CRIMINOLOGY

DAT1http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/courses/371/Readings/DA.pdf

DAT2http://faculty.washington.edu/matsueda/Papers/Current.pdf

Sutherlands Differential Association

and its nine propositions
http://www.alexandrakp.com/text/2008/02/sutherlands-differential-
association-and-its-nine-propositions/

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 13, 2008

Edwin Sutherlands theory of Differential Association evolved from the Chicago

School of sociology, which observed that crime occurred more frequently in areas
lacking social organization and institutions of social control (Gomme, 37). 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 (Cullen & Agnew, 122). 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
(Gomme, 37). Sutherland was thus interested in explaining how such a cross-
generational transmission of delinquent values occurred (Lilly et al., 42). In his
theory of Differential Association, he posited that criminal behaviour is a result of a
process of socialization, during which criminal definitions are not only transmitted
culturally (Gomme, 37), but are actually learned through social interactions with
intimate groups (Winfree & Abadinsky, 193). The theory is outlined in nine
propositions.

The first proposition posits that criminal behaviour is learned. (Sutherland &
Cressey, 123). 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.
(Sutherland & Cressey, 123). 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.

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
(Sutherland & Cressey, 123). 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 responses of these others
towards the activity, such as rolling the eyes or staring.

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 that methods of
impersonal communication such as television, films or newspapers are less
influential or effective in learning (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). 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.

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 (Sutherland &
Cressey, 123). 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 (Sutherland & Cressey, 123).
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 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 intentions are developed
based on learned conceptions of the law as either favourable or unfavourable
(Sutherland & Cressey, 123). 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.

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 (Sutherland &
Cressey, 123). 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 (Lilly et al., 42). 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.

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
(Sutherland & Cressey, 123). 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 party. In this case, the child
would be frequently exposed (frequency) for many years (duration) in early life
(priority) to pro-criminal definitions.

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 (Sutherland & Cressey, 124). 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.

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
(Sutherland & Cressey, 124). 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.
Works Cited
1. Gomme, Ian McDermid. The Shadow Line: Deviance and Crime in Canada. 4th ed. Toronto: Thomson Nelson, 2007.
2. Lilly, J. Robert, Francis T. Cullen, and Richard A. Ball. Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. 4th ed. London:
Sage Publications, 2007.
3. Sutherland, Edwin H., and Donald R. Cressey. A Theory of Differential Association. (1960) Criminological Theory: Past to
Present. Ed. Francis T. Cullen and Robert Agnew. Los Angeles: Roxbury Company, 2006. 122-125.
4. Winfree, L. Thomas, and Howard Abadinsky. Understanding Crime. 2nd ed. Toronto: Nelson Thomson, 2003.

http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/Differential_Association_Theor
y

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY

In criminology, Differential Association is a theory developed by Edwin

Sutherland proposing that through interaction with others, individuals learn
the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior.

The Differential Association Theory is the most talked about of the Learning
Theories of deviance. This theory focuses on how individuals learn to
become criminals, but does not concern itself with why they become
criminals. Learning Theory is closely related to the Interactionist perspective;
however, it is not considered so because Interactionism focuses on the
construction of boundaries in society and persons' perceptions of them.
Learning Theory is considered a positivist approach because it focuses on
specific acts, opposed to the more subjective position of social impressions
on one's identity, and how those may compel to act. They learn how to
commit criminal acts; they learn motives, drives, rationalizations,
and attitudes. It grows socially easier for the individuals to commit a crime.
Their inspiration is the processes of cultural transmission and construction.
Sutherland had developed the idea of the "self" as a social construct, as
when a person's self-image is continuously being reconstructed especially
when interacting with other people.

Phenomenology and ethnomethodology also encouraged people to debate

the certainty of knowledge and to make sense of their everyday experiences
using indexicality methods. People define their lives by reference to their
experiences, and then generalise those definitions to provide a framework of
reference for deciding on future action. From a researcher's perspective, a
subject will view the world very differently if employed as opposed to
unemployed, if in a supportive family or abused by parents or those close to
the individual. However, individuals might respond differently to the same
situation depending on how their experience predisposes them to define
their current surroundings.

Differential association predicts that an individual will choose the criminal

path when the balance of definitions for law-breaking exceeds those for law-
abiding. This tendency will be reinforced if social association provides active
people in the person's life. Earlier in life the individual comes under the
influence of those of high status within that group, the more likely the
individual to follow in their footsteps. This does not deny that there may be
practical motives for crime. If a person is hungry but has no money, there is
a temptations to steal. But, the use of "needs" and "values" is equivocal. To a
greater or lesser extent, both non-criminal and criminal individuals are
motivated by the need for money and social gain.

CONTENTS

1 Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association

2 Explanation

3 Critique

4 External links

5 References

SUTHERLAND'S THEORY OF DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION

The principles of Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association can be

summarized into nine key points:

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 techniques of

committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes
simple and 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 delinquent because of an excess of definitions

favorable to violation of 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

anti-criminal 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 needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an
expression of the same needs and values.

EXPLANATION

Furthermore, some new and additional theoretical specifications about

the social influence of others on the individual, all in accordance with the
original ideas of Sutherland are proposed and empirically tested. The
differential association theory according to the version of K.-D. Opp is fairly
well corroborated by the data. Only three of the postulated relationships are
rejected. The theory explains 51% of the variance of criminal behavior, even
considering that no criminal population is used for the test and only minor
offenses are measured. The test also shows that the impact of the frequency
of contacts with deviant behaviour patterns on the development of positive
definitions and on the frequency of communication about relevant
techniques is substantial and cannot be ignored by criminologists.
Furthermore, special analysis show that several propositions favour the
theory. It is the deviancy of others that has the most substantial impact: the
more youngsters have contact with their friends, the stronger the impact of
the deviancy of their friends on the development of positive definitions or on
the frequency of communication about techniques. The tests also show that
the more youngsters identify themselves with others, the stronger the
impact of the deviancy of the others on their norms. These results support
the modification of the DA theory according to Opp and falsify some
propositions of social control theory.

An important quality of differential association theory concerns the frequency

and intensity of interaction. The amount of time that a person is exposed to a
particular definition and at what point the interaction began are both crucial
for explaining criminal activity. The process of learning criminal behaviour is
really not any different from the process involved in learning any other type
of behaviour. Sutherland maintains that there is no unique learning process
associated with acquiring non-normative ways of behaving.[1]

One very unique aspect of this theory is that the theory purports to explain
more than just juvenile delinquency and crime committed by lower class
individuals. Since crime is understood to be learned behaviour, the theory is
also applicable to white-collar, corporate, and organized crime. [2]

CRITIQUE

One critique labeled towards this theory has to do with the idea that people
can be independent, rational actors and individually motivated. This notion of
one being a criminal based on his or her environment is problematic. This
theory does not take into account personality traits that might affect a
person's susceptibility to these environmental influences. [3]

http://www.idealessaywriters.com/the-differential-association-theory/

The Differential Association Theory

Introduction

The development of the theory of differential association by Edwin

Sutherland was an important milestone in criminology. This theory became
instrumental in integrating the view of sociology in the context of
criminology (Akers, 2009). Prior to the development of the differential
association theory, Akers (2009) asserts that criminological schools of
thought and research were mostly unorganized and lacked a universal
theoretical framework to guide research and form a basis for evaluating the
findings. Since its development, the differential association theory has
played an integral role in stimulating theoretical revisions and refinements,
has been applied in policies and programs and facilitated empirical research
(Clinard & Meier, 2010). The first two saw several efforts aimed at revising
the differential association theory with the main objectives of explaining the
origin and diligence of delinquent behavior, integrating social learning
principles, and incorporating the principles of role theory and symbolic
interaction. Overtime, scholars and researchers have been divided over the
validity of the theory, with some focusing on evaluating the theory
empirically by developing methods to operationalize the concepts stipulated
in the theory, developing hypotheses from its principles, and evaluating
those hypotheses empirically. On the other hand, other scholars such as
Kornhauser (1978) have vehemently rejected the differential association
theorys principles that agree with social control. With these differing
perspectives on the theory, this paper discusses the development of the
differential association theory and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses
of the theory. This paper concludes that the differential association theory
appears to be supported; however, it needed additional empirical evaluation
aimed at specifying the abstract nature of the nine principles outlined in the
theory.

Overview and Development of the Differential Association Theory

Differential association theory is one of the social learning theories that

attempt to explain deviance and crime. According to Edwin Sutherland,
socialization plays an instrumental role in the development of deviant
behavior; for instance, if a person associates with criminals, it is highly likely
that he/she will develop a criminal behavior. Through these associations, one
is likely to learn attitudes, which will dispose that individual to either conform
to outside social norms or become deviant. According to Tittle, Burke, &
Jackson (1986), the differential association theory places emphasis on how a
person develops a deviant behavior, but does not address the reasons why
such a person opts to become a criminal. Fundamentally, the theory
maintains that deviant manners are learnable and can be learned through
interactions with people with deviant behaviors. According to Sutherland,
these associations help an individual to learn the motives, rationale and
techniques for particular crimes among others (Sutherland, 1974).
Sutherland also asserts that the associations vary depending on factors such
as duration and frequency among others. Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi (2009)
asserts that the differential association theory provides an explanation of
why a person opts to adopt a deviant behavior and is more helpful when
elucidating the role of peer influences among delinquent youths.

The theory of differential association was one of the significant contributions

by Edwin Sutherland to criminology in an attempt to explain deviant
behavior with regard to social relationships. This theory deviates from the
conventional biological and pathological perspective by examining deviance
in the social context of people. According to Hoffman (2002), Sutherland
refuted the other explanations of crime such as extreme individualism of
psychiatry, biological determinism and economic factors that influence
crime. As a result, Sutherland embarked on an alternative explanation for
deviance, which ultimately led to the progress of the theory of differential
association. The fundamental principle of the differential association theory
is that social messages play a more important role in the emergence of
deviant behavior than prosocial messages (Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2009). In
this regard, Sutherland was of the opinion that the concepts of differential
social organization and differential association apply to group and individual
levels respectively. In this regard, the differential association theory provides
an understanding of a person becomes a criminal whereas the differential
social organization provides an understanding of why different social entities
have varying crime rates.

There are nine principles that make up the differential association theory.
First, Sutherland asserts that deviant behavior is learned, which implies that
deviant behavior is not a subject of pathological inheritance (Clinard & Meier,
2010). In this regard, an individual learn deviant behavior from other people
in his/her social circle such as family and peers, and cannot be inherited
genetically. Second, interaction plays an integral role in the learning of
deviant behavior, which takes place through interpersonal communication.
Third, the fundamental part of learning deviant behavior takes place in
intimate personal groups; this implies that impersonal communication are
less significant in the development of deviant behavior. The fundamental
argument here is that deviance is learnt mostly through intimate
relationships such as friends and family, and not from impersonal
associations such as mass media and movies. Nevertheless, it is imperative
to note that the influence of mass media in 1930s was not widespread as it is
today; as a result, a number of contemporary differential association scholars
concede that mass media plays an integral role in the learning of deviant
behavior (Hoffman, 2002). The fourth principle of the differential association
theory is that learning deviant behavior entails the techniques of a specific
crime and the specific motives, attitudes, rationalizations and drives; this
implies that learning deviant behavior entails several dissimilar dimensions
of criminality. The fifth principle of the theory is that definitions of the legal
code as either unfavorable or favorable has a significant influence motivation
and drives for delinquent behavior. Simply stated, if a person interacts with
people who perceive violating some laws as a normal or acceptable behavior,
that individual is likely to violate those laws. The sixth principle of the theory
of differential association states that an individual develops a criminal
behavior because of the excess of definitions that are favorable to violation
of law over the definitions that are unfavorable to violation of the law. This
implies that more illegal behaviors are defined as normal and acceptable by
an individual, then, it is highly likely that that individual will develop deviant
behaviors. Sutherland equates this principle to the principle of differential
organization. In this regard, people not only develop delinquent behaviors as
a result of contacts with deviance elements but also because of the isolation
from anti-criminal elements. Simply stated, this implies that neutral
associations with respect to crime have insignificant impact on the genesis of
delinquency (Sutherland, 1974). The seventh principle of the differential
association theory points out that differential association varies in terms of
intensity, priority, duration and frequency. This principle specifies the four
core dimensions associated with differential association. Evaluating the
differential association theory requires researchers to operationalize these
dimensions. The eighth principle of the differential association theory points
out that the learning deviant behavior through association with both anti-
criminal and criminal patterns entails all mechanisms involved in any other
form of learning. The fundamental inference from this principle is that the
learning of deviant behavior is not exempted from the process of imitation
(Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2009). Simply stated, learning delinquent behavior
is similar to any other learning process. The ninth principle of the differential
association theory states that whereas criminal behavior is an expression of
the 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.
For instance, the motive behind stealing is to secure money; similarly, other
people work in order to have money. Thus, the efforts aimed at explaining
deviant behavior using values and drives (such as money) have been
unsuccessful. This is because they provide an explanation of both lawful and
unlawful behavior using the same perspective (Akers, 2009).

Sutherlands theory of differential association draws upon two main

assumptions: first, deviance takes place when individuals define a particular
situation as a suitable occurrence for breaking laws and social norms; and
that the definitions of that particular situation are often acquired via the
history of past experience of a person, especially with respect to his/her
previous associations with other people. Basing on this line of argument,
Sutherland did not imply that mere associations with people of deviant
behaviors would result in delinquent behaviors; however, he perceived
criminal behavior as an outcome of conflicting values. People with an excess
of deviant definitions are more predisposed to forming new criminal
definitions. In addition, that individual is more likely to be less receptive to
the anti-deviance definitions (Tittle, Burke, & Jackson, 1986).
Contemporary Views and Criticism of the Theory of Differential
Association

The development of the theory of differential association was

received with mixed opinions, with some scholars criticizing and highlighting
the flaws in the theory whereas supporters of the theory maintained that
those criticizing the theory misinterpreted it. For instance, Hoffman (2002)
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 (2002), 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 law.
Nevertheless, Church, Wharton, & Taylor (2009) managed to point out two
significant weaknesses of the theory of differential association. According to
Church, Wharton, & Taylor, (2009), 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
define 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, (2009) is that it fails to specify the learning
process. In this regard, Church, Wharton, & Taylor, (2009) 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.

Another criticism leveled against the theory of differential association stems

from the development of cultural deviance theory, which attempted to prove
that Sutherland made erroneous assumptions regarding human behavior and
the role that culture plays in influencing deviance (Hirschi, 2002). 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 (1978), who offers an overwhelming critique of Sutherlands
theory using the social disorganization-social control viewpoint. Kornhauser
(1978) 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 (1978) formulated the cultural deviance theory,
which according to Hirschi (2002) reduces the theory of differential
association to a misrepresentation of human nature; however, Hoffman
(2002) objects these criticisms on account that they are derived from the
misinterpretation of the Sutherlands theory. Hoffman (2002) 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 (2002) 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 (1978) 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
empirically. In another research by Hirschi (2002) 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 (2002), this
implies that Sutherlands view that peers attitude is a significant factor for
deviant behavior is incomplete. Hirschi (2002) summarized the limitations of
Sutherlands theory as follows:

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

2. The theory draws upon psychology that assumes rational deliberation;

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

4. The theory fails to explain the origin of deviance;

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

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

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

disciplinary;

8. 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 (2009), 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 (2010) 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 (2009), 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 (2009), social learning offers a model elucidation for
computer crime. It is apparent that social learning constitutes four main
tenets, which 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 (2009), 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 (2010) 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 law (Sutherland, 1974).

Conclusion

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. Understanding crime requires the combination of
several theories in order to come up with a better explanation of crime.
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.

References

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.

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.

Clinard, B., & Meier, R. (2010). Sociology of Deviant Behavior. New York:
Cenagge Learning.

Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of delinquency. New Brunswick,NJ: Transaction

Publishing.

Hoffman, J. (2002). A contextual analysis of differential association,social

control,and strain theories of deliquency. Social Forces , 753-785.

Kornhauser, R. (1978). Social Sources of Deliquency. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Regoli, R., Hewitt, J., & DeLisi, M. (2009). Delinquency in Society. Sudbury,
Mass.: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

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

Tittle, C., Burke, J., & Jackson, E. (1986). Modeling Sutherlands theory of
differential association: Toward an empirical clarification. Social Forces ,
65 (2), 405-432.

http://www.customessaymeister.com/customessays/Criminology/8048.htm
 utherland's Differential Association

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine Edwin Sutherland's theory of differential association. Following a brief
history of Sutherland's ideas is a summary of the main ideas and premises of his differential association theory. Also included is a
review of studies which attempt to test the validity of Sutherland's theory.

Theoretical Criminology attempts to explain theories of why and how crime occurs by examining the various facts related
to criminal behavior and crime. These theories offer the sociological, psychological, and psychiatric views of the causes of crime and
other forms of deviant behavior. Among these is a group of theories referred to as learning theories, which focus on the ideas and
behaviors that can be learned, the processes by which that learning occurs, and the structure of support and encouragement for
law violation. Perhaps the strongest and most prominent of these theories is Edwin Sutherland's Differential Association theory. As
a sociological interactionist, Sutherland's viewpoint on the etiology of crime was that there existed certain processes or
relationships that could explain all crime, in spite of its great variety.

"Edwin H. Sutherland (1883-1950) gradually formulated and systematized his theoretical ideas of criminal behavior by
attempting to create a general theory that could organize the many diverse facts known about criminal behavior into some logical
arrangement" (Vold, 1998). Through the many editions of Sutherland's books, there is evidence of his continued attempts at
clarifying and expand on his own ideas to form a concrete and sustainable theory of criminology. The first edition of Sutherland's
Criminology, 1924, he "set out to examine the various "concrete" conditions that might explain the causation of criminal behavior,
but, as his research progressed, he came to reject all concrete conditions as having any validity in predicting criminal conduct"
( Jones, 1986). Sutherland's second edition in 1934, at best demonstrated his continued attempts to postulate his ideas about
criminology into a valid theory.

In 1939, Sutherland published the third edition of his book, entitled Principles of Criminology, in which he outlined his ideas
for the theory of differential association. However, Sutherland limited the theory of differential association only to explain career
criminals and systematic criminal behavior. "This tentative theory of criminal behavior is stated in the form of the seven following
propositions. First, the processes which result in systematic criminal behavior are fundamentally the same in the form as the
processes which result in systematic lawful behavior. Second, systematic criminal behavior is determined in a process of association
with those who commit crimes, just as systematic lawful behavior is determined in a process of association with those who are law-
abiding. Third, differential association is the specific causal process in the development of systematic criminal behavior. Fourth, the
chance that a person will participate in systematic criminal behavior is determined roughly by the frequency and consistency of his
conducts with the patterns of criminal behavior. Fifth, individual differences among people in respect to personal characteristics or
social situations cause crime only as they affect differential association or frequency and consistency of contacts with criminal
patterns. Sixth, cultural conflict is the underlying cause of differential association and therefore of systematic criminal behavior.
Seventh, and final states that, social disorganization is the basic cause of systematic criminal behavior." (Sutherland, 1939).

What's more, in the fourth edition of Sutherland's Principles of Criminology, 1947, he revised his theory of differential
association to be applied to all crime generally. Still a striking difference between the two versions, aside from to who they are
applied is that the ideas in the fourth version are presented as a "genetic theory of criminal behavior on the assumption that a
criminal act occurs when a situation appropriate for it, as defined by the person, is present" (Sutherland & Cressey, 1950). Edwin
H. Sutherland's theory of differential association, as confirmed in the fourth edition consists of following nine points:

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, sometimes very simple; (b) the specific direction of the 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. In
some societies an individual is surrounded by persons who invariably define legal codes as rules to be observed, while in others he
is surrounded by persons whose definitions are favorable to the violation of the legal codes. In our American society these
definitions are almost always mixed, with the consequence that we have culture conflict in relation to the legal codes.

6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions
unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association. It refers to both criminal and anti-criminal
associations and has to do with counteracting forces. When persons become criminal, they do so because of contacts with criminal
patterns and also because of isolation from anti-criminal patterns. Any person inevitably assimilates the surrounding culture unless
other patterns are in conflict.
 7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. This means that associations with
criminal behavior and also associations with anti-criminal behavior vary in those respects. "Frequency" and "duration" as modalities
of associations are obvious and need no explanation. "Priority": is assumed to be important in the sense that lawful behavior
developed in early childhood may persist throughout life, and also that delinquent behavior developed in early childhood may
persist throughout life. This tendency, however, has not been adequately demonstrated, and priority seems to be important
principally through its selective influence. "Intensity" is not precisely defined but it has to do with such things as the prestige of the
source of a criminal or anti-criminal pattern and emotional reactions related to the associations. In a precise description of the
criminal behavior of a person these modalities would be stated in quantitative form and mathematical ratio be reached. A formula
in this sense has not been developed, and the development of such a formula would be extremely difficult.

8. 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.

9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and
values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. Thieves generally steal in order to secure
money, but likewise honest laborers work in order to secure money. The attempts by many scholars to explain criminal behavior by
general drives and values, such as the happiness principle, striving for social status, the money motive, or frustration, have been,
and must continue to be, futile, since they explain lawful behavior as completely as they explain criminal behavior. They are similar
to respiration, which is necessary for any behavior, but which does not differentiate criminal from noncriminal behavior.

From Sutherland's fourth edition onward of the Principles of Criminology these nine points of his theory of differential
associations have remained unchanged.

"Sutherland drew upon three major theories from the Chicago School in order to better formulate his theory. These
included the ecological and cultural transmission theory, symbolic interactionism, and culture conflict. Expressed by the symbolic
interactionism approach, varying crime rates were explained by the culture conflict approach and the process by which individuals
became criminal. Thus, he formulated his theory with an attempt to explain not only individual criminal behavior but also those of
societal groups" (DeMelo, 1994). This statement, aside from its discussion of how Sutherland formed the basis for his theory, also
provides evidence for the argument that Sutherland's differential association theory demonstrates a connection to all three of the
broad classifications of the etiology of crime and other forms of deviant behavior. Generally the three categories that theories about
the causes and behaviors of crime fit into, they are: individual difference theories, structure/ process theories or theories on the
behavior of criminal law.

As Vold (1998) describes, "individual difference theories assume that some people are more likely than others to engage in
crime," but adds that this is true regardless of the situation they are in. Sutherland's differential association is similar to the
individual difference theories because it asserts a relationship between the characteristics of individuals and the probabilities that
those individuals will engage in criminal behavior. By attempting to find a correlation between specific individual human factors,
such as biological, social/ societal, or psychological aspects, and link them together to demonstrate how and to what extent those
factors may account for the individual's criminal behavior and activity. For example, Sutherland stated that one's individual criminal
behavior is learned through interaction with others, therefore, as he explains further in his seventh point, the likelihood one would
engage in criminal behavior would stem from the frequency and duration of one's interactions with others who posses tendencies
toward criminal behavior. Another point, previously discussed, made by Sutherland that would correlate with the individual
difference theories' premise that there are specific factors that link to form the how and extent of criminal behavior, is his
statement that "in some societies an individual is surrounded by persons who invariably define legal codes as rules to be observed,
while in others he is surrounded by persons whose definitions are favorable to the violation of the legal codes. In our American
society these definitions are almost always mixed, with the consequence that we have culture conflict in relation to the legal
codes." Although from this it is easy to see the basic correlation between Sutherland's differential association theory and the
individual difference theories, Sutherland's theory does not fit entirely with all of the characteristics of the individual difference
theories. For this reason Sutherland's theory must also be examined as relative to the other classifications of theories, which are
structure/ process theories and theories of the behavior of criminal law.

Assuming that certain types of social situations posses higher crime rates, despite the characteristics of the individual
people in them, the structure/ process theories attempt to identify the social characteristics which cause these variations in crime
rate. Generally, as Vold (1998) continues to explain, "some structural characteristic is associated with some rate or distribution of
crime", which is the "structure" portion of the structure/ process theory, is then followed by the "process" portion of the theory,
which supposes reasons why normal people in this structural circumstances might hold a greater tendency to engage in crime over
people in other situations. This coincides to the central principle of Sutherland's differential association theory because of the
theories own structure/ process correlation. As summarized by the specific points and ideas of Sutherland's theory, the "structure"
portion is evident in the content of what is learned. For instance, Sutherland describes the specific techniques of committing crime,
the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes, as well as, more general "definitions favorable to law
violation" (Vold, 1998). The "process" portion of the structure/ process theories that is apparent in Sutherland's differential
association theory provides that the procedure by which learning of criminal behavior occurs involves relations and interactions with
other people in intimate personal groups. While this demonstrates the comparability of Sutherland's differential association theory
to the structure/ process theories, Sutherland's theory is not completely equal in comparison, as it lacks the correlation to the rate
and distribution of crime found within true structure/ process theories. For this reason, Sutherland's differential association theory
does not fit into the structure/ process category of theories, but Sutherland's theory does match up to the theories of the behavior
of criminal law.

The theories of the behavior of criminal law seek to explain why some people and not others are defined and processed as
criminal. A common factor to the theories of the behavior of criminal law suggest that individuals and behaviors that fall into the
process and classification of "criminal" are those with little or no means of economic or political power (Vold, 1998). Along these
same points Sutherland argues that the most important factor in determining whether individuals will violate the law is the meaning
and weight that individual gives to the social conditions they experience. Continuing, Sutherland adds that as a result of differential
associations, some individuals and not others will subscribe and support criminal patters of behavior. Finally, similarly to the
common factor of the theories of the behavior of criminal law, Sutherland contends that "the informal reactions to the crimes of
persons of one status are different from the reactions to the crimes of persons of another status", which reflects itself in the
imposition of punishments and classification of crime. "Powerful groups are often punished less frequently and severely then less
powerful groups, as may be observed in the differential punishments of white-collar criminals compared with other criminals", such
as those of the lower class (Sutherland & Cressey, 1955). As illustrated, Sutherland's theory of differential association coincides
best perhaps with the theories of the behavior of criminal law; nevertheless, it does hold similarities to the premises of the
individual difference theories and the structure/ process theories. Thus, this demonstrates that Sutherland's differential association
theory does not fit perfectly into any one of the three categories of theories, but rather is a combination of all three.

As noted early, Sutherland's differential association theory attempts to explain crime and criminal behavior in general,
hence there have been a wide variety of studies which investigate and test the validity of his theory. Moreover, these studies
examine specific aspects and premises of Sutherland's more general theory of differential association, such as his ideas on white-
collar crime, crimes of a career criminals like thieves, those involving learning, motivation and drives, and others which apply his
ideas to juvenile delinquency and crime.

One of the studies which tests the validity of Sutherland's differential association theory is "Parents, Peers, and Delinquent
Action: A test of the Differential Association Perspective", by Gary F. Jensen at the University of North California. Jensen's study
(1972) "attempts a more direct and encompassing test through an examination of the relationship between direct and indirect
parental control and delinquency under conditions varying in the availability of delinquent patterns, unitizing data from a large
heterogeneous random sample of adolescents". While Sutherland's differential association theory places emphases on definitions,
Jensen tests attempt to go further by considering "the independent consequences of delinquent peers, parents, and "delinquent"
definitions for delinquent action." Also, Jensen's study examines the question, "Do delinquent peers influence acceptance of
unconventional cultural standards, and if so, do delinquent peers affect delinquency only through such alternative cultural
patterns?" (1972). Finally, Jensen's study is aimed at testing the validity of Sutherland and Cressey's argument that family life is
applicable to delinquency only when "delinquent patterns" are preexisting to copy.

Like many other studies examining specific aspects on Sutherland's differential association theory, the source of the data
for Jensen's study came from part of the Richmond Youth Study which was conducted by the Survey Research Center (University of
California at Berkeley) in 1965. The original population of the Richmond Youth Study consisted of the 17, 500 students entering the
11 junior and senior high schools of Western Contra Costa in the fall of 1964, whereas the sample for the Richmond Youth study
data consisted of both black and nonblack, male and female adolescents in grades 7 thru 12. However, Jensen's study only
analyzed the data on the 1, 588 nonblack males from the Richmond Youth study's original sample. Moreover, the relationships
examined by Jensen for his study were observed by utilizing the questionnaire data gathered from the original Richmond Youth
study.

The resulting findings of Jensen's " Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A test of the Differential Association Perspective"
study (1972) assesses the arguments "using differential association theory to encompass certain "known" relationships, and
consistent with previous research the number of delinquent friends, the perception of "trouble" in the neighborhood, and the
variable acceptance of attitudes and beliefs favorable to the violation of legal codes were significantly related to involvement in
delinquent action". However, Sutherland and Cressey's argument was failed to be supported by the findings of this study, which
"cast doubt on their arguments concerning the home and family in relation to delinquent behavior", but noted that what goes on in
the family situation seems to have significance of its own which is not included by Sutherland and Cressey's differential association
perspective (Jensen, 1972). Still, Jensen study did reveal that some interaction existed when definitions favorable to the violation
of the law were controlled. Finally, Jensen's study (1972) states that "the theory of differential association stresses "definitions" and
"cultural" variables (values, norms, and beliefs) to such an extent that processes shaping human behavior other than
internalization of normative standards tend to be slighted" (Jensen, 1972). However, contrary to Jensen's analyses, Matsueda's
interpretation upon a reexamination of the findings of the Richmond Youth study provides a different conclusion from those results.

"Testing Control Theory and Differential Association: A Causal Modeling Approach", by Ross L. Matsueda at the University
of California, Santa Barbara, is another second which investigates the validity of Sutherland's differential association theory.
Matsueda's study considers the findings of both the original Richmond Youth study and the findings of Jensen's 1972 study. The
major difference between Sutherland's differential association theory and the control theory is that Sutherland stresses that
definitions of the legal code mediate the effects of structural factors on crime. On the other hand, the control theory states that
definitions of the legal codes reflect the degree of belief in the moral order and therefore do not mediate attachment, commitment,
or involvement. One of the most detrimental criticisms about the differential association theory is that the primary variable of the
theory, that a person's ratio learned behavior patterns, cannot be precisely determined, therefore the theory of differential
association cannot be subjected to empirical verification. However, Matsueda (1982) theorizes that "by explicitly modeling the
measurement error structure of the ratio of learned behavior patterns favorable and unfavorable to the violation of legal codes, the
critical variable of Sutherland's theory can be operationalized".

The methodology or design behind Matsueda's ideas follows from the ideas of both Sutherland and Cressey. Although it is
argued that this variable cannot be operationalized, Matsueda hypothesis contradicts this argument. Matsueda's (1982)
interpretation hypothesizes that "when the ratio of behavior patterns favorable and unfavorable to delinquency are treated as a
"latent" or "unobservable" variable, it does have operational implications for the relationships among variables that can be
observed, which in turn can be specified as indicators of the underlying theoretical construct". Therefore, Matsueda states that
Sutherland's theory of differential association can and should be weighed empirically. "The oft-cited difficulty of operationalizing the
ratio of learned behavior patterns can be conceptualized as a problem of measurement error. The most practical way to address
this problem is by explicitly modeling the measurement error structure of items tapping the underlying definitions construct,
therefore, allowing the testing of specific hypotheses derived from the differential association theory" (Matsueda, 1982).

The resulting findings of Matsueda's study (1982) supported and favored Sutherland's differential association theory, but
could only be used to predict a general index of delinquent behaviors for general indicators of the definitions of legal code.
Concluding, Matsueda (1982) emphasizes that "Sutherland's differential association remains as an important principle that focuses
attention on the fact that all behavior is oriented by norms, and it integrates and explains variations in crime rates. Yet, not all of
the studies explore this aspect of Sutherland's differential association theory.

"Doing What Simple Simon Says?: Estimating the Underlying Causal Structures of Delinquent Associations, Attitudes, and
Serious Theft", a study by Mark D. Reed and Dina R. Rose published in June 1998, investigates one of the more fundamental and
stronger points of Sutherland's differential association theory. Their study attempts to investigate the "relative contributions of
socialization, group pressure, social selection and rationalization processes in explaining the relationships between peer-group
associations, attitudes and serious theft" (Reed & Rose, 1998). By estimating a nonrecursive model, Reed and Rose (1998) argue
that (delinquency) serious theft is as likely to affect delinquent associations and attitudes as associations and attitudes are to affect
(delinquency) serious theft. Reed and Rose's study (1998) attempts to improve upon earlier studies examining differential
association and social learning theories in two distinct ways. "First, this research uses panel data that allows us to model the
reciprocal relations of delinquent associations, delinquent attitudes, and serious theft, thereby enabling a test of the relative
contribution of several different social processes on serious theft". Second, presently the majority of cross-sectional and
longitudinal studies lack the inclusion of a measurement model in the substantive model, thus, rendering the increased feasibility
that the structural parameter calculations are biased due to measurement error. The research of this study examined by Reed and
Rose (1998) estimates a measurement model, correcting for the potential biasing effects of correlated measurement error.

Reed and Rose's methodology and design for this study (1998) came from the longitudinal data, collected from the NYS
(National Youth Survey), which are grounded on a probability sample of households using a multistage, cluster sampling design.
"Five annual waves of data for 1976 to 1980 are available; the present analysis examines the first three waves. Of the 2,360
youths (ages ranged from 11 to 17) asked to participate in the original study, 1,725 (73%) agreed. Respondent loss over the first
three waves was 6%, leaving 1,626 participants in the study, which had no effect on the studies results" ( Reed and Rose, 1998).

The results of Reed and Rose's study (1998) showed "that the socialization effects are negligible and insignificant in the
reciprocal estimations: Peers influence attitudes, but attitudes are not the primary determinants of behavior. More important,
however, the research established that the "group pressure effects are substantially smaller in the nonrecursive models compared
to those commonly reported in recursive studies"(Reed and Rose, 1998). Yet, perhaps the most fundamental findings of the
research from Reed and Rose's study (1998) "indicates that there are several social processes operating simultaneously. Thus, the
adherence to a single social process will likely result in the oversimplification of the causal mechanisms underlying delinquent
behavior".

While Sutherland's differential association theory has been examined to explain nearly all types of crime, overall, these
studies demonstrate the broad complexity of Sutherland's theory. But to what extent if any is the validity of Sutherland's theory of
differential association given as a result of these studies? The results of the first study, "Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A
test of the Differential Association Perspective", by Gary F. Jensen failed to find validity in Sutherland's theory. Particularly, the data
of Jensen's study disagreed with the arguments of Sutherland and Cressey concerning the home and family in relation to delinquent
behavior. However, the second study, "Testing Control Theory and Differential Association: A Causal Modeling Approach",
conducted by Ross L. Matsueda found that Sutherland's differential association theory held a great validity than the social control
theories. Importantly, Matsueda had noted that most commonly criticized problem of measurement error could be corrected by
explicitly modeling the measurement error structure of items tapping the underlying definitions construct, which then gives greater
validity to Sutherland's theory over that of social conflict theories. The third and final study discussed was, "Doing What Simple
Simon Says?: Estimating the Underlying Causal Structures of Delinquent Associations, Attitudes, and Serious Theft", by Mark D.
Reed and Dina R. Rose. Although, Reed and Rose's examination of Sutherland's differential association theory are a little more
indirect than that of the other two studies, it still explores the validity of Sutherland's theory. Reed and Rose's study does give
favor to Sutherland's theory, they also incorporated the ideas of other theories, with would tend to make a better case that
Sutherland's theory does not hold true for all types of crimes and criminal behavior.

Throughout his career Sutherland attempted to clarify his ideas in efforts to postulate a concise general theory of crime
and criminal behavior, however he never managed to do so. "Despite his many critics, little doubt exists that Edwin Sutherland was
a true "pioneer" in the field of criminology, not in spite of his differential association theory but because of it" (Jones, 1986). The
universal acceptance of Sutherland's differential association theory due to its less complex and more coherent approach to crime
causation, in addition to the reality of it being a definition of individual criminal behavior. Perhaps in part because of Sutherland's
differential association theory is supported by much evidence, a large quantity of modern theory and research in the field of
criminology can be attributed to the work of Sutherland's original composition. Although, Sutherland has often been misinterpreted
for his ideas on the associations with criminals leading to criminal behavior, what he meant was that the contents of patterns in
association would differ from individual to individual. "Differential association is a theory based on the social environment and its
surrounding individuals and the values those individuals gain from significant others in their social environment" (DeMelo, 1994).
Crime was viewed by Edwin Sutherland as a consequence of conflicting values. Moreover, the basic premises behind the
Sutherland's combined and final differential association theory is that criminal behavior is learned and that in a "situation of
differential organization and normative conflict, differences in behavior, including criminal behaviors, arise because of differential
associations (Vold, 1998).

Overall, Edwin Sutherland's differential association theory does not best explain any one specific type of crime or criminal
behavior. In fact, perhaps the reason why Sutherland's theory has sustained its significance is because it encompasses a general
formula and the fundamental ideas or way of examining crime and criminal behavior. Conceivably, a better question and challenge
that might be raised instead of what types of crime does it best explain, would be what types of crime or criminal behavior could
you not apply to Sutherland's differential association theory. Therefore there is no suggestion that Sutherland's theory is not valid,
merely that the application of Sutherland's theory must follow in accordance with Sutherland's own calculations and