University Institute Of

Legal Studies

Panjab University

CRIMINOLOGY PENOLOGY
VIVTIMOLOGY

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Tamneet Kaur , Harshit Anand

Assistant Professor (law) 136/12,

(CRM.PEN.VIC.) 10th semester,

UILS, PU. B.com.llb.(Hons)

 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to convey my greatest appreciation to Ms. Tamneet Kaur, a

professor and great mentor, who challenged and organized my thoughts and
helped convert them to the written words.

I would also like to thank UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES,

PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH, for their initial faith and
encouragement that I submit my project report.

I am indebted to my friends and other family members for providing

kindness and help in making this project.

My greatest debt, however, is reserved for THE ALMIGHTY for providing me

with everything in life.

HARSHIT ANAND

2
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO TOPIC Page No

1) INTRODUCTION 4

2) FOUNDATIONS OF DAT 4-5

3) DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY 5-9

4) WHITE COLLAR CRIME 9-10

5) JUVENILE CRIME 10

6) CRITIQUE OF DAT 10-12

7) STRENGHTS OF DAT 13-14

8) THEORIES DERIVED FROM DAT 14

9) POLICY IMPLIMENTATIONS OF DAT 14-15

10) CONCLUSION 16

11) BIBLIOGRAPHY 17

3
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

Differential association theory is perhaps the best known social learning

perspective of criminality and reflects an interpersonal approach. Edwin
Sutherland was a sociologist of the Chicago School and symbolic interaction
thought, credited with bringing the field of criminology under the sociological
umbrella. Sutherland developed differential association theory to explain how
criminals learn the techniques and means of particular criminal activities,
and how to rationalize such behavior as normal and enjoyable. Sutherland
proposed that an excess of definitions conducive to criminality could be
learned by individuals and his theory has been seen as particularly useful in
explaining juvenile gang crime and white collar crime, though it is not
without its critics1.

Crime was usually explained by multiple factors such as social class, age,
race, and urban or rural location. Sutherland developed his theory of
Differential Association in order to explain how these factors were related to
crime. It had been observed that once high rates of crime were established
in a geographical region, the pattern reoccurred, with new generations of
inhabitants sustaining the pattern. Sutherland was thus interested in
explaining how such a cross-generational transmission of delinquent values
occurred. In his theory of Differential Association, he posited that criminal
behavior is a result of a process of socialization, during which criminal
definitions are not only transmitted culturally, but are actually learned
through social interactions with intimate groups2.

The beginnings and an explanation of differential association theory and its

applications will be presented, followed by a critique, strenghts and the
policy implications associated with this seminal learning theory.

Foundations of Differential Association Theory

Learning theory has a rich philosophical and theoretical background.
Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke and Hume all developed the concept of

1 Gomme, Ian McDermid. The Shadow Line: Deviance and Crime in Canada. 4th ed.
Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2007

2 Sutherland, Edwin H., and Cressey , Donald R.. A Theory of Differential

Association. (1960)

4
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

associationism, which suggests that the mind organizes sensory experiences;

this has been replaced by cognitive psychology today's. Pavlov and Skinner's
'behaviourism' suggests the mind requires physical body responses in order
to store information. By combining the storage and organization of sensory
experience, early perspectives of the learning process set the stage for
sociological and criminological exploration. The early work of the Chicago
School in the importance of social ecology and urban mapping led to some
theorists focusing on cultural transmission, with respect to delinquent
subcultures3.

Following from the work of Mead's symbolic interactionism and the

importance of meanings in social interactions, the Chicago School's cultural
transmission and Sellin's culture conflict, Sutherland developed differential
association theory'. In particular the work of the German philosopher George
Simmel informed Sutherland's concept of how 'normative conflict' appears as
differential social organization, to society, and as differential association to
the individuals. Social process theories hold that "criminality is a function of
individual socialization". Sutherland's theory of differential association with
criminal and anticriminal behaviour patterns is comparable with Gabriel
Tarde's concept of imitation; the proposition that behaviours are imitated in
proportion and intensity to the relationships between people. The influence
of these works led Sutherland to revise his idea that the causes of crime
were infinite and begin his ambitious search for a general theory of crime.

Sutherland was not the first to examine the dynamics of learning within
groups of thieves. An article entitled 'Professional Thieves' was published in
1862". The unknown author used participant observation methodology to
obtain a positivist perspective on the criminal class. The author's conclusions
regarding learning dynamics amongst criminals are incredibly similar to
those expressed by Sutherland in his work 'The Professional Thief, though
Sutherland did not cite this paper's4.

Differential Association Theory

3 Sutherland, E. Criminology, J.B. Lippincott Company, Chicago. (1974).

4 Differential Association Theory available at:

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/DifferentialAssociationTheory (Last Modified
July 29, 2014).

5
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

Differential association theory was first presented by Sutherland in 1939,

though it was revised several times. Two basic elements of Sutherland's
theory are that the learning process itself and the content of what is learnt
are important to understanding criminal behaviour's. Learning is defined as
"habits and knowledge that develop as a result of the experiences of the
individual in entering and adjusting to the environment". Sutherland saw
'crime' as politically defined". Sutherland postulated that criminal behaviour
is learned in intimate social groups, though these groups may not be
delinquent themselves, and that criminal behaviour is acquired through such
contact.

Nine postulates, which identify the process by which a person engages in

criminal behaviour, form the basis of differential association theory5.

Criminal behavior is learned.

The first proposition is that criminal behaviour is learned. Just as one learns
to tie his or her shoelaces or to prepare a meal, so too does one learn to pick
a lock or copy a credit card. Sutherland is careful, however, to note that
learned behaviour is neither invented, nor inherited. The skills and
techniques required for criminal activity are not innovations, and they are
not automatically obtained from birth, or through association with criminals;
rather, they are acquired through a process of learning.

Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons

in a process of communication.

In the second proposition, Sutherland refutes the possibility that criminals

and deviants must witness criminal behaviour in order to learn it. Rather, he
states that one learns criminal behaviour through social interaction and
communication. In a family structure, for example, one may learn to respect
and obey the law, or to believe in a certain religious worldview. This
communication-based discovery and realization also occurs when learning
about criminal activities. For example, one may come to learn about
prostitution through discussion with others, and by witnessing the nonverbal

5 Differential Association Theory available at:

<http://www.alexandrakp.com/text/2008/02/sutherlands-differential-association-
and-its-nine-propositions/> (Visited on March 8, 2017).

6
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

responses of these others towards the activity, such as rolling the eyes or
staring.

The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs

within intimate personal groups.

Sutherlands third proposition begins to explain the observations of Shaw and

McKay, who observed that consistent high rates of crimes within members of
similar social conditions. He argues that most learning of crime and deviance
takes place in interaction with members of intimate, personal groups, and
those methods of impersonal communication such as television, films or
newspapers are less influential or effective in learning. The greater
implication of this proposition is that it locates trust at the root of social
interactions that encourage deviance. For example, children and youth would
likely first learn how to shoplift or how to graffiti public spaces from their
close friends, rather than from general acquaintances.

learning to identify what is acquired through communication

with intimate others that enables criminal activity

The fourth proposition expands Sutherlands concept of learning to identify

what is acquired through communication with intimate others that enables
criminal activity. He describes how through this learning process an
individual gains not only the skills and techniques required to commit the
crime, but also the motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes that
accompany the behaviour. Merely learning how to commit a crime is not
cause alone for one to actually engage in the activity. Instead, Sutherland
calls attention to a subjective component: individuals also learn, or
assimilate, the social, cultural and psychological attitudes that drive a
violation of the law. Such rationalizations and attitudes also explain the
common excuse for criminal behaviour as warranted or deserved. A rapist,
for example, may reason that his or her actions were justified as the victim
was asking for it by flirting or by wearing revealing clothing, an attitude he
or she likely developed through association with others of similar beliefs.

The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from

definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable

The fifth proposition further elaborates upon the issue of criminal motivation:
as individuals are surrounded by a cultural conflict of competing ideas from
both law-abiding citizens and criminals, pro-criminal or anti-criminal

7
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

intentions are developed based on learned conceptions of the law as either

favourable or unfavourable. In other words, one develops opinions of the
law that either encourage or discourage action. For example, one who drives
faster than the speed limit (speeds) may justify his or her actions by
viewing the law as unnecessary; he or she may view the limit as
unreasonably low, or judge that the road is clear and safe and that a limit
should not be imposed.

A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of

definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions
unfavorable to violation of the law.

As Sutherland points out, however, interaction with pro-criminal groups does

not necessarily produce criminal behaviour. Thus in the sixth proposition,
Sutherland argues that an individual becomes delinquent only when
definitions favourable to violation of law exceed definitions unfavourable
to violation of law. In other words, it is not the amount of exposure to
criminal ideology that is important, rather it is the ratio of attitudes
(definitions) towards crime whether pro-criminal or anti-criminal
influences are stronger which determines whether an individual embraces
criminal behaviour or not. For example, although recreational marijuana use
is illegal in much of North America, an individual may be exposed to opinions
from close friends who view laws prohibiting its use as unfair and without
scientific foundation, and who provide assurance that the chances, and
consequences, of getting caught are minimal. In such a case, the individual
would be exposed to more definitions that encourage the law violation
than those that discourage it, and therefore would be driven to behave
criminally.

Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration,

priority, and intensity

In the seventh proposition, Sutherland avoids oversimplifying the social

learning processes, by describing how excess definitions (associations,
attitudes, patterns, etc.) are affected by four factors: frequency, duration,
priority and intensity. How often, for how long, how early in life, and from
whom an individual is exposed to criminal associations will affect the relative
impact on an individuals behaviour. For example, a young child who is raised
by a drug-addicted parent will be exposed to stronger definitions of deviant
behaviour than a teenager who witnesses a cousin snorting cocaine at a

8
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

party. In this case, the child would be frequently exposed (frequency) for
many years (duration) in early life (priority) to pro-criminal definitions.

The process of learning criminal behavior by association with

criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the
mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.

The eighth proposition reiterates the logic behind the criminal learning
process. Sutherland explains that, like any other skill or knowledge, the
process by which one attains and develops pro-criminal and anti-criminal
patterns is the same as any other learning process. In learning, one is not
only able to imitate or reproduce behaviour, but rather understands and
develops it. A thief who steals cars or burgles houses, for example, will hone
his or her skills to become more efficient and effective in doing so, learning
over time to become quieter, faster, and more precise in such activities.

While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and

values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since
non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and
values.

Sutherlands final proposition makes the important claim that the

motivations for criminal and law-abiding behaviour cannot be the same, and
therefore crime cannot be a result of general needs and values, such as a
desire for wealth or social status. The actions of a student who plagiarizes an
essay or assignment, for example, cannot be justified by a general desire to
do well academically; this would not explain why all students do not
participate in the same deviant behaviour.

Another aspect of Sutherland's theory is the shift from notions of social

disorganization to differential social organization: an attempt to combine
differential association, differential social organization and Merton's anomie.
This is a move from perceiving criminals as those isolated from mainstream
culture and immersed within their own disadvantaged neighborhoods, to
recognizing that society is more complex and contains a plethora of
conflicting groups, with differing sets of norms and values, irrespective of
class boundaries6.

6 Lilly, J. Robert ; T. Cullen, Francis and A. Ball, Richard. Criminological Theory:

Context and Consequences. 4th ed. London: Sage Publications, 2007.

9
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

Differential social organization was highlighted in Sutherland's White Collar

Crime. Sutherland and his associate Cressey rejected the psychological
assumption that criminals were somehow different to law abiding citizens;
instead they suggested learning how to commit crimes is the same as
learning any other behaviour. Therefore, a major underlying assumption of
differential association theory is that crime is 'normal', rather than
'pathological', as it is learned the same way as all other behaviours.
Differential association theory may be reduced to the notion that individuals
engage in criminal activity because they have associated with and absorbed
pro-criminal definitions with greater frequency, duration, priority and
intensity than with anti-criminal definition7.

White Collar Crime

Interest in the crimes of the powerful first began with Tarde and Bonger,
though Sutherland is credited with making the breakthrough in criminological
theory as part of his differential association theory. Sutherland first used the
term 'white collar crime' during his Presidential address to the American
Sociological Association in 1939 and suggested criminal behaviour existed
amongst all social classes. He defined white collar crime as "a crime
committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course
of his occupation". This definition of white collar crime has been criticized for
being ambiguous and Sutherland was criticized for applying the term to
offences whose definition as criminal were legally or sociologically
controversial. However the important issue for Sutherland, namely that white
collar crimes are a violation of trust, is imperative. Sutherland argued that at
the societal level anomie and norm-conflicts create social disorganization,
which lead to criminogenic economic environments. He intended to further
refute psychological focus on the individual, and reform criminological theory
by showing that his differential association theory could be applied to all
types of criminal behaviour8.

Cressey tested differential association theory in his study of embezzlement,

showing the specific techniques which embezzlers learn and use to engage
in and justify illegal behaviour. At first it appears that Cressey validated
Sutherland's theory; however Cressey himself noted that the differential
association process was not precise enough to lend itself to empirical testing
7 Supra note 2 at 4

8 Regoli, R., Hewitt, J., & DeLisi, M.). Delinquency in Society. (2009)

10
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

and was not proved or disproved by his work". While reviews of Sutherland's
thoughts on white collar crime have been mixed, the importance of the
number of associations favorable to crime and Cressey's emphasis on the
motives and justifications used by criminals are both valuable insights.

Juvenile Crime
Differential association theory has also been used to explain youth
delinquency and gang culture. The importance of the 'definitions' expressed
by peers is clear when examining youth gang culture, particularly when one
considers that one of the strongest correlates of juvenile delinquency is
criminal peers38. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to determine whether it is
the delinquency or the delinquent friends which occurs first; it may be that
juvenile criminals prefer to associate with each other, rather than gangs
being the primary causal facto. It is also extremely difficult to precisely
determine all of the definitions, both criminal and anti-criminal, at pia?).
Sutherland does not specify how these definitions should be determined or
empirically assessed41. Research regarding the learned nature of juvenile
delinquency has been mixed, though there is little doubt that the influence of
family and peers is monumental9.

Critique of Differential Association Theory

Differential association theory explains white collar, corporate and gang
crimes very well, as these are all crimes which are distinctive to particular
subcultural groups. The appeal of differential association theory rests with its
simplicity; it offers a simple explanation as to why some persons commit
crimes and others do not. Unfortunately, this simplicity is also the source of
many criticisms of Sutherland's work.

Many have criticized Sutherland's differential association theory on a number

of grounds. Most importantly is the inability to empirically verify the theory,
as noted by Cressey and others. The vagueness of many of Sutherland's
definitions also caused concern from some sociologists, who argued that
most of the crimes discussed were civil, rather than criminal, matters.
Sutherland did not precisely define which crimes were white collar crimes, as
any person in a position of respectability could be guilty by his definition. For
example, a car mechanic is a person in a position of trust according to
Sutherland's definition, and many disagree that a car mechanic could be
guilty of white collar crime. Sutherland, in response to these criticisms,
9 Infra note 17 at pp15

11
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

argued that some technically legal acts by corporations could still be classed
as crimes because they violated the social consensus10.

Hoffman persuasively asserts that most of the criticisms directed at

Sutherlands theory of differential association are mostly literary errors
originating from the misinterpretation of the theory by critics. For instance,
most critics have rendered the theory invalid on account that not every
individual who has interacted with criminals developed criminal behaviors in
the end. According to Hoffman , this is a misinterpretation of the theorys
principle that postulates that individuals learn deviant behaviors via
differential association and not just through contacts with individuals who
have broken the law11.

Nevertheless, Church, Wharton, & Taylor managed to point out two

significant weaknesses of the theory of differential association. According to
Church, Wharton, & Taylor, the first limitation of Sutherlands differential
theory stems from the concept of definitions in the sense that Sutherland
fails to provide a precise definition of the concept. In addition, Sutherland
fails to highlight how excess of definitions that are favorable to deviant
behavior over unfavorable to criminal behavior can be operationalized. For
instance, how many unlawful behaviors should one defines as acceptable to
result in excess of definitions. Sutherland fails to provide a succinct
definition of the same; therefore, how would one embark on measuring the
concept of excess of definitions that are favorable to violation of law? The
second limitation of Sutherlands theory pointed out by Church, Wharton, &
Taylor, is that it fails to specify the learning process. In this regard, Church,
Wharton, & Taylor, assert that the theory of differential association lacks a
clue as regards to the specifics to be incorporated in all the mechanisms
involved in any other form of learning.12

Another criticism leveled against the theory of differential association stems

from the development of cultural deviance theory, which attempted to prove

10 Supra note 2 at 4

11 Hoffman, J. A contextual analysis of differential association,social control,and

strain theories of deliquency. Social Forces , (2002) pp 753-785

12 Church, W., Wharton, T., & Taylor, J. (2009). An Examination of Differential Association
and Social Control Theory: Family Systems and Delinquency. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice , 7 (1), 3-15.

12
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

that Sutherland made erroneous assumptions regarding human behavior and

the role that culture plays in influencing deviance. There are a number of
empirical researchers who have embarked on not testing or revising the
theory of differential association, but rejecting the theory in favor of social
control theory. One of the most prominent scholars who kick started the
trend for rejecting the differential association theory was Kornhauser who
offers an overwhelming critique of Sutherlands theory using the social
disorganization-social control viewpoint. Kornhauser provides an analytical
evaluation of the classical theories of crime with regard to the core aspects
of sociology such as behavior, socialization, social order and culture. In his
work, Kornhauser classifies the main theories of crime into disorganization,
strain and cultural deviance perspectives and then asserts that the
disorganization theories are superior empirically and analytically. Kornhauser
formulated the cultural deviance theory, which according to Hirschi reduces
the theory of differential association to a misrepresentation of human nature;
however, Hoffman objects these criticisms on account that they are derived
from the misinterpretation of the Sutherlands theory. Hoffman asserts that
according to this critique, the differential association theory draws upon the
predisposition that there is unlimited cultural variability and that socialization
is entirely successful; this cannot be used to elucidate the differences in
criminal behavior in the same group; rather, it is only applicable to group
differences in criminal behavior. In addition, using the cultural deviance
theory to point out the weakness of differential association theory simply
translates to the view that Sutherlands theory lacked the means to explain
the violation of norms that a person subscribes; Hoffman considers this
approach to critique as a misinterpretation of Sutherland propositions in his
theory.Another fundamental limitation of Sutherlands theory of differential
association pointed out by Kornhauser relates to the problem of specifying
the content of definitions that are favorable to deviance. This is analogous to
the criticism that Sutherlands theory cannot be evaluated empirically13.

In another research by Hirschi to explore the mechanism of social

transmission of delinquency, the researchers compared the impact of the
peers attitude and the impact of peers behavior and reported that
delinquency emerged from the peers behavior rather than the outcome of
the attitude obtained from other peers. According to Hirschi ,this implies that
Sutherlands view that peers attitude is a significant factor for deviant

13 Kornhauser, R. , Social Sources of Deliquency. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press(1978).

13
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

behavior is incomplete. Hirschi summarized the limitations of Sutherlands

theory as follows14:

The theory is defective on grounds that it fails to take into account the
consideration of free will;

The theory draws upon psychology that assumes rational deliberation;

The theory does not take into consideration the role of the victim in the
development of deviant behavior;

The theory fails to explain the origin of deviance;

The theory fails to define core concepts outlined in its principles such
as excess;

Fails to take into consideration the role of biological factors in crime;

The theory is not adequately comprehensive since it is not multi-

disciplinary;

The theory draws on the assumption that all people can access anti-
criminal and criminal patterns equally.

Strengths of Differential Association Theory

Despite having a number of shortcomings, Sutherlands theory of differential
association has been greatly applauded among criminologists because of its
coherence and simplicity. According to Akers, although differential
association theory has a number of anomalies, most criminological studies to
explore crime have supported the main theme in the theory. Clinard & Meier
point out that the measures association with the definitions of crime appears
to the generator of deviant behavior and that it exercises its influence in
some way via its impacts on a learned symbolic-construct motivation to take
part in deviant behavior. For instance, according to Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi,
computer crime is significantly related to the measures of differential
punishment and reinforcement and differential association, which affirms the
validity of Sutherlands theory.

According to Akers , social learning offers a model elucidation for computer

crime. It is apparent that social learning constitutes four main tenets, which
14 Hirschi, T. Causes of delinquency. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction Publishing,
(2002).

14
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

include imitation, definitions, differential punishment and reinforcement and

differential association. In the context of social learning, differential
association denotes the process by which people in dissimilar social
environments are exposed to unfavorable deviant behavior and ultimately
learn the respective definitions of favorable and unfavorable deviant
behaviors. Despite the fact that peer groups and family are important factors
in differential association, other factors related to social context such as the
school environment are similarly significant in influencing the learning of
normative definitions. Differential punishment and reinforcement describes
the balance existing between social and nonsocial punishment and rewards
associated with individual behavior.

According to the assertion of Akers, positive and negative reinforcers have a

tendency of increasing the probability that a particular act or behavior will
come about. Imitation denotes the modeling of a particular behavior through
observing others. Whereas Sutherland asserted that differential association
causes crime, the likelihood of such differential association causing crime is a
function of differential social organization. Clinard & Meier conducted an
analysis on the relationship between differential association and differential
social organization and reported that learning from, and association with
peers, family, schools and the community are significant variables that
determine delinquency.

Another strength of the differential theory is that it accounts for both criminal
behavior at the individual level and the distribution of crime rates across
different social settings. Since crime rates in a social setting are a summary
of the frequency of individual delinquent behaviors, they are determined by
the fraction of individuals who receive excess of delinquent behavior patterns
via the process of differential association. Simply stated, the crime rate is
determined by the level to which a social setting is organized in favor of
deviant behavior against the level to which it is organized against deviant
behavior; this is referred to as the differential social organization. Sutherland
suggested that structural variables such as family status, ethnicity, age, sex
and class have an effect on individual criminal behavior (and subsequently
collective rates of crime), although only by influencing the likelihood of
learning behavior patterns that are favorable and unfavorable to the
violation of law15.

15 Akers, R. (2009). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and
Deviance. New Brunswick, N.J: Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of
Crime and Deviance

15
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

Theories Derived From Differential Association Concepts

In response to the above criticisms many theorists have extended or
modified Sutherland's differential association theory in order to explain
criminal behaviour. Burgess and Akers extended Sutherland's theory to
specify the components of the learning process, and created links to
psychology's. Akers' differential reinforcement theory suggests the
application of rewards and punishments to the learning process establishes
our definitions of behaviour: essentially, we learn to repeat behaviour for
which we are rewarded, and desist behaviour for which we are punished.
Thus, Ackers expanded Sutherland's theory to include operant and
respondent conditionine. Gresham Sykes and David Matza argued the social
learning theory was too simplistic and too deterministic, and offered a theory
of neutralization and drift in their discussion of juvenile delinquency. Albert
Bandura demonstrated the powerful nature of social learning experiences,
particularly with regard to children who are exposed to violent adult role
models. Glaser's differential identification theory suggests not all learning
takes place in a face-to-face context. This highlights the effect contemporary
technological advances and communication techniques may have on the
process of creating definitions favorable to crime. Aspects of differential
association have been incorporated into cultural arguments underlying this
pace shuttle disaster, and into studies of punishment and reinforcement in
multiple age groups. The importance of Sutherland's contributions remains
strong in multiple contemporary works of criminology and sociology16.

Policy implications of Differential Association Theory

The criminal justice policy implications of differential association theory are
extremely valuable. To say that criminal behaviour is learned suggests legal
behaviours can be taught to the offender. Rehabilitation through re-education
and re-socialization are important therapies to consider, particularly for
juvenile offenders. Re-education could replace the excuses and justifications
for crime with reasons for following the law. Re-socialization could be
achieved with parental skills and peer evaluation training. Perhaps most
importantly, the need to re-educate society at large becomes apparent in
order to remove the need for the 'first criminal definition' missing from
Sutherland's work. Many proponents of social learning theory have used
arguments regarding the transmission of unacceptable behaviours to call for
greater censorship in the media, particularly in violence on television and in
16 ibid

16
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

video games. Arguably, these approaches may work to produce behavioural

change, but not cognitive change17.

CONCLUSION

Differential association theory attempts to be a general theory of crime,

capable of explaining all types of crimes and stressing that criminals are no
different to law abiding citizens. The valuable contribution that Sutherland
makes to criminology is in seeking to explain both criminal and non-criminal

17 Differential Association Theory available at

:<http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/Papers/Current.pdf> (Visited on March 8, 2017).

17
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

activity simultaneously, as the learning of all behaviors occurs the same way.
As Sutherland explains, "the attempts by many scholars to explain criminal
behavior by general drives and value have been and must continue to be
futile since they explain lawful behavior as completely as they explain
criminal behavior".

However, the tautological nature of Sutherland's argument is glaring: to

simply say that criminals engage in criminal behavior because they have
learned to be criminals is not particularly inspired. One of the most valuable
insights left by Sutherland is not actually included in his own work. The
missing link in the chain of differential association is the origin of the original
criminal definition; this points to a need to examine the structural causes
which lead to the initial need and/or desire to commit criminal acts.
Sutherland's differential association theory remains an important
criminological work which influences sociological, criminological and
psychological thought today18.

It is apparent that one of the major weaknesses of the differential association

theory is that it cannot be evaluated empirically; nevertheless, this theory is
still a vital principle that can be used to organize knowledge relating to
factors influencing crime. In addition, crime in itself is a multifaceted
concept, which implies that no single theory can be used to provide an
explanation of every aspect of deviant behaviors among individuals and
societies.

Nonetheless, even though the differential association theory has a number

of anomalies, its strengths are unmatched. In addition, there is a feasible
solution to the popular belief that the theory cannot be tested empirically.
The difficulty to operationalize the ratio of learned behavior patterns, which
is vital in Sutherlands theory, can be addressed by conceptualizing it as a
problem associated with measurement error. In this regard, the problem can
be tackled unequivocally by developing a model for measurement error
structure of the items that are core to the definitions construct; this can
allow the testing of the specific principles and hypothesis that can be derived
from Sutherlands theory. Overall, it can be argued that the general
principles outlined in the theory of differential association are ultimately
sound; however, their explanation need more work.

18 Differential Association Theory available at

www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Criminology/8048.html (Visited on March 8,
2017)

18
 UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOK SOURCES:

Paranjpe ,N.Y., Criminology and Penology, Central Law Publications,

Allahabad,2008.
Ramakand, Purvi, Handbook of Criminology, Dominant Publishers and
Distributors, Delhi, 2006.
McLaughlin, Eugene & Newburn, Tim, The Sage Handbook of
Criminological Theory, Sage Publications India Private Limited, Delhi,
2010.
Miller , J. Mitchell, 21st Century Criminology, Sage Publications India
Private Limited, Delhi, 2009.
Burke , Roger Hopkins , An Introduction to Criminological Theory,
Willian Publishing, USA, 2008.

WEB SOURCES:

http://www.mainstreamweekly.net/article2204.html
http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Differential_Association_Theory
http://www.alexandrakp.com/text/2008/02/sutherlands-differential-
association-and-its-nine-propositions/
http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/Papers/Current.pdf
http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/371/Readings/DA.pdf
http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Criminology/8048.
html

19