CHAPTER V

SOME POPULAR CRITICISMS OF

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION

The "differential association" part of Sutherland's theory in

contrast to the "differential social organization" part, purports to
identify the general process by which persons become criminals.
This part of the theory, like Sutherland's subsequent work and
the work of those who have used his theory, is social psychological
in emphasis, and it relies heavily upon the theories of George
Herbert Mead. 1 The essential idea here is that all criminal con-
duct is learned in a process of social interaction involving an
"excess" of associations with criminal behaviour patterns. This
basic idea and the manner in which Sutherland expressed it has
been the recipient of criticism from many quarters. Identification
of some of the defects that various critics have found in Suther-
land's statement should make his principle clearer.
Five principal types of criticism have been advanced in the
literature. It would be incorrect to assume that a criticism ad-
vanced by many readers is more valid or important than one
advanced by a single reader, but commenting on every criti-
cism would take us too far afield. We can only mention, without
elaboration, some of the criticisms advanced by only one
or two authors. It has been stated or implied that the theory
of differential association is defective because it omits consi-
deration of free will, 2 is based on a psychology assuming rational
deliberation,3 ignores the role of the victim,4 does not explain the
origin of crime, 5 does not define terms such as "systematic" and
1 George H. Mead, Mind, Selfand Society, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934.
2 Robert G. Caldwell, Criminology, New York: Ronald Press, 1956, p. 182.
3 S. Kirson Weinberg, "Theories of Criminality and Problems of Prediction",
Journal qfCriminal Law and Criminology, 45 (November-December, 1954), pp. 412-429.
4 Marshall B. Clinard, "The Sociology of Delinquency and Crime", in Joseph
Gittler, Editor, Review qf Sociology, New York: Wiley, 1957, p. 479.
5 Clarence R.Jeffery, "An Integrated Theory of Crime and Criminal Behaviour",
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 49 (March-April, 1959), p. 537.

D. R. Cressey, Delinquency, Crime and Differential Association

© Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands 1964
82 CRITICISMS OF THE THEORY

"excess,"6 does not take "biological factors" into account,7 is of

little or no value to "practical men,"s is not comprehensive e-
nough because it is not interdisciplinary,9 is not allied closely e-
nough with more general sociological theory and research,l° is too
comprehensive because it applies to non-criminals,l1 and assumes
that all persons have equal access to criminal and anti-criminal be-
haviour patterns.12 Some of these comments represent pairs of
opposites, one citicism contradicting another, and others seem
to be based on one or more of the errors described in Chapter I.
Still others are closely allied with the five principal types of criti-
cism, and we shall return to them.
One popular form of "criticism" of differential association is
not, strictly speaking, criticism at all. At least ten scholars have
speculated that some kinds of criminal behaviour are exceptional
to the theory. Thus, it has been said that the theory does not apply
to rural offenders,I3 to landlords who violated OPA regulations,14
to criminal violators of financial trust,15 to "naive check for-
• Arthur L. Leader, "A Differential Theory of Criminality", Sociology and Social
&search,26 (September, 1941), pp. 45-53; Caldwell, op. cit.; Marshall B. Clinard,
"Criminological Research", in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard
Cottrell, Editors, Sociology Today, New York: Basic Books, 1959, pp. 510-513; James
F. Short,Jr., "Differential Association and Delinquency", Social Problems, 4 (January,
1957), pp. 233-239.
7 Harry Elmer Barnes and Negley K. Teeters, New Horizons in Criminology, Third
Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1959, p. 159; Caldwell, op. cit.
p. 182; Howard B. Gill, "An Operational View of Criminology", Archives of Criminal
Psycho-dynamics, (October, 1957), pp. 289-291; Sheldon Glueck, "Theory and Fact
in Criminology", British Journal of Delinquency, 7 (October, 1956), pp. 98-99; Olaf
Kinberg, "Kritiska reflexioner over den differentiella associationhypotesen", Chapter
24 in Ivar Agge, Gunnar Boalt, Bo Gerle, Maths Heuman, Carl-Gunnar Janson, Olaf
Kinberg, Sven Rengby, Torgny Segerstedt, and Thorsten Sellin, Kriminologi, Stock-
holm: Wahlstrom and Widstrand, 1955, pp. 415-429.
8 Barnes and Teeters, op. cit., p. 210.
9 Ibid., p. 162; Caldwell, op. cit., p. 182; Gill, op. cit., p. 284; Glueck, op. cit., pp. 105,
108; Howard Jones, Crime and the Penal System, London: University Tutorial Press,
1956, p. 95.
10 Clarence Schrag. "Review rif Principles of Criminology", American Sociological Review,
20 (August, 1955), pp. 500-501.
11 Gill, op. cit., p. 284; Jeffery, op. cit., p. 537.
12 Richard A. Cloward, "Illegitimate Means, Anomie, and Deviant Behaviour",
American Sociological Review, 24 (April, 1959), pp. 164-176; James F. Short, Jr.,
"Differential Association as a Hypothesis: Problems of Empirical Testing", Social
Problems,8 (Summer, 1960), pp. 14-25.
13 Marshall B. Clinard, "The Process of Urbanization and Criminal Behaviour",
American Journal of Sociology, 48 (September, 1942), pp. 202-213; Marshall B. Clinard,
"Rural Criminal Offenders", American Journal of Sociology, 50 (July, 1944), pp. 38-45.
14 Marshall B. Clinard, "Criminological Theories of Violations of Wartime
Regulations", American Sociological Review, 11 (June, 1946). pp. 258-270.
15 Donald R. Cressey, "Application and Verification ofthe Differential Association