Differential Association Theory

Differential association theory suggests that individuals who commit deviant acts are influenced to do so by primary groups and intimate social contacts. The degree of influence one receives from messages favoring deviant behavior varies by intensity, priority, frequency, and duration. An overview of differential association theory of deviance is provided beginning with a general review of the theory, followed by brief explanations of specific assumptions of differential association theory. A brief summary of key research developments are provided. Critiques of differential association are highlighted throughout the report and further developments of the theory are reviewed.

Keywords Age-Crime Curve; Criminology; Deviance; Delinquency; Intimate Social Groups; Peers; Primary Social Groups; Social Control

Differential Association Theory

Overview

Differential Association theory is one of many sociological theories that aims to explain why people commit deviant acts. Differential Association theory was proposed and developed by Edwin Sutherland in the late 1930s and early 1940s, in response to a critique of criminology by Michael and Adler (Laub, 2006). In developing the theory, Sutherland dismissed the notion that individual variants such as age and gender adequately explained criminal involvement. Differential association theory stresses the impact that others have on one's view of deviant behavior and the law. The theory relies on the social context of individuals to explain individual behaviors. Individuals learn deviant behavior through the same mechanisms that they learn other behaviors: through exposure to primary and intimate social contacts. However, he noted that mere exposure to deviant people does not necessarily result in one behaving in a criminal or deviant manner. Rather, he suggested that the mechanisms involved in whether or not deviant behavior or criminal acts take place are more complex. He suggested that even when one is of a mindset to commit a deviant or criminal act, the social context of the situation must be perceived by the individual as an opportunity to commit the deviant or criminal act.

Differential association theory asserts that as one has more definitions favorable to the legal system over definitions unfavorable to the legal system one is less likely to be delinquent. Thus, a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions unfavorable to violation of law over definitions favorable to violation law. Differential association is a theory based on the social environment and its surroundings, individuals and the values those individuals gain from significant others in their social environment. It suggests that these definitions are learned through communications with intimate people or groups from whom the person learns the techniques, motivations, rationalizations, and attitudes. Similarly, it does not suggest that any person who is around criminals necessarily becomes a criminal. Rather, differential association theory posits that those who have a greater ratio of unfavorable to favorable definitions of deviant behavior are more likely to deviate. This implies that one's likelihood of deviating is subject to change, depending upon one's ratio of these definitions. Unlike some other theories of deviance and social control, one's inclination to commit crimes will vary across the life course and is not fixed at any particular stage of development or age. Differential association theory leaves room for criminals to change their ways to become conforming people.

Nine Assumptions of the Theory

Sutherland (1939; 1974) provided the backdrop for how people obtain definitions favorable or unfavorable to violation of the law. While explicating the theory, Sutherland suggested that the following nine assumptions guide how the theory is able to explain criminal behavior. Each assumption is reviewed below:

1. Criminal behaviors, like all other behaviors, are learned. The theory has received criticism due to this first assumption that criminal behavior is learned in no unique way from other behaviors. The main criticism drawn from this assumption is that the theory is overbroad by claiming to explain all behavior.
2. Learning criminal behavior occurs through interaction with people via communication. All forms of communication are viable avenues for one to learn criminal behavior. The means through which one can learn criminal behavior through communication includes but is not limited to personal face-to-face communication, written communications such as letters and electronic mail, video chat, and telephone conversations.
3. Primary and intimate social groups are responsible for teaching the vast majority of criminal behaviors. The essence of this assumption is that just contact alone with criminals will not result in someone becoming a criminal. If one's father was ever imprisoned or ever participated in criminal behavior, this does not mean that one will become a criminal. But, according to the theory, the primary and intimate social groups would include biological parents, adoptive parents, step-parents, and ex-step-parents. It would also include siblings, more distant kin, such as cousins, aunts, and uncles, and other relatives as well. Persons other than family are also considered intimate social groups. Peers are considered a source of learning definitions unfavorable or favorable to law violation. Likewise, school personnel and other more closely tied social groups may also provide definitions favorable or unfavorable to definitions of law violation. As one can tell from this long list of possible sources of learning definitions unfavorable or favorable to criminal acts, differential association theory is complex and may be difficult to model in social science research.
4. Learning criminal behavior requires knowing the techniques necessary to commit the crimes and the reasons, rationalizations, and attitudes involved with committing such criminal acts. There have been reported incidents of parents overtly teaching their children to steal, sell drugs, or commit other criminal acts. While these instances do serve to underscore the way one learns the techniques necessary to commit criminal acts, teaching the reasons and rationalizations and attitudes are not necessarily done in these concrete ways. Take the example of a drug dealing parent of a young adolescent. If the parent is selling drugs to someone there may be a routine the parents follow when the drug purchaser [guest] arrives at the home. Perhaps the father leads the guest to a back bedroom, or a basement, or the garage, and after 10-30 minutes both the father and the guest rejoin the members of the household. The father and the guest tend to do this procedure most of the times the guest visits. Yet, the child may also observe that the father does not do this with all of the guests and that the children are never permitted to follow the father and the guest to the other room. Differential association theory would suggest that by learning this pattern, the adolescent is slowing learning how to be a criminal drug dealer. As the child ages, more learning of the techniques may occur. However, just because the adolescent is exposed to this type of learning does not necessarily mean the child will become a criminal. Differential association does suggest, however, that the risk of criminal behavior may increase as a result of the exposure.
5. The motives and drives to commit criminal acts, whether positive or negative, are derived from one's ratio of favorable to unfavorable definitions of laws. While it is likely that Sutherland intended this assumption to address the onset of criminal behavior, the theory has taken on a large amount of criticism for not providing adequate explanation of why the first person developed definitions favorable to law violations, i.e. differential association theory does not explain the origin of crime. It also has been criticized for not adequately explaining crimes of passion or crimes by a person who otherwise did not appear to have more definitions favorable to law violations than definitions unfavorable to law violations.
6. It is the excess of unfavorable definitions of the law to the number of favorable definitions of the law that raises one's risk of committing delinquent acts. Not all scholars agree about how the concepts "favorable" and "definitions" are defined (Matsueda, 1988). In general, favorable definitions would be communicated when statements favorable or unfavorable to law violations are shared; such as in the case of theft, "if they did not want someone to steal it, they should not have left it unattended," or in the case of assault, "he got his just rewards". These statements, from a differential association perspective, indicate some acceptance of law violations and thus contribute to the likelihood that persons hearing the comments will adopt definitions favorable to violation of the law. There are a variety of thoughts that can be communicated that suggest law violation is acceptable and perhaps even desirable. Unfavorable definitions could be communicated by saying, "no one wants their son or daughter to be a criminal," or "you are not supposed to steal; it is wrong." The idea of definitions that Sutherland proposed does not necessarily require such clear statements as given in the previous examples. The definitions can be communicated in much more subtle and covert and perhaps even unintentional ways. A recurring critique of differential association theory stems from this assumption. When social scientists conduct research it is imperative that they accurately measure concepts. When the definitions may be learned in such overt and covert ways, it creates difficulty in accurately measuring favorable and unfavorable definitions of law violations.
7. Four aspects of differential association may vary: frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Determining when and how one develops the definitions favorable or unfavorable to law violations is no simple calculus. The meaning one attaches to statements they are exposed, such as those listed in the previous paragraph, varies depending upon the frequency with which one is exposed to such types of statements and how long of a time period the exposure covers. There is an interplay or interaction among frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Additionally, Sutherland suggested that priority and intensity also influence the meaning one attaches to the messages that one receives. Priority is generally understood as the amount of influence the speaker has on the person receiving the messages. So, if the speaker has a lot of influence on the listener and the speaker communicates definitions favorable to law violations, the listener would be more likely to adopt some definitions favorable to law violation and thereby add to the excess of definitions favorable to law violations that one held. Intensity is generally considered the amount of prestige that the listen attributes to the speaker. The greater the intensity the more likely one is to adopt the definitions favorable or unfavorable to law violations as the case may be. Thus, one critique of differential association theory is that accurately measuring these items and the inter-relationships between them is complex.
8. All of the mechanisms involved in learning non-crime related behaviors are involved in learning criminal behaviors. Sutherland suggested that there was nothing special about the way people become criminals that was set apart from how people obtain any other status. Rather, he strongly suggested that the mechanisms were the same, regardless of whether it was positive (non-criminal) or negative (criminal). At the time he developed the theory, other popular theories of involved biological explanations of criminal behavior. Thus, the notion that all behavior came about through the same mechanisms was novel. His new approach to explaining crime made him one of the most notable criminologists (Laub, 2006).
9. Criminal behavior and non-criminal behavior are expressions of general needs and values and thus, general needs and values are inadequate to explain criminal behavior. Sutherland refused to distinguish motivations to commit criminal acts differently than non-criminal behavior. The notion that general needs and values motivated deviant and conforming behavior was unique at the time Sutherland developed Differential Association Theory. Sutherland received much criticism for making this assumption.

Further Insights

Differential Association Research

To this point it may seem that no adequate social science research could be conducted using Differential Association Theory due to the numerous critiques it received concerning measurement and modeling issues. This is not the case however. Many social scientists have conducted research testing Differential Association Theory.

After reviewing the literature Matsueda (1988) concluded that overall, Differential Association Theory does receive support. He suggested that further clarification of measurement of concepts would result in better tests of Differential Association Theory which would allow for a higher degree of prediction of behavior and lead to more explicit policy implications. According to Siegel and Senna (1997) deviant behavior is learned only through social contacts and interactions with persons who have an excess of definitions favorable to crime and law violation. Also finding support for Differential Association Theory, Elliott and Menard (1996) concluded that associations with delinquent peers usually precede delinquent behaviors. Kandel and Davies (1991) concluded that adolescents' associations with delinquent peers lead to delinquency. Similarly, Smith and Brame (1994) found that delinquent peer associations increase the likelihood of one participating in delinquent behaviors and continuing to participate in delinquent behaviors. In other words, they found that delinquent peers were related to the onset and maintenance of delinquent behaviors among adolescents.

The direction of causality has been challenged with some scholars suggesting the opposite; that being a delinquent leads to forming relationships with delinquent peers. However, Warr (1993) indicated that more research shows that having delinquent peer associations lead to delinquency more often than delinquency leads to adolescents developing delinquent peer associations. Tittle, Burke, and Jackson (1986) concluded that although acting indirectly on one learning the motivations to participate in criminal behavior, having criminal associations increases one's likelihood of participating in criminal acts. Skinner and Fream (1997) also find support for Differential Association Theory and suggest that differential associations are at least somewhat responsible for explaining computer crimes.

Viewpoints

Pending Issues & Implications

Differential Association theory has received much criticism (for example see Kornhauser, 1978 and Laub, 2006). Laub highlighted some of the shortcomings of the theory that still remain largely unresolved: the theory does not explain crimes by very young offenders; the pattern of people aging out of crime, i.e. the age-crime curve; or why individual characteristics are related to crime and deviance. Indeed some of the criticisms have not been completely resolved. A thorough understanding of what Sutherland meant by "excess" number of definitions favorable to criminal behavior remains a hot topic of debate. Just exactly what the tipping point is in the ratio of unfavorable definitions of law violation to favorable definitions to law violation necessary to result in one participating in criminal behaviors remains largely unsettled. Although not all of the criticisms of Differential Association Theory are resolved, the theory continues to be developed. DeFleur and Quinney (1966) contribute to researchers' abilities to test Differential Association Theory by more closely aligning the theory with broader sociology and by adding clarity to the roles of primary and secondary groups in teaching definitions favorable or unfavorable to crime and deviant behavior.

Theory integration, a popular movement within sociological theory development, involves transitioning theory building out of pure theory models by merging concepts from two or more existing theories to develop unique theories. Differential association theory has been used in theory integration as well as theory development. Differential association theory is considered a social learning theory.

Cloward and Ohlin (1961) merged elements from Sutherland's Differential Association Theory with Merton's Anomie theory to form Differential Opportunity theory. Cloward and Ohlin's theory purports that knowledge of illegal means must be learned and that opportunities to learn them are differentially available.

Social learning theory is very similar to differential association theory. Both believe the delinquent is socialized or taught how to be delinquent. Akers's theory is build upon Sutherland’s differential association theory. Akers developed social learning theory by using concepts from Sutherland's Differential Association theory such as the role of negative relationships and Bandura's learning model such as reinforcement and non-reinforcement of behaviors (Akers, et al, 1979). Social learning theory implies that society plays a role in teaching deviant behavior. Differential association creates the opportunity for people to learn how to commit crime and peer pressure helps to convince them to commit crime.

Terms & Concepts

Age-Crime Curve: the pattern seen when graphically examining the relationship between age and criminal behavior. The pattern shows a curvilinear relationship having very high rates of crime in the adolescent and young adult years and lower rates in younger and older years. The patterns of the age-crime curve vary by type of crimes, sex of offenders, type of offense, as well as race of offender.

Criminology: the study of crime and criminals and persons who practice criminology are criminologists. Criminology develops and utilizes many theories of crime, such as Differential Association Theory.

Delinquency: a term used to describe a pattern of criminal behavior among persons under the age of majority, usually under 18 years of age. Much research conducted by criminologists focus on delinquency and many criminology theories are dedicated to predicting and explaining delinquency. Some scholars consider delinquency to be a social problem that requires social interventions while others view it as a temporary stage in adolescence.

Deviance: occurs when an individual violates the norms, values, or laws of society. Most deviant behavior occurs among adolescent and young adult years. The majority of deviant acts do not involve violation of formal norms (laws). However, most of the research on deviance focuses on juveniles violations of the law (delinquency). Deviance is studied by a variety of subfields in sociology including, criminology, social psychology, and others.

Intimate Social Groups: our closest friends. Intimate social groups interact intimate ways, may be vary in duration, and may have an unlimited number of members that vary across the life course.

Peers: defined by criminologists as a group of similarly ranked people who hold similar values and adopt similar behaviors. While peer groups can serve prosocial functions, peers are usually studied by criminologists to determine their role in negative or anti-social behaviors, such as delinquency, teen pregnancy, or status offenses.

Primary Groups: our closest family members. Primary groups interact in intimate ways, are long lasting, and are usually have a limited number of members.

Social Control: the effort of society to limit the behaviors of people in the society. Society uses two main approaches to limit the peoples' behaviors. The vast majority of peoples' behaviors are limited by informal techniques such as parents' socialization of children, parents conveying guidelines for acceptable behavior, and motivating children to comply. Society less frequently relies on formal mechanisms to limit peoples' behavior. The behaviors enforced by formal systems of control are considered more serious violations of the norms, values, and beliefs of society including homicide, assault, and theft, and other behaviors.

Bibliography

Akers, R. A., Krohn, M., Lanza-Kaduce, L. & Rodosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44 , 636–655. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14765418&site=ehost-live

Cloward, R. & Ohlin, L. (1961). Delinquency and opportunity . Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

DeFleur, M. L. & Quinney, R. (1966). A reformulation of Sutherland's differential association theory and a strategy for empirical verification. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 3 , 1–22.

Elliott, D. S., & Menard, S. (1996). Delinquent friends and delinquent behavior: Temporal and developmental patterns. In J. D. Hawkin (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 28–67). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Kandel, D. & Davies, M. (1991). Friendship networks, intimacy, and illicit drug use in young adulthood: a comparison of two competing theories. Criminology, 29 : 441–469. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16307683&site=ehost-live

Laub, J. H. (2006). Edwin H Sutherland and the Michael-Adler report: Searching for the soul of Criminology seventy years later. Criminology, 44 , 235–257. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=21170634&site=ehost-live.

Matsueda, R. A. (1988). The current state of differential association theory. Crime & Delinquency, 34 , 277–306.

Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Poledna, S., Andreica, C., & Gusan, A. (2011). Social space of criminal vulnerability. a risk factors' perspective. Social Work Review / Revista De Asistenta Sociala, , 163–174. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=65048610

Rebellon, C. J. (2012). Differential association and substance use: Assessing the roles of discriminant validity, socialization, and selection in traditional empirical tests. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 73–96. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=70363928

Siegel, J. J. & Senna, L. J. (1997). Juvenile delinquency: Theory, practice and law, 6th ed . St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.

Skinner, W. F. & Fream, A. M. (1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college student. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 34 , 495–518.

Smith, D., & Brame, R. (1994). On the initiation and continuation of delinquency. Criminology, 32 , 607–629. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9411103164&site=ehost-live

Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company.

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

Tittle, C., Burke, M., & Jackson, E. (1986). Modeling Sutherland's theory of differential association: Toward an empirical clarification. Social Forces, 65 , 405. Retrieved September 12, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5285995&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Vermeersch, H., T’Sjoen, G., Kaufman, J., & Van Houtte, M. (2013). Social science theories on adolescent risk-taking: The relevance of behavioral inhibition and activation. Youth & Society, 45, 27–53. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85096550

Warr, M. (1993). Parents, peers, and delinquency. Social Forces, 72 , 247–264. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9312273255&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Akers, R. (1996). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance theory? Criminology, 34 , 229–247. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9606263702&site=ehost-live

Armstrong, T., & Matusitz, J. (2013). Hezbollah as a group phenomenon: Differential association theory. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 23, 475–484. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87088301

Costello, R. J. & Vowell, P. R. (1999). Testing control theory and differential association: a reanalysis of the Richmond youth project. Criminology, 37 , 815–842. Retrieved September 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=2488582&site=ehost-live

Merton, R. K. (1997). On the evolving synthesis of differential association and anomie theory: a perspective from the sociology of science. Criminology, 35 , 517–525. Retrieved September 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Research Premier: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9709046622&site=ehost-live

Zaloznaya, M. (2012). Organizational cultures as agents of differential association: explaining the variation in bribery practices in Ukrainian universities. Crime, Law & Social Change, 58, 295–320. Retrieved October 25, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=80030997