Research Paper about Differential Association Theory

Background of Differential Association Theory

I believe that the best theory for explaining individual level crime is Differential Association Theory. Differential Association Theory focuses on the background of an individual and how that affects their tendency to choose whether or not to engage in criminal activity. This theory attempts to explain how a person learns criminal behavior through observing and communicating with others (Cressey p. 29). Through communicating with others, people learn definitions of behavior that shape how they think and act. These definitions are mostly learned from intimate personal groups like friends and family (Greene). These definitions of behavior that are learned can be favorable definitions, which would increase the likelihood that the individual will engage in criminal behavior, or unfavorable, which would decrease the likelihood that the individual will engage in criminal activity. This theory also explains that there are multiple factors that are present when an individual is learning definitions of behavior including the timing, length, frequency, and nature of learning these definitions (Greene). A combination of these factors can affect the definitions of behavior that an individual learns and the likelihood that they will engage in criminal behavior based on the definitions that they have learned.

Application of Differential Association Theory

People that grow up in areas where crime is more prevalent will be exposed to criminal activity much more often and much earlier in life than someone who grows up in a nicer neighborhood. This greatly impacts the development of a moral compass for a child, which will affect them for the rest of their life. Differential Association Theory does a good job of explaining the environmental factors that impact an individual and the behaviors that they choose to engage in. This theory best explains individual criminality because it concentrates on the idea that the behaviors that are learned from observing communicating with others, and the people that are closest to you in your life will be the people that have the most influence on you (Cressey p. 29). It also emphasizes that you will be most likely to keep engaging in these behaviors if you are constantly surrounded by these behaviors, which helps to explain why individuals choose to continue engaging in criminal activity (Cressey p. 29). 

New Adaptation of Differential Association Theory

Although this theory focuses primarily on how behaviors are learned from others, it also attempts to explain why certain individuals initially choose to engage in crime as well as why people choose to not engage in criminal behavior. This theory closely relates to Social Learning Theory, which was built off of this theory, but Social Learning Theory also attempts to explain why people continue to engage in crime, why the crimes of an individual might escalate over time, and why someone might choose to stop committing crimes (Simons). According to Social Learning Theory, people usually start and continue to commit crimes because they believe that the benefits of committing a crime outweigh the cost of committing a crime and potentially being caught (Simons). Differential Association Theory would also hold this to be true, but it focuses more on learning behaviors through observing others, rather than through reflection of consequences. I think that both of these theories used together do a great job when attempting to explain individual level crime.

Shortcomings of Differential Association Theory

While I believe that this theory best explains why people choose to engage in crime, I do believe that there are some factors that are not considered within this theory that could play a role in why people choose to engage in criminal behavior. A shortcoming of this theory would be that it underestimates a child’s personal contribution to his or her own development. It mainly focuses on how others impact a person’s development but does not necessarily consider how that person impacts their own self development. For example, even if a person is constantly surrounded by criminal behavior, they could still believe that engaging in criminal behavior is wrong and they could willingly choose to not engage in criminal activity based on their own moral and ethical values.

Background of the Biological Theory 

I believe that the biological theory, originally created by Cesare Lombroso, is the worst theory for explaining why people decide to commit crimes. The original version of this theory, which was later redeveloped, said that the root cause of all crime was related solely to biological factors. This was implying that people are “born criminals” and there are identifiable characteristics that distinguish criminals from non-criminals (University p.6). He believed that the brains of criminals are not fully developed and that was the cause of them deciding to engage in criminal or deviant behavior (University p.6). Lombroso was a prison psychologist and he studied prisoners trying to find characteristics that prisoners had in common with each other. He concluded that there were a lot of prisoners that shared a few common physical characteristics like a sloping forehead and a receding chin (University p.6). He felt that he had confirmed that these characteristic were some of the distinguishable characteristic between criminals and non-criminals.  Based on this evidence he thought that he had concluded that there is a direct link between engaging in criminal behavior and a biological factor. Lombroso, along with others revised his original theory later on and concluded that social factors also have effect on deciding whether or not to engage in criminal acts, but he still claimed that biological factors also do play a large role in determining criminal behavior.

Drawbacks of Lombroso’s Biological Theory

There are many drawbacks to this theory, but the most important of those would be that it attempts to distinguish criminals from non-criminals based on a physical feature. This would allow people to be singled out because of a characteristic that they cannot control, and that is one of the main reasons that this theory is widely dismissed today. I believe that this is an insurmountable issue within this theory, and it could not be overcome through more research because this theory has already been discredited. Another drawback of this theory is that it focuses on physical characteristics rather than psychological characteristics. He also believed that people commit crimes not because they choose to do so, but because they are motivated by biological factors that they cannot control that prohibit them from stopping themselves from engaging in crime (Government). This belief suggests that your personality along with your moral and ethical values do not play any role in the decision of whether or not to engage in crime, which goes against the many other theories that I believe to be much more applicable than the Biological Theory.

Revised Biological Theory and its Flaws

Since the original development of this theory by Lombroso, others have revised his theory and attributed these biological factors to things other than physical characteristics. Modern approaches to this theory claim that things like biochemical conditions, neurophysiological conditions, and intelligence play a major role in individuals deciding whether or not to engage in criminal activity (University p. 6). Modern research relating to this biological theory of criminality suggests that nutritional deficiencies in early childhood greatly impacts brain development which could potentially lead to serious physical, medical, and behavioral problems in the future (Government). Even though nutrition is very important in the proper development of a child, I do not believe that you can attribute this or any other biological factors to being the sole cause of an individual deciding to start engaging in crime when they have not before, even when combined with social learning factors.