. Social learning theory focuses more generally on observing and imitating models, particularly when their behaviour is rewarded. Differential association therefore emphasises the balance of social values and direct transmission within close groups, whereas social learning theory emphasises modelling and vicarious reinforcement.
For four marks, both explanations should be accurate and the distinction explicit.
Question 9
Award up to three marks for one developed strength and three marks for one developed limitation.
Possible strength:
Differential association theory can explain why similar offences and attitudes occur within families or peer groups. Close associates may transmit both pro-criminal values and practical techniques, while approval reinforces the behaviour. This provides a detailed explanation of how offending can spread between people.
Possible limitation:
An association between offending and criminal peers does not establish causation. People who already approve of offending may select similar friends rather than being influenced by them. Peer selection and third variables therefore weaken the claim that association caused the offending.
Other creditworthy points include:
Application to different offence types.
Practical implications.
Family evidence being confounded by genetics.
Difficulty measuring definitions and associations.
Individual differences.
Environmental determinism.
Environmental reductionism.
Failure to explain the original source of offending.
Question 10
A high-level response should include accurate knowledge and developed evaluation.
Indicative AO1 content
Sutherland and differential association theory.
Offending as learned behaviour.
Socialisation.
Interaction with intimate personal groups.
Family and peer groups.
Differential associations.
Pro-criminal definitions.
Anti-criminal definitions.
The balance of definitions.
Frequency, duration, priority and intensity.
Learning values and norms.
Learning motives and rationalisations.
Learning practical offending techniques.
Social and material reinforcement.
Intergenerational transmission.
Possible learning within prisons.
Application to recidivism.
Indicative AO3 content
Family and peer patterns supporting social transmission.
Similar offences or techniques across generations.
Detailed explanation of both attitudes and behaviour.
Application to several types of offending.
Practical implications for mentoring and rehabilitation.
Association not demonstrating causation.
Peer selection compared with peer influence.
Confounding of genetic and environmental factors in families.
Difficulty measuring the balance of definitions.
Problems operationalising intimacy and intensity.
Self-report and retrospective bias.
Not everyone exposed to pro-criminal groups offends.
Difficulty explaining the first origin of criminal values.
Limited explanation of when an attitude becomes behaviour.
Environmental determinism.
Environmental reductionism.
Wider social conditions.
Comparison with social learning theory.
Comparison with moral reasoning and cognitive distortions.
Interaction with personality, genetic and neural vulnerability.
Need for a probabilistic and interactionist conclusion.
Thirteen to sixteen marks: Knowledge is accurate and generally detailed. Discussion is thorough, focused and effective. The response explains attitudes, techniques, associations and reinforcement, rather than offering a generic account of peer pressure. Evidence and alternative explanations are used to construct a reasoned judgement.
Nine to twelve marks: Knowledge is mostly accurate and discussion is generally effective. The major elements of the theory are explained, although some evaluation points may lack development or precision.
Five to eight marks: Some relevant knowledge is present, but the response is mainly descriptive. It may focus only on spending time with offenders or copying behaviour, with limited explanation of definitions, techniques or reinforcement.
One to four marks: Knowledge is very limited or confused. The response may describe biological inheritance, cognitive distortions or general social learning without explaining differential association theory.
Comments