Differential Association Theory

Development of the Theory

Sutherland developed the theory of differential association at a time when criminologists relied on a patchwork of explanations ranging from biological determinism to nebulous correlations with individual conditions (e.g., mental disorders, race/ethnicity, gender, broken homes, and poor upbringing). A review of criminology at the time, the 1933 Michel-Adler Report, painted a bleak picture by asserting that criminology lacked scientifically rigorous findings and that criminologists lacked scientific ability. Partially in response to the conditions and the report, Sutherland began considering a generalizable scientific explanation for crime.

Although the second edition (1934) of Sutherland's popular textbook Principles of Criminology contained early indications of his ideas, the theory grew out of Sutherland's work throughout the 1930s. Chief influences included Sutherland's research experiences at the University of Chicago, his associations with Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay (and their theory of social disorganization), his interest in C. H. Cooley's social process method for explaining human behavior, and, after he became department chair at Indiana University in 1935, his collaborations with Harvey Locke, Alfred Lindesmith, Thorsten Sellin, and Frank Sweetser. When Sutherland published the textbook's third edition in 1939, it contained an explicit statement of the theory of differential association.

Throughout the 1940s, Sutherland critically addressed the theory to make the necessary adjustments. Eventually, he turned away from social disorganization as the theory's base and shifted to differential social organization. He also enhanced the focus on communication processes and the characteristics of relationships with others. Through interactions with other criminologists, especially Indiana University faculty and students, Sutherland developed the theory's final version, which was published in the textbook's 1947 edition.

Key Principles of Differential Association

The nine key principles listed in the fourth edition of the textbook (1947), which have remained unchanged in subsequent editions, are as follows:

• 1.
  Criminal behavior is learned.
• 2.
  Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.
• 3.
  The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
• 4.
  When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated and sometimes very simple, and (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
• 5.
  The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
• 6.
  A person becomes a delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of the law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law.
• 7.
  Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
• 8.
  The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning.
• 9.
  While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.

[Page 202]These principles can be subdivided into groups: Principles 1 to 3 identify criminal behavior as socially learned, Principles 4 to 7 indicate what is learned and why, and Principles 8 and 9 address the relation of the theory to other explanations. Taken all together, the principles provide a set of generalizable propositions for both individual and social explanations of crime.

...