President Ramon Magsaysay State University

Iba, Zambales
GRADUATE SCHOOL
MAEd-Social Studies
2nd Trimester, Academic Year 2019-2020

Course Code/Title: SS302 – Selected Topics in the Social Studies

Presenters: Jerome Dansalan, Justine C. Constantino
Professor: Marie Fe de Guzman, Ed.D. (Professor V)

THEORY OF DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION (Theory on Criminal Behavior)

Objective/s:
 Explain the foundation of Sutherland’s (1939) Differential Association and
Principles/Propositions that Posts Criminal Behavior.
 Appraise and infer how the theory of Differential Association were related to crime

Introduction
 In his differential association theory Edwin Sutherland proposes that criminal behaviour is
learned. A person will be delinquent if there are prior attitudes that favour violations of the
law, as opposed to attitudes that negatively evaluate violations of the law.
The Theory (Differential Association)
 Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association assumes that criminal behavior is
learned through contact with individuals who are themselves criminal.
 It is therefore also called the “theory of differential contacts”. The term “association”,
however, refines this idea by the realization that it is not sufficient to merely contact criminal
persons, but that during these contacts the criminal definitions and attitudes must also be
successfully conveyed.
 The basic thesis here is that criminal behaviour is learned when more attitudes are learned
that favour violations of the law than those that negatively evaluate violations of the law.
Conversely, learning criminal attitudes, motives and definitions becomes all the more likely
the more contact there is with people and groups who violate the law and the less contact
there is with people and groups who live according to the rules.
 In simple terms, one could say that contact with criminals leads to one’s own criminal
behaviour by learning the corresponding behaviour in a model manner. This becomes even
more likely when there is fewer contact to non-criminals.
Sutherland’s theory of differential contacts (see diagram) is based on nine theses which
summarize the theory of differential association:

1. All criminal behavior is learned.

2. Criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others via a process of
communication.
3. Most learning about criminal behavior happens in intimate personal groups and
relationships.
4. The process of learning criminal behavior may include learning about techniques to carry
out the behavior as well as the motives and rationalizations that would justify criminal
activity and the attitudes necessary to orient an individual towards such activity.
5. The direction of motives and drives towards criminal behavior is learned through the
interpretation of legal codes in one’s geographical area as favorable or unfavorable.
6. When the number of favorable interpretations that support violating the law outweigh the
unfavorable interpretations that don’t, an individual will choose to become a criminal.
7. All differential associations aren’t equal. They can vary in frequency, intensity, priority, and
duration.
8. The process of learning criminal behaviors through interactions with others relies on the
same mechanisms that are used in learning about any other behavior.
9. Criminal behavior could be an expression of generalized needs and values, but they don’t
explain the behavior because non-criminal behavior expresses the same needs and values.

Sutherland’s Differential Association and Its Nine Propositions Explained

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of Differential Association evolved from the Chicago School of
sociology, which observed that crime occurred more frequently in areas lacking social organization
and institutions of social control (Gomme, 37). Crime was usually explained by multiple factors –
such as social class, age, race, and urban or rural location. Sutherland developed his theory of
Differential Association in order to explain how these factors were related to crime (Cullen &
Agnew, 122). It had been observed that once high rates of crime were established in a
geographical region, the pattern reoccurred, with “new generations of inhabitants sustaining the
pattern” (Gomme, 37). Sutherland was thus interested in explaining how such a cross-generational
transmission of delinquent values occurred (Lilly et al., 42). In his theory of Differential Association,
he posited that criminal behaviour is a result of a process of socialization, during which criminal
“definitions” are not only transmitted culturally (Gomme, 37), but are actually learned through
social interactions with intimate groups (Winfree & Abadinsky, 193). The theory is outlined in nine
propositions.
 The first proposition posits that criminal behaviour is learned. (Sutherland & Cressey,
123). Just as one learns to tie his or her shoelaces or to prepare a meal, so too does one learn to
pick a lock or copy a credit card. Sutherland is careful, however, to note that learned behaviour is
neither invented, nor inherited. (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). The skills and techniques required for
criminal activity are not innovations, and they are not automatically obtained from birth, or through
association with criminals; rather, they are acquired through a process of learning.

In the second proposition, Sutherland refutes the possibility that criminals and deviants
must witness criminal behaviour in order to learn it. Rather, he states that one learns criminal
behaviour through social interaction and communication (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). In a family
structure, for example, one may learn to respect and obey the law, or to believe in a certain
religious worldview. This communication-based discovery and realization also occurs when
learning about criminal activities. For example, one may come to learn about prostitution through
discussion with others, and by witnessing the nonverbal responses of these others towards the
activity, such as rolling the eyes or staring.

Sutherland’s third proposition begins to explain the observations of Shaw and McKay,
who observed that consistent high rates of crimes within members of similar social conditions. He
argues that most learning of crime and deviance takes place in interaction with members of
intimate, personal groups, and that methods of impersonal communication – such as television,
films or newspapers – are less influential or effective in learning (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). The
greater implication of this proposition is that it locates trust at the root of social interactions that
encourage deviance. For example, children and youth would likely first learn how to shoplift or how
to graffiti public spaces from their close friends, rather than from general acquaintances.

The fourth proposition expands Sutherland’s concept of learning to identify what is

acquired through communication with intimate others that enables criminal activity. He describes
how through this learning process an individual gains not only the skills and techniques required to
commit the crime, but also the “motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes” that accompany the
behaviour (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). Merely learning how to commit a crime is not cause alone
for one to actually engage in the activity. Instead, Sutherland calls attention to a subjective
component: individuals also learn, or assimilate, the social, cultural and psychological attitudes
that drive a violation of the law (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). Such rationalizations and attitudes
also explain the common excuse for criminal behaviour as warranted or deserved. A rapist, for
example, may reason that his or her actions were justified as the victim was “asking for it” by
flirting or by wearing revealing clothing, an attitude he or she likely developed through association
with others of similar beliefs.

The fifth proposition further elaborates upon the issue of criminal motivation: as
individuals are surrounded by a “cultural conflict” of competing ideas from both law-abiding citizens
and criminals, pro-criminal or anti-criminal intentions are developed based on learned conceptions
of the law as either “favourable” or “unfavourable” (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). In other words,
one develops opinions of the law that either encourage or discourage action. For example, one
who drives faster than the speed limit (“speeds”) may justify his or her actions by viewing the law
as unnecessary; he or she may view the limit as unreasonably low, or judge that the road is clear
and safe and that a limit should not be imposed.

As Sutherland points out, however, interaction with pro-criminal groups does not
necessarily produce criminal behaviour. Thus in the sixth proposition, Sutherland argues that an
individual becomes delinquent only when “definitions favourable to violation of law” exceed
“definitions unfavourable to violation of law” (Sutherland & Cressey, 123). In other words, it is not
the amount of exposure to criminal ideology that is important, rather it is the ratio of attitudes
(“definitions”) towards crime – whether pro-criminal or anti-criminal influences are stronger – which
determines whether an individual embraces criminal behaviour or not (Lilly et al., 42). For
example, although recreational marijuana use is illegal in much of North America, an individual
may be exposed to opinions from close friends who view laws prohibiting its use as unfair and
without scientific foundation, and who provide assurance that the chances, and consequences, of
getting caught are minimal. In such a case, the individual would be exposed to more “definitions”
that encourage the law violation than those that discourage it, and therefore would be driven to
behave criminally.

In the seventh proposition, Sutherland avoids oversimplifying the social learning

processes, by describing how “excess definitions” (associations, attitudes, patterns, etc.) are
affected by four factors: “frequency, duration, priority and intensity” (Sutherland & Cressey, 123).
How often, for how long, how early in life, and from whom an individual is exposed to criminal
associations will affect the relative impact on an individual’s behaviour. For example, a young child
who is raised by a drug-addicted parent will be exposed to stronger definitions of deviant
behaviour than a teenager who witnesses a cousin snorting cocaine at a party. In this case, the
child would be frequently exposed (frequency) for many years (duration) in early life (priority) to
pro-criminal definitions.

The eighth proposition reiterates the logic behind the criminal learning process.
Sutherland explains that, like any other skill or knowledge, the process by which one attains and
develops pro-criminal and anti-criminal patterns is the same as any other learning process
(Sutherland & Cressey, 124). In learning, one is not only able to imitate or reproduce behaviour,
but rather understands and develops it. A thief who steals cars or burgles houses, for example, will
hone his or her skills to become more efficient and effective in doing so, learning over time to
become quieter, faster, and more precise in such activities.

Sutherland’s final proposition makes the important claim that the motivations for criminal
and law-abiding behaviour cannot be the same, and therefore crime cannot be a result of general
needs and values, such as a desire for wealth or social status (Sutherland & Cressey, 124). The
actions of a student who plagiarizes an essay or assignment, for example, cannot be justified by a
general desire to do well academically; this would not explain why all students do not participate in
the same deviant behaviour.

Implication for criminal policy

Sutherland’s theory of differential association stands for a rehabilitative ideal. Since criminal
attitudes and activities can be learnt, these can be logically deduced and re-learned, or compliant
behaviour, attitudes and rationalisation can be achieved in the first place.
In the sense of the ultimately decisive imbalance in theory between associated attitudes
that favour violations of the law and attitudes that evaluate violations of the law negatively, it must
therefore be the goal of justice and society to surround criminals with non-criminals or to dissolve
social spaces in which predominantly people with deviant motives and patterns of action live.
Furthermore, criminal law must build on the ideal of rehabilitating offenders.
Critical appreciation & relevance
In the past, Sutherland was often accused of theoretical gaps in his concept, for which other
theories or theoretical extensions were developed.
Thus Sutherland himself drew attention to the different needs and preferences of learning
individuals, who significantly contribute to deciding whether deviant actions and attitudes are
accepted or not.
Glaser pointed out, however, that it is not the number of people with deviant attitudes that is
decisive for learning crime, but rather the degree of identification with one or a few people.
Cloward & Ohlin pointed out that access to illegitimate means or exclusion from legitimate means
is a decisive factor. Akers (and also Eysenck) extended Sutherland’s theory to include a detailed
analysis of the learning processes taking place (conditioning, social learning/ observing a model,
etc.).
Despite this, Sutherland’s crime-related learning theory has to struggle with the accusation
of partial tautology, since the existence of delinquency must already exist for it to be passed on at
all.
Furthermore, the theory of differential associations does not take into account instinctive
and affect crimes, nor does it take into account the fact that the cognitive abilities of different
individuals can also be varying.
Sutherland’s thesis also assumes a purely behaviourist view: The human being reacts
automatically and reflexively to stimuli in the environment. Cognitive or unbiased aspects are not
sufficiently considered here, yet Sutherland’s theory can be regarded as a far-reaching anti-
biologistic theory. According to Sutherland, the consideration of social processes in the search for
the causes of crime has only really taken its course and has certainly long since become
predominant in criminological research alongside social-structural aspects. The idea that crime
can be learned has turned the previously very perpetrator-oriented perspective into a sociological
and socio-psychological one.
Criminal Behavior
“Any kind of Antisocial Behavior, which is punishable by Law or Norms, Stated by
community,” Can be stated as Criminal Behavior.
Criminal behavior study is to understand the behavior of criminal and find some answer of
the questions such as:
 Why do criminals commit an offence?
 Who are they?
 How do they think?
 What do they do?
A risk in criminality is anything in a person’s psychology, what will somewhat increase
possibility, that he/she will get involved in a criminal activity. These may include:
 Behavior disorder
 Lack of Education
 Media influence
 Poor personal temperament
 Low IQ
 Antisocial Beliefs
 Influence of society
 Poor parenting, etc.
Causes of Criminal Behavior
1. Family issues – Children with violent parents are more likely to become violent through
learned behaviors.
2. Financial problems or starvation – When a person has to struggle every day just to fulfill
his/her basic needs, the probability that they commit crime to complete their desire.
3. Socioeconomic status - Many feels inferior or low because of their lower middle or poor
class lifestyle and sometimes to gain high status they choose wrong path.
 4. Genetic – Any type of psychological problem or mental disorder such as anxiety problem,
aggression, etc.
5. Mental Illness – More than half the population in jails and state and federal prisons have
some kind of mental illness according to national institute of mental health.
Three categories/ theories of Criminal Behaviors are the Following:
 Psychological Factors
 Biological Factors
 Sociological Factors
PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
Psychologists approach the task of explaining delinquent and criminal behavior by focusing
on an individual’s personality. In particular, they examine the processes by which behavior
and restraint on behavior are learned.
Psychological theories sometimes argued that crime is associated with certain mental
condition.
A proportion of criminal acts that committed by person who is suffering from various mental
illnesses. Mental illness is generally the cause of a relatively small proportion of crimes, but
it perceived importance may exaggerated by the seriousness of the crimes committed by
persons with mental disorders.
SOCIOLOGICAL FACTORS
According to social control theory, if social bounds of a person is weak, he/she will more
likely conduct a criminal act, because people care what other thinks of them and try to
conform with social expectation because of their attachment to others.
If a person hang around in a certain people they can affect your behavior and the way you
see things. This is mostly same when it comes to crimes involving drugs.
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
Researchers have identified other biological factors associated with increased violence and
aggressiveness, including alcohol intoxication, the use of some drugs (e.g, crack cocaine
but not marijuana), diet, and the ingestion of toxic substances. Drinking alcohol has tended
to increase criminality temporarily.
Factors such as low intelligence, poor diet, impulsivity and hyperactivity, hormones such as
testosterone and cortisol, and environmental pollutants may all affect a person’s biological
propensity for criminal and antisocial behavior.

Differential association proposes that through interaction with others, individuals learn the
values, attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior. Sutherland advances the theory
that criminal behavior is learned through social interactions wherein opportunities that are
favorable to the violations of the law is differ from opportunities that are unfavorable to the violation
of the law for someone who embraces crime as an acceptable way of life. Sutherland describes
his theory as “differential association”. Differential association explained why any given individual
was drawn into crime. Differential association claims that all criminal behavior is learned and that
the learning process is influenced by the extent of the individual’s contact with persons who
commit crimes. The more an individual associated with such persons, the more likely it becomes
that he will learn and adopt criminal values and behavior
Criminal behavior is learned, though this does not imply as Sutherland did that the learning
itself involves criminal association. The theory of differential association limits the learning process
to criminal attitudes; the theory discussed which states that criminal behavior can be learned in
situation not containing criminal or criminal attitudes. For this reason a person living in a criminal
environment will often not be a criminal, while criminals are found in some criminal environments.
References:
1. https://soztheo.de/theories-of-crime/learning-subculture/differential-association-theory-
sutherland/?lang=en
a. Edwin H. Sutherland (1924): Principles of Criminology. Auflage von 1966, mit Donald
R. Cressey, Philadelphia.
2. David Zembroski (2011): Sociological Theories of Crime and Deliquency. School of Social
Welfare, University of California at Berkeley, USA, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group
3. C.R Jeffrey, Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory, 56J. Crim. L. Criminology and Police
Sci. 294 (1965)
4. www.youtube.com/forensic+field//criminalbehavior
5. https://www.alexandrakp.com/text/2008-02/sutherlands-differential-association-and-its-nine-
propositions/
6. https://www.britannica.com/science/criminology/Sociological-theories