298 Section II — Theories of Causation of Crime
in role conflict."4 For our purposes, however, the most important point is that
deviation from certain norms may occur not because the norms are rejected but!
because other norms, held to be more pressing or involving a higher loyalty, are
accorded precedence. Indeed, it is the feet that both sets of norms are believed inf
that gives meaning to our concepts of dilemma and role conflict.
The conflict between the claims of friendship and the claims of law, or a similar^
dilemma, has of course long been recognized by the social scientist (and the novelist) |
as a common human problem. If the juvenile delinquent frequently resolves his"/
dilemma by insisting that he must "always help a buddy" or "never squeal on a§2
friend,'' even when it throws him into serious difficulties with the dominant social
order, his choice remains familiar to the supposedly law-abiding. The delinquent-,
is unusual, perhaps, in the extent to which he is able to see the feet that he acts ';
in behalf of the smaller social groups to which he belongs as a justification for V
violations of society's norms, but it is a matter of degree rather than of kind. %
"I didn't mean it." "I didn't really hurt anybody." "They had it coming toil
them." "Everybody's picking on me." "I didn't do it for myself." These slogans "
or their variants, we hypothesize, prepare the juvenile for delinquent acts. These §
"definitions of the situation" represent tangential or glancing blows at the dominant
normative system rather than the creation of an opposing ideology; and they are
extensions of patterns of thought prevalent in society rather than something created, f
de novo.
Techniques of neutralization may not be powerful enough to fully shield the 4
individual from the force of his own internalized values and the reactidns of 4
conforming others, for as we have pointed out, juvenile delinquents often appear LL
to suffer from feelings of guilt and shame when called into account for their deviant |
behavior. And some delinquents may be so isolated from the world of conformity §
that techniques of neutralization need not be called into play. Nonetheless, we Would i
argue that techniques of neutralization are critical in lessening the effectiveness o f - |
social controls and that they lie behind a large share of delinquent behavior. . . . J
Notes
1. A number of observers have wryly noted that many delinquents seem to show a surprising ::
awareness of sociological and psychological explanationsfortheir behavior and are quick ,
to point out the causal role of their poor environment.
2. It is possible, of course, that certain personality structures can accept some techniques '
of neutralization more readily than others, but this question remains largely unexplored. :
3. Lloyd W. McCorkle and Richard Korn, "Resocialization Within Walls," The Annals '
of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 293, (May, 1954), pp. 88-98.
4. See Samuel A. Stouffer and Jackson Toby, "Role Conflict and Personality," in Toward
a General Theory of Action, edited by Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press, 1951, p. 494.
DIFFERENTIAL A S S O C I A T I O N
Edwin H. Sutherland
The scientific explanation of a phenomenon may be stated either in terms of the
factors which are operating at the moment of the occurrence of a phenomenon or
in terms of the processes operating in the earlier history of that phenomenon. In
thefirstcase the explanation is mechanistic, in the second historical or genetic; both
are usable. The physical and biological scientists favor the first of these methods,
and it would probably be superior as an explanation of criminal behavior. Efforts
at explanations of the mechanistic type have been notably unsuccessful, perhaps
largely because they have been concentrated on the attempt to isolate personal and
social pathologies. Work from this point of view has, at least, resulted in the
conclusion that the immediate factors in criminal behavior lie in the person-situation
complex. Person and situation are not factors exclusive of each other, for the situation
IF which is important is the situation as defined by the person who is involved. The
tendencies and inhibitions at the moment of the criminal behavior are, to be sure,
largely a product of the earlier history of the person, but the expression of these
tendencies and inhibitions is a reaction to die immediate situation as defined by the
person. The situation operates in many ways, of which perhaps the least important
is the provision of an opportunity for a criminal act. A thief may steal from a fruit
stand when the owner is not in sight but refrain when the owner is in sight; a bank
burglar may attack a bank which is poorly protected but refrain from attacking a
bank protected by watchmen and burglar alarms. A corporation which manufactures
automobiles seldom or never violates the Pure Food and Drug Law, but a meatpacking
corporation violates this law with great frequency.
The second type of explanation of criminal behavior is made in terms of the
life experience of a person and is a historical or genetic explanation of criminal
behavior. This, to be sure, assumes a situation to be defined by the person in terms
of the inclinations and abilities which the person has acquired up to that date. The
following paragraphs state such a genetic theory \Le„ the theory of differential
association] of criminal behavior on the assumption that a criminal act occurs when
a situation appropriate for it, as defined by a person, is present.
1. Criminal behavior is learned. Negatively, this means that criminal behavior
is not inherited, as such; also, the person who is not already trained in crime does
Source: ExcerptedfromEdwin H. Sutherland, Principles of Criminology, 4th ed., 1947, 5-7. Reprint
permission granted by the Donald Cressey Estate.
299
300 Section II — Theories of Causation of Crime
not invent criminal behavior, just as a person does not make mechanical inventions
unless he has had training in mechanics.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process
of communication. This communication is verbal in many respects but includes
also "the communication of gestures."
3. The principal part ofthe learning ofcriminal behavior occurs within intimate
personal groups. Negatively, this means that the impersonal agencies of
communication, such as picture shows and newspapers, play a relatively unimportant
part in the genesis of criminal behavior.
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 motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of
legal codes as favorable and unfavorable. In some societies an individual is sur-
rounded by persons who invariably define the legal codes as rules to be observed,
whereas 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, and consequently 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 associa-
tions and-has to do with counteracting forces. When persons become criminals, 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; a Southerner does not pronounce "r" because
other Southerners do not pronounce "r." Negatively, this proposition of differential
association means that associations which are neutral so far as crime is concerned
have little or no effect on the genesis of criminal behavior. Much of the experience
of a person is neutral in this sense, e. g., learning to brush one's teeth. This behavior
has no negative or positive effect on criminal behavior except as it may be related
to associations which are concerned with the legal codes. This neutral behavior is
important especially as an occupier of the time of a child so that he is not in contact : |gg
with criminal behavior during the time he is engaged in neutral behavior.
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 with
emotional reactions related to the associations. In a precise description of the criminal . gi |• -
behavior of a person these modalities would be stated in quantitative form and a
mathematical ratio be reached. Aformulain 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
p Sutherland/34 — Differential Association 301
learning. Negatively, this means that the learning of criminal behavior is not
restricted to the process of imitation. A person who is seduced, for instance, learns
11 criminal behavior by association, but this process would not ordinarily be described
-. 0 as imitation.
Though 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
.. _g 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
g 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
non-criminal behavior.
It is not necessary, on this level of discussion, to explain why a person has
J| the associations which he has; this certainly involves a complex of many things,
ff In an area where the delinquency rate is high a boy who is sociable, gregarious,
| active, and athletic is very likely to come in contact with the other boys in the
neighborhood, learn delinquent behavior from them, and become a gangster; in the
same neighborhood the psychopathic boy who is isolated, introvert, and inert may
, remain at home, not become acquainted with the other boys in the neighborhood,
and not become delinquent. In another situation, the sociable, athletic, aggressive
boy may become a member of a scout troop and not become involved in delinquent
- | behavior. The person's associations are determined in a general context of social
1 organization. A child is ordinarily reared in a family; the place of residence of the
family is determined largely by family income; and the delinquency rate is in many
\ respects related to the rental value of the houses. Many other factors enter into this
M social organization, including many personal group relationships.
The preceding explanation of criminal behavior was stated from the point of
view of the person who engages in criminal behavior. It is also possible to state
c theories of criminal behavior from the point of view of the community, nation, or
other group. The problem, when thus stated, is generally concerned with crime rates
| and involves a comparison of the crime rates of various groups or the crime rates
of a particular group at different times. One of the best explanations of crime rates
from this point of view is that a high crime rate is due to social disorganization.
The term "social disorganization" is not entirely satisfactory, and it seems preferable
to substitute for it the term' 'differential social organization.'' The postulate on which
this theory is based, regardless of the name, is that crime is rooted in the social
§ organization and is an expression of that social organization. A group may be
organized for criminal behavior or organized against criminal behavior. Most
communities are organized both for criminal and anti-criminal behavior, and in that
sense the crime rate is ah expression of the differential group organization. Differential
I group organization as an explanation of a crime rate must be consistent with the
explanation of the criminal behavior of the person, since the crime rate is a summary
statement of the number of persons in the group who commit crimes and the frequency
|| ' with which they commit crimes.

A DIFFERENTIAL
ASSOCIATION-REINFORCEMENT
THEORY OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR
Robert L Burgess
Ronald L. Akers
. . . In this [articlel the nine formal propositions in which [Edwin H.] Sutherland
expressed his theory will be analyzed in terms of behavior theory and research and
will be reformulated as seven new propositions.
I. "Criminal behavior is learned." VHI. "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."
Since both the first and eighth sentence in the theory obviously form a unitary :
idea, it seems best to state them together Modern behavior theory as a general
theory provides us with a good idea of what the mechanisms are that are involved
1 makes that response more probable upon the recurrence of conditions the same as
in the process of acquiring behavior.
According to this theory, there are two major categories of behavior. On the
one hand, there is reflexive or respondent behavior which is behavior that is governed -
by the stimuli that elicit it. Such behaviors are largely associated with the autonomic ;
system. The work of Pavlov is of special significance here. On the other hand, there
is operant behavior: behavior which involves the central nervous system. Examples
of operant behavior include verbal behavior, playing ball, driving a car, and buying
a new suit. It has been found that this class of behavior is a function of its past and
present environmental consequences. Thus, when a particular operant is followed
by certain kinds of stimuli, that behavior's frequency of occurrence will increase
in the future. These stimuli are called reinforcing stimuli or reinforcers and include ;
food, money, clothes, objects of various sorts, social attention, approval, affection
and social status. This entire process is called positive reinforcement. One
distinguishing characteristic of operant behavior as opposed to respondent behavior,
then, is that the latter is a function of its antecedent stimuli, whereas the former ;
is a function of its antecedent environmental consequences. . . .
In everyday life, different consequences are usually contingent upon different .
classes of behavior. This relationship between behavior and its consequences fractions
to alter the rate and form of behavior as well as its relationship to many features
of the environment. The process of operant reinforcement is the most important
Source: ExcerptedfromRobert L. Burgess and Ronald L. Akers, "A Differential Association-Reinforcement
Theory of Criminal Behavior," Social Pmblems, Vol. 14, No. 2,128-147. Copyright © 1966 by The Univer-
sity of California Press. Reprinted by permission.
302
Burgess—Akers/35 — A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory 303
process by which behavior is generated and maintained. . . .
The increase in the frequency of occurrence of a behavior that is reinforced
is the very property of reinforcement that permits the fascinating variety and subtlety
that occur in operant as opposed to respondent behavior. Another process producing
the variety we see in behavior is that of conditioning. When a primary or
unconditioned reinforcing stimulus such as food is repeatedly paired with a neutral
stimulus, the latter will eventually function as a reinforcing stimulus as well. An
illustration of this would be as follows. The milk a mother feeds to her infant is
an unconditioned reinforcer. If the food is repeatedly paired with social attention,
affection, and approval, these latter will eventually become reinforcing as will the
mother herself as a stimulus object. Later these conditioned reinforcers can be used
to strengthen other behaviors by making these reinforcers contingent upon those new
behaviors.
Differential reinforcement may also alter the form of a response. This process
is called shaping or response differentiation. It can be exemplified by a child learning
to speak. At first, the parent will reinforce any vocalization, but as time wears on,
and as the child grows older, the parent will differentially reinforce only those
responses which successfully approximate certain criteria. The child will be seen
to proceed from mere grunts to "baby-talk" to articulate speech.
Of course, organisms, whether pigeons, monkeys or people, do not usually
go around behaving in all possible ways at all possible times. In short, behavior
does not occur in a vacuum; a given behavior is appropriate to a given situation.
By appropriate we mean that reinforcement has been forthcoming only under certain
conditions and it is under these conditions that the behavior will occur. In other words,
differential reinforcement not only increases the probability of a response, it also
or similar to those that were present during previous reinforcements. Such a process
is called stimulus control or stimulus discrimination. For example, a child when he
is first taught to say "daddy" may repeat it when any male is present, or even,
in the very beginning, when any adult is present. But through differential
reinforcement, the child will eventually only speak the word "daddy" when his father
is present or in other "appropriate" conditions. We may say that the father, as a
stimulus object, functions as a discriminative stimulus (SD) setting the occasion for
the operant verbal response "daddy" because in the past such behavior has been
reinforced under such conditions.
It has also been discovered that the pattern or schedule of reinforcement is
as important as the amount of reinforcement. For example, & fixed-interval schedule
of reinforcement, where a response is reinforced only iter a certain amount of time
has passed, produces a lower rate of response than that obtained with reinforcement
based on &fixed-ratioschedule where a response is reinforced only after a certain
number of responses have already been emitted. Similarly a response rate obtained
with afixed-ratioschedule is lower than that obtained with a variable-ratio schedule,
where reinforcement occurs for a certain proportion of responses randomly varied
about some central value. A schedule of reinforcement, then, refers to the response
contingencies upon which reinforcement depends. All of the various schedules of
reinforcement, besides producing lawful response characteristics, produce lawful
extinction rates, once reinforcement is discontinued. Briefly, behavior reinforced
on an intermittent schedule takes longer to extinguish than behavior reinforced on
a continuous schedule.