Differential association

In criminology, Differential Association is a theory developed by Edwin Sutherla

nd proposing that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values,
attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior.
Differential Association theory states that criminal behavior is learned behavio
r and learned via social interaction with others. The Differential Association T
heory is the most talked about of the Integrationists theory of deviance. This t
heory focuses on how individuals learn how to become criminals, but does not con
cern itself with why they become criminals. They learn how to commit criminal ac
ts; they learn motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. It grows social
ly easier for the individuals to commit a crime. Their inspiration is the proces
ses 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 continuou
sly being reconstructed especially when interacting with other people.
Phenomenology and ethno methodology also encouraged people to debate the certain
ty of knowledge and to make sense of their everyday experiences using indexicali
ty methods. People define their lives by reference to their experiences, and the
n generalize 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 famil
y or abused by parents or those close to the individual. However, individuals mi
ght 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 pa
th when the balance of definitions for law-breaking exceeds those for law-abidin
g. This tendency will be reinforced if social association provides active people
in the persons life. Earlier in life the individual comes under the influence o
f those of high status within that group, the more likely the individual to foll
ow in their footsteps. This does not deny that there may be practical motives fo
r crime. If a person is hungry but has no money, there is a temptation to steal.
But, the use of "needs" and "values" is equivocal. To a greater or lesser exten
t, both non-criminal and criminal individuals are motivated by the need for mone
y and social gain.
Therefore, 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 o
f communication.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimat
e personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes techniques of commit
ting the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple and the s
pecific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of t
he 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 inte
nsity.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and an
ti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any oth
er learning.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is n
ot explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expres
sion of the same needs and values.
Furthermore, some new and additional theoretical specifications about the social
influence of others on the individual, all in accordance with the original idea
s of Sutherland, are proposed and empirically tested. The differential associati
on theory according to the version of K.-D. Opp is fairly well corroborated by t
he data. Only three of the postulated relationships are rejected. The theory exp
lains 51% of the variance of criminal behavior, even considering that no crimina
l 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 behavior p
atterns on the development of positive definitions and on the frequency of commu
nication about relevant techniques is substantial and cannot be ignored by crimi
nologists. Furthermore, special analyses show that several propositions favor th
e 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 y
oungsters identify themselves with others, the stronger will be the impact of th
e 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 contro
l theory.
[edit] External links
An overview of the theory.
Edwin Sutherland & the Michael-Adler Report: Searching for the Soul of Criminolo
gy (freely available journal article in Criminology)