Theorist Paper: Donald Cressey

Michael Capote CCJ 5606

Dr. Cecil Greek School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Florida State University Hecht House 634 West Call Street Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127 850-644-4050 (Phone) 850-644-9614 (Fax)

Draft #1: March 17, 2004

Introduction Donald Cressey was a central figure in twentieth-century criminology. He was a sociologist, educator, editor, and author. He spoke Norwegian and French, and read German, French, and Scandinavian languages (Who's Who in America,1986). Cressey was undoubtedly one of Sutherlands brightest students at Indiana University during the 1940s. While working on his PhD in Criminology, he decided his dissertation would concentrate on embezzlers. His contributions to the sociology of crime & delinquency came from his teaching, scholarship, & involvement in criminal justice policy (International Authors and Writers Who's Who,1982). Accordingly, he was best known for his landmark study on embezzlement as well as for carrying Edwin Sutherland's Principles of Criminology (Sutherland, 1966) textbook through many revised editions. Cressey himself authored 13 books and nearly 300 articles on criminology matters by the time of his death in 1987. Given the importance and impact of his lifes work it is valuable to place it within its larger social, historical and political contextthis in an effort to understand why it had such an influence on society and academia. Developments from within the field of Sociology indisputably had a significant impact on the work of Donald Cressey (Ohlin, 1988). First and foremost was the influence of Edwin H. Sutherland. Dr. Sutherland, a criminologist at Indiana University, was particularly interested in the type of fraud committed by elite business executives, either against stock holders or the public. Sutherland, who coined the term white-collar crime (Sutherland, 1966) in 1939, is to the world of white collar criminality what Freud is to psychology. He was to Cressey a mentor, friend, and co-author (Wilson, 1970). These influences coupled with times when the social science view of crime was thought by many to assert that crime was the result of poverty, racial discrimination, and other privations. The consensus was that the only morally defensible and substantively efficacious strategy for reducing crime was to attack its root causes with programs that ended poverty, reduced discrimination, and meliorated privation (Wilson, 1975). This was certainly, at least in part, the view of President Johnsons Commission on Crime and Administration of Justices report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (Presidents

Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967) and that of the former attorney General Ramsey Clark as expressed in his book titled Crime in America, (Clark, 1970) where both seemed to draw heavily on social science theories and findings. In fact, when the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, which Cressey was part of, wrote conceptually about the problem of crime in America, it sought simultaneously to express a professional consensus about desirable methods for justice administration and to declare an agenda for the system's evolutionary reform toward that. These twin aims were based upon three subtle, unarticulated, tactical assumptions (Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967):

A consensus exists among professionals about what ought to be done to pursue a more effective justice system; Questions of public values, some of which confront long-time debates about the purposes of the criminal sanction, can be resolved in the context of technical recommendations made by leading professionals in the field;

The federal government can and should play a leading role in directing the strategies and pace of justice reform toward the professional, technical consensus.

However, the issue at hand was that in the mid-1960s, social scientists concerned with crime shared a common perspective, but not one that emphasized the material condition of society. This shared perspective led to a policy stalemate and an ethical dilemma. In short, when social scientists were asked for advice by national policy-making bodies, they could not respond with suggestions derived from and supported by their scholarly work. As a result such advice as was largely derived from their general political views as modified by their political (in Cresseys case Democratic) and organizational interaction with those policy groups and their staffs. After this, it was not long before there was considerable rise in governmental demand for applied social research. This phenomenon is well documented in Simpsons (1994) Science of Coercion, in which Simpson

describes the process by which government came to play such an important role in the development of Communications research from 1945-1960. There are many factors that influenced the popularity and application of Donald Cressey's revised theories. They include political, social, and historical conditions that proved conducive to the adoption of the ideas put forward by Sutherland and revised by Cressey as well as those elaborated by him alone. His unique career experiences ranging from US Army Air Forces sergeant and prison sociologist to consultant for the Presidents Commission, coupled with his numerous awards and citations from Criminology Associations world wide, irrefutably distinguish him in the field (Biography Resource Center, 2004). Now nearly half a century after his initial work was published, his studies, albeit outdated by considerable social change, still prove to be valid in most cases of occupational fraud and offenders. Cresseys Works As his many writings make abundantly clear, Cressey was a giant of twentieth century criminology, whose contributions spanned the entire spectrum of criminological concerns. While many of his writings dealt with basic theoretical and substantive concerns of the field, he also had much to say about the uses of criminology, rehabilitation of offenders, and justice and fairness in American society. In fact there is a central theme running throughout Cresseys views on criminology and justice. Upon studying his work it is clearly that he believed it is both possible and desirable to use criminological knowledge in an effort to create a decent and just society. Cresseys View of Criminology as a field of Study Cressey saw criminology as the body of knowledge concerning crime as a social phenomenon. It is a product of systematic studies of the processes of making laws, breaking laws, and reacting to the breaking of laws (Cressey, 1979, p. 457). Elsewhere

he described the ideal criminology as an ivory tower, science-oriented, research enterpriseand the ideal criminologists as persons who workin pursuit of truth, not in pursuit of criminals (Cressey, 1978, p. 175). Cresseys concern for science was much more than a methodological position. He argued passionately for a criminology organized around a core of theoretical knowledge. For him, the most significant activity of criminology, as a science, was its search for theory. Cressey urged that criminologists should not abandon science, and suggested instead that they might well be advised to take up low paying posts in ivory towers, monasteries, and similar think-tanks. There they should sharpen their scientific research tools and put them to work on studies designed to secure comprehension of the conditions under which criminal laws are enacted, enforced, and broken (Cressey, 1978). Additionally, he saw real success in the development of sociological perspectives regarding crime and criminology. To this end, he had a particular affection for and loyalty to the work of Sutherland, whose sociological theory he described as comparable in logic, though not of course in scope, to Darwins principle of natural selection. (Cressey, 1979) He described Sutherlands theory of differential association as a sociological fountainhead from which emanated many other interpretations of crime. These developments were emphatically sociological, and such scholars were social scientists first and criminologists second. (Cressey, 1978) His belief was that if proper theory could be developed, we might some day come to the logical conclusion that sociology ought to become a wholly owned subsidiary of criminology. (Cressey, 1979) Cresseys Hypothesis Cressey however, took his own studies in a different direction from Sutherlands research. He was intrigued by embezzlers, whom he called trust violators. He was especially interested in the circumstances that led them to be overcome by temptation. Upon completion of his research, he developed what still remains as the classic model for the occupational offender. His research was published in "Other Peoples Money: As Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement. His hypothesis was:

Trusted persons become trust violators when they conceive of themselves as having a financial problem which is non-shareable, are aware this problem can be secretly resolved by violation of the position of financial trust, and are able to apply to their own conduct in that situation verbalizations which enable them to adjust their conceptions of themselves as trusted persons with their conceptions of themselves as users of the entrusted funds or property Over the years, the hypothesis became know as the fraud triangle. One leg of the triangle represents a perceived non-shareable financial need. The second leg is for the perceived opportunity, and the final is for rationalization. The role of the non-shareable problem is important. Cressey said, when the trust violators were asked to explain why they refrained from violation of other positions of trust they might have held previous times, or why they had not violated the subject position at an earlier time, those who had an opinion expressed the equivalent of one or more of the following quotations: (a) There was no need for it like there was this time (b) The idea never entered my head (c) I thought it was dishonest then, but this time it did not seem dishonest at first (Geis, 1982) In all cases of trust violation encountered, the violator considered that a financial problem which confronted him could not be shared with persons who, from a more objective point of view, probably could have aided in the solution of the problem (Siegel, 1989) What, of course, is considered non-shareable is wholly in the eyes of the potential occupational offender, Cressey said. Thus a man could lose considerable money at the race track daily but the loss, even if it construed a problem for the individual, might not constitute a shareable problem for him. Another man might define the problem as one

which must be kept secret and private, that is, as one which is non-shareable. Similarly, a failing bank or business might be considered by one person as presenting problems which must be shared with business associates and members of the community, while another person might conceive these problems as non-shareable (Cressey, 1973)

Cressey divided these non-shareable problems into six basic subtypes: Violation of Ascribed Obligations When persons incur debts or in some other way become financially obligated as a result of violation of the obligations ascribed to the role of trusted person, they frequently consider that these debts must be kept secret, and that meeting them becomes a non-shareable financial problem. In many instances, the insurance of such debts is also considered incompatible with the duties and obligations of other roles which the person might be enacting, such as those of a husband or father, but the concern here is with such debts only as they represent conflict with the persons role as a trusted person (Cressey, 1973) Problems Resulting From Personal Failure While some pressing financial problems may be considered as having resulted from economic conditionsothers are considered to have been created by the misguided or poorly planned activities of the individual trusted person. Because he fears a loss o status, the individual is afraid to admit to anyone who could alleviate the situation the fact that he has a problems which is a consequence of his own bad judgment or own fault or own stupidity (Cressey, 1973) Business Reversals Cressey saw these differently from personal failures, since many people consider their financial reverses as coming from conditions beyond their control: inflation, high interest rates, raising capital, and borrowing money. Physical Isolation Status Gaining Cressey described this category as situations where the person in financial straits is isolated from the people who can help him. the structuring of status ambitions as being non-shareable is not uncommon in our culture, and it again must be emphasized that the structuring of a situation as non-shareable is not alone the cause of trust violation. More specifically, in this type of case a problem appears when the individual realizes that he does not have the financial means

necessary for continued association with persons on a desired status level, and this problem becomes non-shareable when he feels that he can neither renounce his aspirations for membership in the desired group nor obtain prestige symbols necessary to such membership: (Cressey, 1973) EmployerEmployee Relations According to Cressey, the most common was an employed person who resents his status within the organization in which he is trusted. The resentment can come from perceived economic inequities, such as pay, or from the feeling of being overworked or under appreciated. Next Cressey, delved into the inner workings of the offenders minds how were they able to convince themselves that stealing was okay? He found they were able to excuse their actions to themselves by viewing their crimes as (a) non-criminal (b) justified, or (c) part of a situation which the offender does not control. These methods he generalized as rationalizations. In his studies he discovered In cases of trust violation encountered, significant rationalizations were always present before the criminal act took place, or at least at the time it took place, an, in fact after the act had taken place the rationalization often was abandoned. (Cressey, 1973) For further analysis, Cressey divided the subjects into three groups: independent businessmen, long-term violators, and absconders. He discovered that each group had its own types of rationalizations. Independent Businessmen This group used one of two common excuses: (1) they were borrowing the money which they converted (2) the funds entrusted to them were really theirs Long-Term Violators Although the they were borrowing the money which they converted rationalization was the most popular in this group also, other rationalizations included: (1) they were embezzling to keep their families from shame, disgrace, or poverty

(2) that theirs was a case of necessity; that their employers were cheating them financially (3) that their employers were dishonest towards others and deserved to be fleeced. Absconders While among persons who abscond with entrusted funds, as among other violators, almost any problem situation may be defined as nonshareable, the problems which are non-shareable for absconders are almost always of that nature, at least in part because the person is physically isolated from other persons with whom he can share his problems. Individuals who abscond with the funds or goods entrusted to them are usually unmarried or separated from their spouses, live in hotels or rooming houses, have few primary group associations of any sort, and own little property. (Cressey, 1973)

Cressey concluded that trust violation takes place when the position of trust is viewed by the trusted person according to culturally provided knowledge about and rationalizations for using the entrusted funds for solving a non-shareable problem, and that the absence of any of these events will preclude violation. The three events make up the conditions under which trust violation occurs and the term cause may be applied to their conjecture since trust violation is dependent on that conjecture. Whenever the conjecture of events occurs, trust violation results, and if the conjecture does not take place there is no trust violation (Cressey, 1973) Cressey and Applied Criminology Two of Cresseys most significant ventures into applied criminology were his wellknown essay on changing criminals (Cressey, 1955), in which he explained that the treatment and intervention implications of the theory of differential association and his paper with Rita Volkman (1963), in which he contended that the principles for changing criminals derived from that theory were central to the success of the Synanon drug

treatment program in California. In his essay, he argued against the belief that criminality is located inside the heads of the offenders and that head shrinking of such persons is in order. Consistent with the argument contained in the theory of differential association, he contended that if the behavior of an individual is an intrinsic part of groups to which he belongs, attempts to change the behavior must be directed at groups (Cressey, 1955) The principles for changing criminals involve these six propositions: 1. If criminals are to be changed, they must be assimilated into groups which emphasize values conducive to law-abiding behavior, and concurrently, alienated from groups emphasizing values conducive to criminality. 2. The more relevant the common purpose of the group to the reformation of criminals, the greater will be its influence on the criminal members attitudes and values. 3. The more cohesive the group, the greater the members readiness to influence others and the more relevant the problem of conformity to group norms. 4. Both reformers and those to be reformed must achieve status within the group by exhibition of pro-reform or anti-criminal values and behavior patterns. 5. The most effective mechanism for exerting group pressure on members will be found in groups so organized that criminals are induced to join with non-criminals for the purposes of changing other criminals. 6. When an entire group is the target of change, as in a prison or among delinquent gangs, strong pressure for change can be achieved by convincing the members of the need for change, this making the group itself the source of pressure for change One of the lesser-known statements by Cressey in applied criminology appeared in a published paper he delivered in 1958, entitled Professional Correctional Work and Professional Work in Correction. In that paper, Cressey addressed the failure of social work and correctional education programs to provide neophyte treatment agents with sound and useful knowledge about how to proceed in the people-changing task with offenders in correctional settings (Cressey, 1958). His observations on the shortcomings of correctional intervention efforts were in the same genre, representing a relatively early

and vigorous critique of treatment programs that were predicated on imagery of offenders that portrayed them as psychologically sick persons who are in need of counseling and therapy. Cresseys Concerns for the Future of Criminology In his more recent work, Cressey expressed great concern about some dark clouds that he saw rolling over criminology. He became much concerned that the scientific revolution within criminology was faltering. Some of the sources of this loss of drive were undeniably sociological and resulted from weaknesses that Cressey saw in certain formulations that alleged to be theories of criminology. For example while, in general, he felt highly about the work of Albert K. Cohen, he also expressed the opinion that the opportunity theory of delinquency, elaborated later by Cloward and Ohlin, contained vagueness that created criminological chaos (Cressey, 1979). Similarly, he expressed concerns that such perspectives as so-called labeling theory and control theory had strayed from the fruitful paths laid down earlier by Sutherland. In his words, he was persuaded that theory has not advanced very far beyond the work of Sutherland and his elaborators. Strain theory and the labeling perspective have called our attention to new variables, but not to new principles. More importantly, and negatively, these perspectives have, like control theory, helped shift criminological attention away from concern for understanding crime toward concern for trying to do something about it. (Cressey, 1979) More disturbing to Cressey (1978), however, was the willingness of criminologists to become involved in the fight against crime, even to the point of participating in essentially totalitarian enterprises: The tragedy is in the tendency of modern criminologist to drop the search for causes and to join the politicians. Rather than trying to develop better ideas about why crimes flourish, for example, these criminologistsseem satisfied with a

technological criminology whose main concern is for showing policymakers how to repress criminals and criminal justice workers more efficiently. At his most pessimistic, the humanist in Cressey cried out at the knowing-nothing criminology that assumes, sadly but correctly, that official terror will reduce the crime rates even if the terrorists have never heard of sociology or social psychology (Cressey, 1979) Cressey saw special dangers in the work of criminologists such as James Q. Wilson. These writers argue that the long-range and scientific study of crime is useless and misguided and that derivative ideas, such as belief in rehabilitation as a goal, are failures. Wilson was seen as one of the key figures in generating the belief that the rehabilitative ideal as it pertains to society has failed, and that powerful persons should therefore routinely continue to punish blacks, poor people, and a few others, rather than trying to seek out and modify the social systems generation high crime rates (Cressey, 1978) While he himself admitted that he offered some erroneous predictions in 1967 about the directions that criminology might follow in the future (Cressey, 1978), Cressey certainly was on the mark regarding the reign of repression and terror spawned from the theories of the likes of Wilson and Hirschi. Ultimately, we can hope that Cressey was right about the role of knowledge, science, and theory. It seems unlikely that criminology as an intellectual enterprise can stray for long from the fundamental quest for understanding about how laws come to be made, how and why those laws are violated, and what forces shape the reactions of the justice system to those violations. Criticisms and Enhancements on Cresseys Work Through the years differential association theory has stimulated theoretical refinements and revisions, empirical research, and applications to programs and policy. The first two

decades saw several attempts to revise the theory to explain the origin and persistence of delinquent sub-cultures (Cohen, 1955), to incorporate principles of symbolic interaction and the role theory (Cressey, 1954; Glaser, 1956; Weinberg, 1966), and to incorporate social learning principles (Jeffery, 1965; Burgess and Akers, 1966; Akers, 1973). A few years later, the trend of theoretical innovation was displaced by two distinct trends. The first focused on testing the theory: devising methods for implementing the theorys concepts, deriving hypothesis from its propositions, and subjecting those hypotheses to empirical verification. The second entailed rejecting the theorys principles in favor of social control or integrated theories. It was Kornhausers (1963) theoretical critique of differential association theory, and Hirschis (1969) study supporting his social control theory that began this trend. Theoretical and Empirical Developments Differential association theory has generated two major developments one empirical, the other theoretical. Empirical research has tackled the difficult problem of implementing the theorys concepts, deriving hypotheses, and testing propositions. Theoretical developments have explored several crucial problems raised by the theory, such as identifying the precise mechanisms by which crime is learned and specifying a theory of the origins of delinquent sub-cultures. Perhaps the most serious criticism of differential association argues that the theory cannot be tested empirically. Cressey (1960) has argued that even though the theory may be untestable, it remains an important principle for organizing our knowledge about the correlates of crime. In fact one of Cresseys most enduring contributions was his essay (Cressey, 1955) on the application of the theory of differential association to peoplechanging efforts in corrections. That essay reiterated his trenchant criticisms of the clinical principle. Others claim that the theory is of little value if it cannot be tested (Gibbs, 1987, Glueck, 1966; Hirschi, 1969). Some versions of this criticism are on shaky ground because they fail to recognize that theories being sets of interrelated propositions explaining a given phenomenon are rarely testable as a whole. What are

testable are specific hypotheses, propositions, or empirical implications of the theory (Glaser, 1960, 1962). Another version of the argues that the critical variable in the individual-level explanation an excess of definitions favorable to crime cannot be observed or measured. Sutherland (1973, p.36) noted that implicit in the abstract theory of differential association is the possibility of deriving a mathematical formula expressing a persons ratio of weighted definitions favorable and unfavorable to a specific crime. Even he admitted however, to the difficulty of formulating such an expression (Sutherland, 1966, p.7). Early empirical studies of juvenile delinquency implemented differential association theory using the concept of associations with delinquent peers, and the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of such associations. Most of these studies found general support for the theory: Juveniles who reported more delinquent friends tended to commit more delinquent acts (Short, 1960; Glaser, 1960; Hirschi, 1969). In essence, this strategy assumes that most delinquent behaviors are learned from ones peers that delinquent peers are likely to transmit delinquency and non-delinquent peers non-delinquency, and therefore the concept of delinquent peers is highly correlated with the concept of associations with definitions favorable and unfavorable to delinquency. The problem with this strategy is that it fails to directly measure learned definitions of law violation. After all, it is possible that some definitions favoring law violation are learned from delinquents. Furthermore, the strategy cannot rule out a hypothesis based on the opposite, such as Glueck and Glueck's (1950, p. 164) birds of a feather flock together. Several researchers used a more direct strategy of implementing the theory by identifying the content of definitions favorable to crime and delinquency. As a result, Cressey showed how verbalizations and rationalizations made up an important component of such definitions, and then illustrated them with his studies of embezzlement and compulsive crimes (Cressey, 1952). Sykes and Matza (1957) then developed their concept of techniques of neutralization to illustrate pro-delinquent definitions used by juveniles. Researchers have taken advantage of these refinements and developed survey instruments

to measure a persons learned definitions of law violation (Jensen, 1972; Hepburn, 1976; Matsueda and Heimer, 1987). More recently, researchers have used advances in structural equation modeling to address three specific issues: response errors in measures of definitions of crime, dynamic processes inherent in the theory, and offense specific models. Orcutt (1987) found that consistent with differential association theory, marijuana smoking is explained by definitions favorable to marijuana use and number of friends who smoke marijuana. Moreover, he found an interaction effect between the two variables, concluding that, as Cressey (1955) suggested, predictions from differential association theory are increasingly uncertain as the ratio of definitions favorable and unfavorable to crime approaches unity. Tittle and his colleagues modeled the dynamic nature of the theory and examined whether or not the differential association process is offense specific (Tittle, Burke, Jackson, 1986). They also examined the efficacy of several distinct operational measures, including associations with criminals, criminal attitudes, criminal normative expectations, fear of legal sanctions, and deviant motives. Using a variety of measures of the differential association process, they found that a measure of motivation to deviate was a strong predictor that the differential association process worked similarly for a variety of offenses, and that for some offenses, an offense-specific process appeared evident. Theory Revisions A number of criminologists have attempted to revise the theory of differential association so it would be more agreeable to empirical test. Following the spirit of Sutherlands method, these theorists drew from principles of more general social psychological theories namely, symbolic interaction and social learning. Thus Cressey (1952) applied the interactionist concepts of role-taking and motivation to link learned definitions of law violation to social roles, the building blocks of social structure. Glaser (1956) applied the

interactionist concept of the self, arriving at his hypothesis of differential identification. He subsequently incorporated the concepts of commitment and role-taking and generalized his explanation to differential anticipation (Glaser, 1960). Other researchers have built upon these principles, investigating personality (Weinberg, 1966) and containment (Voss, 1969). This line of theorizing has great theoretical potential, but still requires additional development. Thus a more explicit conceptualization of the important element of role-taking and cognitive processes is needed before operational measures can be located, and hypotheses derived and tested. The second line of revision incorporates principles of conditioning and social learning theory to specify the precise methods by which crime is learned. Early versions incorporated Skinners principles of classical operant conditioning (Burgess and Akers, 1966), while later versions added Banduras (1969) social learning principles (Akers, 1973). According to Akers social learning theory, crime is initially learned through direct imitation or modeling; the subsequent likelihood of sustaining criminal behavior is determined by differential reinforcement, the relative rewards and punishments following the act. Reinforcement can be direct or vicarious, whereby simply observing anothers criminal behavior being reinforced will reinforce the observers own criminal behavior. Definitions of crime are learned through this process and affect behavior directly, as well as indirectly, by serving as cues (discriminative stimuli) for law violation. Akers and his colleagues have not only specified a social learning theory; they have also developed operational indicators of imitation, differential reinforcement, and definitions of deviance. Moreover, they find that social learning theory explains substantial variation in substance abuse (Akers, 1979) and smoking (Krohn, 1985). The third set of revisions attempted to answer two important theoretical questions implied by differential association theory (Cohen, 1955). The first concerned the origins of crime: Where did normative conflict or definitions favorable to crime come from? The second concerned the specific nature of differential social organization: What are the social structural elements that influence rates of crime? Both questions encouraged research on the origins and persistence of sub-cultural delinquency as a phenomenon of

lower-class adolescent males. For Cohen (1955), working-class sub-cultural delinquency results when lower-class adolescents, who lack the requisite social and academic skills due to cultural and structural barriers, fail to live up to middle-class standards. Critiquing the Theory In 1978, a trend among researchers of crime was not to attempt to test or revise differential association theory, but rather an attempt to reject it outright in favor of either social control theory or a version of integrated theories. Much of the stimulus for this trend originated directly or indirectly from the work of Kornhauser. Directly, Kornhausers work presents a seemingly devastating critique of differential association from the standpoint of a social disorganization-social control perspective. Indirectly Kornhausers (1963) work served as a theoretical framework for Hirschis (1969) key empirical study, which found support for his social control theory over differential association, and stimulated subsequent interest in the control perspective. Kornhausers (1978) essay is an analytical dissection of traditional theories of delinquency along the lines of core concepts of sociology: social structure, social order, socialization, and behavior (Matsueda, 1982). In her work, she categorizes the major theories of crime into cultural deviance, strain, and disorganization perspectives; then argues that disorganization theories are analytically and empirically superior. Unfortunately, by forcing differential association theory into an oversimplified depiction of cultural deviance theories, she misconstrues Sutherlands enterprise and reduced his theory to a caricature. Kornhauser defines the parameters of cultural deviance perspective by claiming they all subscribe to the following six assumptions. 1. Human beings have absolutely no human nature, but instead are completely plastic (p.36). 2. There is no consensus in modern societies: Laws cannot reflect consensus, only sub-cultural values of powerful groups (p. 44)

3. Paradoxically, perfect consensus is the only source of social order: Modern societies, lacking consensus, have degenerated into a war of sub-cultures (p.44) 4. Deviance (crime) is completely relative; even the most heinous offenses are lawful in some other time or place (p.38) 5. Conventional (lawful)culture and deviant sub-cultures are equally strong in influencing behavior, socialization is always perfect (p.194) 6. Behavior Is always a perfect expression of sub-cultural values, and therefore, behaviors are never deviant only sub-cultures are (p.25) Each of these assumptions exaggerates Sutherlands writings and are then used by Kornhauser (1978, pp189-200) to derive several propositions about differential association that appear devastating but that are in fact wholly alien to the theory. In many instances Kornhausers reasoning may be considered logical, but because her work is based on a faulty premise which forces differential association onto her cultural deviance model her reasoning leads her astray. Filled with misconceptions and oversimplifications, the root of Kornhausers critique of differential association does not involve the confusion of culture and social structure, the failure to treat culture as a variable, or the assumption of perfect socialization. Rather it contends that disorganization and control theories simply assume that the pro-criminal beliefs, motives, and interests of criminals do not vary appreciably and do not have any casual impact on criminal behavior. All that varies are commitments and beliefs in conventional behavior. Thus by assumption, only those definitions of behavior derived from middle-class morality are important; all other interpretations are discounted. The Albrecht Study Cresseys work also inspired Dr. Steve Albrecht of Brigham Young University and two of his colleagues, Howe and Romney. These men conducted an analysis of 212 frauds in the early 1980s under a grant from the Institute of Internal Auditors Research

Foundation, leading to their book entitled Determining Fraud: The Internal Auditors Perspective. The studys methodology involved obtaining demographics and background information on the frauds through extensive use of questionnaires. The participants in the survey were internal auditors of companies who had experienced frauds. The study covered several areas, one of the most interesting of which concentrated on the motivations of the perpetrators of occupational frauds and abuses. They classified these motivators as one of nine different types. 1. Living beyond their means 2. An overwhelming desire for personal gain 3. High personal debt 4. A close association with customers 5. Feeling pay was not commensurate with responsibility 6. A wheeler-dealer attitude 7. Strong challenge to beat the system 8. Excessive gambling habits 9. Undue family pressure Like Cresseys study, this study also suggested that there are three factors involved in occupational frauds. Conclusion Sixty-five years ago, Sutherland first outlined a series of abstract principles which he later developed with Cressey. These, derived from broader principles of social psychology and sociology, made sense of the many concrete conditions associated with crime. Although differential association theory was intended to be a tentative hypothesis, (Cressey, 1954) subject to confirmations and eventual revision, the men viewed the methodology of searching for universal explanations as the essence of good science.

During his time, Donald Cressey was one of the most central figures in twentieth-century of sociological criminology (McCarthy 1996). Unfortunately, as Matsueda (1987) points out in a review of the current state of differential association theory by the 1980s Sutherland and Cresseys theory had fallen from grace. As with most theories differential association had become outdated. However, in the late 1980s less than a decade from its decline, it had a revival. Cresseys work influenced the creation of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which was established in 1988, and based in Austin, Texas. Although he never saw the association it was his desire and understanding for a need to have a corporate cop that gave this 29,000-member professional organization birth. Today, Certified Fraud Examiners come from various professions, including auditors, accountants, fraud investigators, loss prevention specialists, attorneys, educators, and criminologists. CFEs gather evidence, take statements, write reports, and assist in investigating fraud in its varied forms implementing the practical methods first developed by Sutherland and later enhanced by Cressey himself. Since the renewed interest in the theory, it has been used in various ways. According to a Social Science Citation Index search, over 150 articles have been published in which his work is cited since 1992. Additionally, the number of works cited in 1992 (five) has risen to twenty-seven by the year 2004. That is an increased use of nearly 600%. Searches for key words Donald Cressey and Differential Association on the world wide web although varied from search engine to search engine return approximately 4000 hits combined. Further analysis results in not only determining that there are a multitude of sources on the internet regarding this topic but that it is currently being researched quite heavily. According to Overture.coms search inventory tool (2004) over 1000 individuals searches were performed for this information in a single calendar month. More contemporary research has turned to differential association to explain deviant behaviors of gang drug users. These 1998 attempts although unsuccessful could have been predicted had the original stipulations for the theory been applied. Originally,

according to Sutherland and Cressey (1978) the theory was formulated specifically for explaining variation in deviance at the individual level not the group level. Another area to which differential association is being applied involves computer crimes. Skinner and Fream (1997) demonstrate that measures of differential association and sources of imitation are significantly related to computer crime. According to them, social learning theory provides an ideal explanation of computer crime. "Social learning theory is organized around four major concepts: 1. differential association 2. differential reinforcement/punishment 3. definitions 4. imitation Differential association refers to the process by which individuals, operating in different social contexts, become exposed to, and ultimately learns, normative definitions favorable and unfavorable to criminal and legal behavior (Akers 1996)". Regardless of how it has been used, an increased number of studies have begun focusing on differential association. As such, the theory itself is making a come back into the field of criminology, as well as several other disciplines (sociology, accounting, administration). Their work has been the inspiration of much debate and significant further study. In fact, through the years it has been altered and modified by different scholars, but in the end it has served as a solid foundation for crime theory and as a legacy for these men.

References Akers, Ronald L. (1973). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. 1st ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Akers, Ronald L.. (1996). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology.

Albini, Joseph L . (Jul 1988). Donald Cressey's Contributions to the Study of Organized Crime: An Evaluation Crime And Delinquency 34 (3), (17 pp.). New York Albrecht, W. Steve . (Dec 1991). Fraud in Governmental Entities: The Perpetrators and the Types of Fraud Government Finance Review 7 (6), (4 pp.). Chicago Anonymous . (Oct 2003). The fraud triangle at work. Hr magazine 48 (10), p. 41 Alexandria Bandura, Albert. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Reinhart & Winston. Bandura, Albert. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Biography Resource Center. (2004). Contemporary Authors Online. Farmington Hills, Mich.: The Gale Group Burgess, Robert L. and Ronald L. Akers. (1966), A Differential AssociationReinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. Social Problems. 14:128-147 Clark, Ramsey. (1970). Crime in America. 4. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Cloward, R.A., Ohlin, L.E.. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: Free Press Cohen, Albert K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free Press Colomy, Paul . (Jul 1988). Donald R. Cressey: A Personal and Intellectual Remembrance. Crime And Delinquency. 34 (3), (21 pp.). New York Cressey, Donald R. . (1952). Application and Verification of the Differential Association Theory. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science. 43:43-52. Cressey, Donald R. . (1954). The Differential Association Theory and Compulsive Crimes. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology. 45:29-40. Cressey, Donald R. . (1955). Changing Criminals: The Application of the Theory of Differential Association. American Journal of Sociology. 61:116-120. Cressey, Donald R. . (1958). The nature and Effectiveness of Correctional Techniques. Law and Contemporary Problems. 23:754-777 Cressey, Donald R. . (1958). Contradictory Directives in Complex Organizations: The Case of the Prison. Administrative Science Quarterly. 4:1-19 Cressey, Donald R. . (1958). Professional Correctional Work and Professional Work in Correction. NPAA Journal. 5:1-15 Cressey, Donald R. . (1960). Epidemiology and Individual Conduct: A Case from Criminology. Pacific Sociological Review. 3:47-58. Cressey, Donald R.. (1969). Theft of the Nation; the structure and operations of organized crime in America. New York: Harper & Row

Cressey, Donald R. . (1971). Crime and criminal justice. Chicago: Quadrangle. Cressey, Donald R. . (1971). Delinquency, crime, and social process. New York: Harper & Row Cressey, Donald R.. (1973). Other People's Money; a study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Montclair: Patterson Smith Cressey, Donald R.. (1978). Criminological Theory, Social Science, and the Repression of Crime. Criminology. 16:171-191 Cressey, Donald R.. (1979). Fifty Years of Criminology: From Sociological Theory to Political Control. Pacific Sociological Review. 22:457-480 Cressey, Donald R. . (Summer 1983). Managerial Values and Corporate Codes of Ethics. California Management Review. (pre-1986) 25 (000004), (25 pp.). Berkeley Cressey, Donald R. . (Apr 1987). Should Auditors Wear Security Badges? Security Management. 31 (4), (3 pp.). Arlington Cressey, Donald R., Galtung, Johan. (1961). The prison; studies in institutional organization and change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Cressey, Donald R , Rosett, Arthur I..(1976). Justice by consent : plea bargains in the American courthouse. Philadelphia : Lippincott Cressey, Donald R , Sutherland, Edwin Hardin. (1978). Criminology. Philadelphia : Lippincott

Cullen, Francis T. (1984). Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld. Dick Strom . (Sep 2000). The fraud triangle. Bodyshop Business. 19 (9), (6 pp.). Akron Don Ray . (Jun 2001). How to detect employee fraud. Ward's Dealer Business. 35 (10), p. 55 (1 pp.). Overland Park Geis, Gilbert. (1982). On White Collar Crime. Lexington: Lexington Books. Gibbs, Jack P. (1987). The State of Criminology Theory. Criminology. 25:821-840. Glaser, Daniel. (1956). Criminality Theories and Behavioral Images. American Journal of Sociology. 61:433-444 Glaser, Daniel. (1960). Differential Association and Criminological Prediction. Social Problems. 8:6-14 Glaser, Daniel. (1962). The Differential Association Theory of Crime. Human Behavior and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Glueck, Sheldon. (1956). Theory and Fact in Criminology. British Journal of Delinquency. 7:92-109 Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Hepburn. John R. (1976). Testing Alternative models of Delinquency Causation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 67:450-460.

Hirschi, Travis. (1969). Cause of Delinquency. Berkely: Free Press. Irwin, John . (Jul 1988). Donald Cressey and the Sociology of the Prison. Crime And Delinquency. 34 (3), (10 pp.). New York International Authors and Writers Who's Who. (1982). International Authors and Writers Who's Who. 9th edition. Melrose Jeffrey, C.R. (1965). Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science. 56:294-300. Jensen, Gary F. (1972). Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A Test of the Differential Association Perspective. American Journal of Sociology. 78:562-575 Kornhauser, Ruth R. (1963). Theoretical Issues in the Sociological Study of Juvenile Delinquency. Unpublished manuscript, Center for the Study of Law and Society, Berkely. Kornhauser, Ruth R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Krohn, Marvin D. (1985). Social Learning Theory and Adolescent Cigarette Smoking: A Longitudinal Study. Social Problems. 455-473 Matsueda, Ross L. (1982). Testing Control Theory and Differential Association: A Casual Modeling Approach. American Sociological Review. 47:489-504. Matsueda, Ross L. and Karen Heimer (1987). Race, Family Structure, and Delinquency: A test of Differential Association and Social Control Theories. American Sociological Review. 52:826-840.

McCarthy, Bill.(1996). The attitudes and actions of others. British journal of criminology. Ohlin, Lloyd . (Jul 1988). In Memoriam: Donald R. Cressey (1919-1987). Crime And Delinquency. 34 (3), (4 pp.). New York

Orcutt, James D. (1987). Differential Association and Marijuana Use: A Closer Look ar Sutherland. Criminology. 25:341-358. Overture. (2004). http://www.overture.com. Overture Services, Inc. Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administrative Justice. (1967). The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office Polk, Kenneth , Gibbons, Don C . (Jul 1988). The Uses of Criminology, the Rehabilitative Ideal, and Justice. Crime And Delinquency. 34 (3), (14 pp.). New York Sheley, Joseph F. (1985). Americas Crime Problem: An introduction to Criminology. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Short, James F., Jr. (1957). Differential Association and Delinquency. Social Problems. 4:233-239. Siegel, Larry J.. (1989). Criminology. New York: West Publishing Company Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion. New York: Oxford University Press William F. Skinner, Anne M. Fream(1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college student. Journal of research in crime and delinquency. Sage Publication

Sutherland, E.H., Cressey R.D.. (1966). Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia : Lippincott Sutherland, E.H., Cressey R.D.. (1973). Crime and Conflict. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Sykes, Gresham and David Matza. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review. 22:664-670. Thievery on the Inside (May 1988). Security Management. 32 (5), (5 pp.). Arlington Thomas A Buckhoff . (Nov 2001). Employee fraud: Perpetrators and their motivations. The Cpa Journal. 71 (11), p. 72-73 (2 pp.). New York Tittle, Charles R., Mary Jean Burke, and Elton F. Jackson. (1986). Modeling Sutherlands Theory of Differential Association.: Toward an Empirical Clarification. Social Forces. 65:405-432. Volkman, Rita, Cressey, D..(1963). The Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts. American Journal of Sociology. 69:129-142 Voss, Harwin L. (1964). Differential Association and Reported Delinquent Behavior: A Replication. Social Problems. 12:78-85 Voss, Harwin L. (1969). Differential Association and Containment Theory: A Theoretical Convergence. Social Forces. 47:381-391 Who's Who in America. (1986). Who's Who in America. 44th edition. Marquis Wilson, James Q. (1975). Thinking about Crime. New York: Busic Books