Introduction
Criminal behaviour and its transmission across generations have long been central concerns in criminology, prompting scholars to explore the social and environmental factors influencing such patterns. One of the most influential frameworks for understanding this phenomenon is Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, developed in the late 1930s. This theory posits that criminal behaviour is learned through social interactions, particularly within intimate personal groups, rather than being an inherent or biological trait. This essay aims to examine how criminal behaviour can be transmitted across generations by applying Sutherland’s theory as a lens for analysis. It will explore the mechanisms of learning criminal behaviour, the role of family as a primary socialisation agent, and the influence of broader social environments. Relevant examples will be used to illustrate these points, and limitations of the theory will be briefly considered. By doing so, this discussion will highlight the enduring relevance of Differential Association Theory in understanding intergenerational criminality while acknowledging its constraints in addressing wider structural factors.
Understanding Differential Association Theory
Edwin Sutherland first introduced Differential Association Theory in 1939, suggesting that criminal behaviour is acquired through a process of learning within social contexts (Sutherland, 1947). The theory comprises nine key principles, which collectively argue that individuals learn criminal behaviour through interactions with others, particularly when they are exposed to definitions and attitudes favourable to law-breaking over those that uphold legal norms. Importantly, this learning includes not only the techniques of committing crime but also the motives, rationalisations, and attitudes that justify such actions. Sutherland emphasised the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of these interactions as critical factors determining the likelihood of adopting criminal behaviour.
This framework is particularly relevant to the intergenerational transmission of crime because it underscores the role of social environments—especially family and peer groups—in shaping behaviour. For instance, a child growing up in a household where criminal activity is normalised may internalise these values early in life. While Sutherland’s theory does not explicitly focus on biological or genetic factors, it provides a robust explanation for how behaviour is socially reproduced over generations through learned interactions.
The Role of Family in Transmitting Criminal Behaviour
The family unit is often the first and most significant site of socialisation, making it a primary medium through which criminal behaviour can be transmitted across generations. According to Differential Association Theory, if parents or close relatives engage in criminal activities, they may inadvertently or deliberately expose younger family members to definitions favourable to deviance. For example, a parent involved in theft might teach a child specific techniques for shoplifting or rationalise such behaviour as a necessary means of survival. Over time, the child may come to view these actions as acceptable, particularly if alternative, law-abiding perspectives are absent or less influential.
Empirical research supports this view. A study by Farrington et al. (2001) on the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development found that criminal convictions among fathers were a significant predictor of similar behaviour in their sons. This longitudinal study, spanning multiple generations, suggests that family environments where criminal behaviour is present often create conditions conducive to learning deviant attitudes. Indeed, children in such settings may observe the rewards of crime—such as financial gain—while lacking exposure to counterbalancing values, aligning closely with Sutherland’s emphasis on the balance of definitions for and against criminality.
However, it is worth noting that family influence is not solely about direct teaching. The emotional intensity of familial relationships, as highlighted by Sutherland, often amplifies the impact of these interactions. A child who deeply respects or fears a criminal parent may be particularly susceptible to adopting their values, illustrating the nuanced ways in which learning occurs within the home.
The Influence of Peer Groups and Community
Beyond the family, peer groups and community contexts play a crucial role in the transmission of criminal behaviour, often reinforcing patterns initiated in the family. Sutherland’s theory suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal acts if their social circles—particularly during formative years—endorse such behaviour (Sutherland, 1947). This is especially relevant when considering intergenerational transmission, as children of criminal parents may gravitate towards peer groups with similar backgrounds, further embedding them in deviant subcultures.
For instance, in economically deprived areas with high crime rates, young people may encounter peers who model criminal behaviour as a means of achieving status or economic security. A real-world example can be seen in studies of gang involvement in urban areas of the UK. Research by Hallsworth and Young (2008) indicates that young individuals often join gangs to gain a sense of belonging, particularly if familial role models are absent or involved in crime themselves. Through frequent and intense interactions within these groups, criminal techniques and attitudes are learned, perpetuating a cycle of deviance that can span generations.
Limitations of Differential Association Theory
While Differential Association Theory offers valuable insights into the social learning of criminal behaviour, it is not without limitations, particularly when applied to intergenerational transmission. One critique is its relative neglect of structural factors such as poverty, inequality, and systemic discrimination, which may predispose certain families and communities to higher crime rates. For example, a family living in chronic deprivation may turn to crime out of necessity rather than learned preference, a nuance that Sutherland’s framework does not fully address. Additionally, the theory does not account for biological or psychological factors that might influence criminal propensity, such as genetic predispositions or mental health issues, which some contemporary scholars argue play a role in intergenerational patterns (Moffitt, 1993).
Furthermore, the theory assumes a degree of agency in learning criminal behaviour, which may not fully capture the experiences of individuals who feel coerced or trapped by their environments. Despite these limitations, Differential Association Theory remains a cornerstone of criminological thought, providing a solid foundation for understanding how social interactions facilitate the transmission of criminal behaviour across generations.
Conclusion
In summary, Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory offers a compelling framework for understanding how criminal behaviour can be transmitted across generations through social learning processes. The family, as the primary site of socialisation, plays a pivotal role in exposing individuals to definitions favourable to crime, while peer groups and community contexts often reinforce these learned behaviours. Examples such as the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development and patterns of gang involvement in the UK underscore the applicability of Sutherland’s principles in real-world contexts. However, the theory’s limitations, particularly its oversight of structural and biological factors, suggest that it should be used alongside other perspectives for a more comprehensive understanding of intergenerational criminality. The implications of this discussion are significant for policy and intervention, highlighting the importance of targeting early social environments—both familial and communal—to disrupt cycles of deviance. By addressing the social conditions that facilitate the learning of criminal behaviour, society can move towards more effective prevention strategies, ensuring that future generations are less likely to inherit patterns of crime.
References
- Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Kalb, L. M. (2001) The concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of boys’ delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24(5), 579-596.
- Hallsworth, S., & Young, T. (2008) Gang talk and gang talkers: A critique. Crime, Media, Culture, 4(2), 175-195.
- Moffitt, T. E. (1993) Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674-701.
- Sutherland, E. H. (1947) Principles of Criminology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.
