Differential Association Theory

Introduction

The theory of differential association, introduced by Edwin H. Sutherland, is a significant criminological theory that explains criminal behaviour through socialization processes and the interactions within social groups to which individuals belong. Sutherland first presented this theory in 1939 in his work Principles of Criminology, with further refinements added in 1947 by Sutherland and later by his student, Donald R. Cressey.

Differential association theory posits that criminal behaviour is learned through interaction with others. According to Sutherland, people learn the values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behaviour through their associations with others. This theory suggests that crime is a learned behaviour that occurs when an individual’s exposure to criminal behaviour outweighs their exposure to law-abiding behaviour. It emphasizes the importance of the social environment and the influence of close relationships in shaping an individual’s propensity for criminal behaviour.

The theory of differential association is often associated with symbolic interactionism, a sociological framework that explores how people create and interpret symbols in social interactions. Symbolic interactionists, including those who study differential association and labelling theories, argue that individuals become criminals as a result of their interactions and the meanings they ascribe to those interactions. These interactions and symbols shape how individuals perceive themselves and are perceived by others, contributing to their likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour.

The core idea of symbolic interactionism in this context is that individuals’ identities and actions are shaped by the symbolic meanings that are developed through social interactions. Thus, in the context of differential association, the process of learning criminal behavior is deeply intertwined with the symbols and meanings that individuals derive from their social experiences and the interpretations they assign to these experiences based on their interactions with others.

Differential Association

The theory of differential association, formulated by Edwin H. Sutherland, is recognized as one of the most influential criminological theories of the last sixty years. It posits that criminal behaviour is learned through interaction within social groups, where an individual adopts delinquent behaviour and values from others through communication. If an individual is exposed to and accepts values that support the violation of the law, they are more likely to engage in criminal behaviour, as opposed to embracing the values of conventional culture.

This learning process includes all mechanisms essential for general learning, and Sutherland’s theory is often classifiedamong American sociological theories of criminality. These theories emphasise that the causes of criminal behaviourshould be examined within groups as specific social systems, which form delinquents through their influence on individuals. According to this perspective, society is composed of various groups, each with different norms, values, and worldviews, some of which may conflict with general societal norms.

Gabriel Tarde, a French sociologist, earlier recognized that people learn delinquent behaviours through imitation and association, a concept that influenced Sutherland’s work. Sutherland’s theory explains that criminal behaviour is a consequence of association with people who violate social norms. Importantly, this learning does not necessarily require direct contact with criminals; it can occur through indirect means, such as media exposure.

Sutherland’s theory of differential association, which was later expanded by his student Donald R. Cressey, highlights the role of social and cultural conflict, differential associations, and social differential organization at both the individual and group levels. The theory presents nine postulates that describe the learning process of criminal behaviour, including the idea that individuals become criminals because they acquire more definitions that support criminal behaviour than those that oppose it.

Propositions of Differential Association Theory

Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory explains the process by which individuals learn criminal behaviour rather than why they become criminals. He encapsulates this theory in nine propositions:

1. Criminal behaviour is learned.
2. Learning occurs through interactions and communication with others.
3. The primary context for learning criminal behaviour is intimate personal groups and relationships.
4. Learning includes acquiring techniques for committing crimes, as well as the motives, rationalizations, and attitudes necessary for such behaviour.
5. The direction of motives towards criminal behaviour is influenced by how one perceives legal codes as either favourable or unfavourable.
6. An individual will engage in criminal behaviour when they perceive more favourable interpretations of violating the law than unfavourable ones.
7. Differential associations vary in frequency, intensity, priority, and duration.
8. The mechanisms involved in learning criminal behaviour are the same as those for learning any other behaviour.
9. Although criminal behaviour may reflect generalised needs and values, these do not explain the behaviour, as non-criminal behaviour can also express these same needs and values.

Criticism

Despite its influence, the theory has faced criticism. Critics have pointed out that it initially neglected the role of factors that lead individuals to the possibility of “learning” criminal behaviour and did not clearly explain why some individuals in a group adopt delinquent behaviour while others do not. Later modifications introduced the concept of differential identification, which added a more subjective element to the theory by emphasizing the importance of identifying with delinquent members of a group in the process of becoming delinquent. Nonetheless, the theory remains largely focused on exogenous factors, consistent with its origins in sociological explanations of criminality.

The theory of differential association, while influential, has faced significant criticism for its lack of empirical verifiability.To address this, various revisions have been proposed, including psychological adaptations such as Daniel Glaser’s “Theory of Differential Identification.” Glaser’s theory posits that criminal behaviour occurs when an individual identifies with real or fictional figures whose perspectives justify such behaviour. Unlike Sutherland’s differential association theory, which emphasizes abstract patterns and definitions, Glaser’s approach focuses on specific personalities, even imagined ones, like film heroes. Despite these differences, both theories agree that criminal behaviouris learned.

Building on Sutherland’s critique of his own theory, Cloward and Ohlin developed a subcultural theory centered on the concept of illegitimate opportunities. Their sociological explanation expanded the scope of criminal behaviour to include variations in the social environment while also allowing for the influence of personal traits, such as susceptibility to criminal patterns.

However, the most significant critique of differential association theory lies in its failure to explain the exact mechanisms through which deviance is learned. In response, Ronald Akers developed social learning theory, which integrates concepts from operant psychology, particularly “differential reinforcement.” Akers argued that delinquent behaviouris learned not only through association with peers but also by observing the outcomes of deviant acts. If these outcomes, such as the euphoria from drug use or rewards from theft, are viewed positively, they increase the likelihood of future delinquent behaviour. This refinement offers a more comprehensive explanation of how deviance is learned, addressing the gaps left by the original differential association theory.

Conclusion

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association offers a well-founded explanation for the emergence of criminal behaviour, particularly among youth. Sutherland’s insights emphasise how adolescents, through interaction with their environment, may develop tendencies toward delinquency, ultimately becoming delinquents themselves. This theory’s significance extends beyond mere academic understanding, playing a crucial role in shaping criminal policy and prevention strategies. It highlights the importance of early intervention in educational settings to deter deviant behaviour, thereby preventing the development of a “criminal career,” where initial minor delinquencies escalate into more serious crimes over time.

The theory’s value lies in its potential for guiding preventive measures, particularly with young people whose exposure to criminal environments can be mitigated through targeted educational and social programs. Sutherland’s emphasis on the social context as a significant factor in criminal behaviour remains influential, underscoring the need for a comprehensive approach to crime prevention that addresses the root causes of deviance.

However, like many criminological theories, Sutherland’s differential association theory has its limitations. It does not account for all forms of criminal behaviour, nor does it encompass the full range of criminal phenomenology. The theory primarily focuses on social influences while potentially overlooking other critical factors, such as disordered family relationships and pre-existing attitudes toward crime. Consequently, while Sutherland’s theory is a valuable tool in understanding and preventing crime, it is essential to recognize that the causes of criminal behaviour are multifaceted and often require consideration of a broader array of influences. This complexity is a common challenge in criminology, where the search for the causes of deviance often involves understanding the interplay of various contributing factors, each with differing degrees of impact.