Short Notes on Differential Association Theory of Crime

Short Notes on Differential Association Theory of Crime

Sutherland proposed ‘differential association’ theory in 1939 and elaborated it in 1947. Initially, he applied his theory only to ‘systematic criminal behaviour’, but, later on, extending his theory, he applied it to all criminal behaviour. Sutherland forwarded mainly two explanations for criminal behaviour: situational and genetic or historical.

The former explains crime on the basis of situation that exists at the time of crime, and the latter explains crime on the basis of a criminal’s life experiences. He himself used the second approach in developing his theory of criminal behaviour. Let us take an example. If a hungry boy comes across a ‘dhaba’ (restaurant) and finds the owner absent, he steals a ‘roti’ (loaf of bread).

In this case, the boy steals not because the restaurant owner was absent and he himself was hungry but because he had learnt earlier that one could satisfy one’s hunger by stealing things. Thus, it is not the situation which motivates a person to commit a theft; it is his learnt attitudes and beliefs.

Sutherland’s main thesis (Principles of Criminology, Philadelphia, 1947) is that individuals encounter many inharmonious and inconsistent social influences in their lifetime and many individuals become involved in contacts with carriers of criminalistic norms and as a consequence become criminals. He called this process ‘differential association’.

The theory of differential association presented nine propositions:

(1) Criminal behaviour is learnt.

(2) It is learnt in interaction with other persons in a process of communication.

(3) The principal part of the learning process (of criminal behaviour) occurs within intimate, small, personal groups.

(4) The learning includes techniques of committing crime, and specific direction of motives, drives, rationalisations, and attitudes.

(5) The specific direction (of motives and drives) is learnt from definitions of legal codes as favourable or unfavourable.

(6) A person becomes a criminal or a delinquent because of an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable to violation of law, i.e., criminal behaviour is determined in a process of association with those who commit crime. This is the principle of differential association.

Differential association is possible because society is composed of various groups with varied cultures. Thus, cultural conflict is the underlying cause of differential association. The origin and persistence of culture conflicts are due to social disorganisation.

(7) Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority and intensity, i.e., the chance that a person will participate in criminal behaviour is determined roughly by the frequency and consistency of his contacts with patterns of criminal behaviour.

(8) The processes of learning criminal behaviour by association with criminal and non-criminal patterns are fundamentally the same in form as the processes which result in lawful behaviour. Individual differences among People in respect of personal characteristics or social situations cause crime only as they affect differential association or frequency and consistency of contacts with criminal patterns.

(9) While criminal behaviour is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by these general needs and values since non-criminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs and values.

Sutherland’s theory was supported by James Short Jr. on the basis of his study of 176 school children (126 boys and 50 girls) in 1955 (see, Rose Giallombardo, 1960: 85-91). Short measured degree of presumed exposure to crime and delinquency in the community, frequency, duration, priority and intensity of interaction with delinquent peers, and knowledge of and association with adult criminals.

Sutherland’s theory, however, has been attacked by many scholars like Sheldon Glueck, Mabel Elliott, Robert Caldwell, Donald Cressey, Paul Tappan, George Void, Herbert Bloch, Jeffery Clarence, Daniel Glaser, and others. The major criticism is that it is difficult to empirically test principles, and measure ‘associations’, priority, intensity, duration and frequency of relationships.

According to Paul Tappan (1947: 96-102), Sutherland has ignored the role of personality or the role of biological and psychological factors in crime. Sutherland has relegated these factors to an entirely subordinate position.

He has said that “individual differences cause crime only as they affect differential association”; but the individual, as a unique combination of heredity and environment, has a reality apart from the group.

Therefore, in opposition to Sutherland’s contention, one may argue that differential association causes crime only as it gives expression to individual differences. George Void (1958: 194) has maintained that Sutherland has ignored the role of secondary contact and formal groups in criminality.

Clarence Ray Jeffery (Cf. Johnson, 1978: 158) holds that Sutherland’s theory fails to explain the origin of criminality since criminality has to exist before it can be learnt from someone else.

Mabel Elliot (1952: 402) says Sutherland’s theory explains only ‘systematic criminal behaviour’ by which Sutherland apparently means criminal behaviour that has become a way of life for an individual and is supported by a philosophy in terms of which it is justified.

According to Donald Cressey (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, May-June 1952: 51-52), Sutherland does not fully explore the implications of the learning process itself as it affects different individuals.

He (Cressey) has further said: “It is doubtful that it can be shown empirically that the differential association theory applies or does not apply to crimes of financial trust violation or even to other kinds of criminal behaviour.”

Herbert Bloch (1962: 158) is of the opinion that it is virtually impossible to measure associations in comparative quantitative terms. Glueck (1951: 309) maintains that an individual does not learn every kind of behaviour from others; many acts are learnt naturally.

Caldwell (1956: 183) says that individuals become what they are largely because of the contacts they have but both constitutional or inborn hereditary structure and intensity of environmental stimuli must be appraised evenly.

He has further said: “If the claim is made that this theory explains all criminal behaviour, then it is doubtful whether the theory can be proved. But if the theory merely means that many persons learn to be criminals through association with others who do not have proper respect for the law, then it has been reduced to an elaboration of the obvious a fate that has befallen many other oversimplifications of human behaviour.”

Daniel Glaser (American Journal of Sociology, March 1956: 433-44) modified Sutherland’s theory a little to explain from whom an individual learns crime. He called this new theory as ‘differential identification theory’ and said that a person pursues criminal behaviour to the extent that “he identifies himself with real or imaginary persons from whose perspective his criminal behaviour seems acceptable”.

He further said that one of the persistent problems in the theory of differential association was the obvious fact that not everyone in contact with criminality adopts or follows the criminal pattern.

What, therefore, is the difference in the nature or quality of the association that in one case it leads an individual to accept the attitudes and behaviour of a group, but, in another case, it only leads to an individual’s acquaintance with but not the acceptance of the behaviour characteristic of the group?

The answer lies in the choice of persons with whom an individual identifies himself, and who serve as models for his behaviour.

It may be concluded that although Sutherland’s theory has some serious weaknesses, it does have some merit too. It calls attention to: (a) the importance of social factors, (b) the similarity between the process of learning criminal behaviour and that of learning lawful behaviour, and (c) the fact that criminality cannot be explained entirely in terms of personality maladjustments.