Society for the Study of Social Problems

Differential Association and Learning Principles Revisited

Author(s): Reed Adams
Source: Social Problems, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Spring, 1973), pp. 458-470
Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society for the Study of Social Problems
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/799708
Accessed: 05/10/2010 13:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for the Study of Social Problems and University of California Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Problems.

http://www.jstor.org
458 SOCIALPROBLEMS

definitionsof their husbands'men- delinquency."British Journal of

tal illness." Psychiatry 20(Au- Delinquency (April): 289-297.
gust): 275-291. Uehling, Harold F.
Sutherland,Edwin H. 1952 "Rorschach'shock'for two special
1950a "The diffusion of sexual psycho- populations."Journal of Consult-
path laws." AmericanJournal of ing Psychology(June): 224.
Sociology 56(September): 142- Vold, George
148. 1958 Theoretical Criminology. New
1950b "The sexual psychopath laws." York: Oxford UniversityPress.
Journal of Criminal Law and Volkman,ArthurP.
Criminology 40(January): 543- 1958- "A matched group personality
554. 59 comparison of delinquents and
Swenson,W. M. and B. P. Grimes non-delinquentjuveniles." Social
1958 "Characteristicsof sex offenders Problems (Winter): 238-245.
admittedto a Minnesotastate hos- Waldo, GordonP. and Simon Dinitz
pital for pre-sentencepsychiatric 1967 "Personality attributes of the
investigation." Psychiatric Quar- criminal:An analysis of research
terly Supplement(January): 110- studies, 1950-65."Journal of Re-
123. searchin Crime and Delinquency
Tannenbaum,Frank 4(July): 185-202.
1938 Crime and Community. New Yarrow,M., C. Schwartz,H. Murphy,and
York: ColumbiaUniversityPress. L. Deasy
Thompson, RichardE. 1955 "The psychological meaning of
1953 "A validation of Glueck social mentalillness in the family."The
prediction scale for proneness to Journal of Social Issues 11:12-24.

DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION AND LEARNING

PRINCIPLES REVISIT'ED*

REED ADAMS**
The City College of
Loyola Universityof the South

Differential association has long been the most widely disseminatedof the
criminologicaltheories,yet has remaineduntested.A recentinnovationin the intel-
lectual life of the theoryhas suggesteda means of testing its adequacybut not its
validity, and introducedoperant conditioning principles into the mainstreamof
criminologicalthought. The paper systematicallysetting forth the application of
operant principles to differentialassociationhas received endorsementsby major
criminologists,but close examinationreveals fundamentaloversights, which may
serve to misleadsociologistsand criminologistsunfamiliarwith operantconditioning.
This analysis addressesitself to: (a) a set of propositionsrevising Sutherland's
differential association theory; (b) a critique of Burgess and Akers (1966b);
(c) a review of the applicationof operantconditioningprinciplesin criminology.
* Support for this paper was provided
and Zahn for their valuable ad-
by National Institute of Law Enforcement vice Douglas
and assistance.However, only the au-
and Criminal Justice Grant NI-150, and
NI-71-081-GF-4. Such support does not thor is responsiblefor the final draft.
necessarilyindicate concurrencewith state- ** Now Director,Law Enforcementand
ments or conclusionscontainedherein. The Administration Program, University of
authorthanksJon Bailey, HaroldJ. Vetter, North Carolina at Charlotte,UNCC Sta-
HarryAllen, Vernon Fox, PatrickMichaud, tion, Charlotte,North Carolina28213.
 Differential Association
Differential associationhas attracted
more attention, over a longer period
of time, than any other criminological
theory. Introduced by Sutherland in
his 1939 edition of Principles of
Criminology and unaltered since the
1947 edition, the theory is generally
recognized as a sociological/learning
theory explanationof individualcrimi-
nal behavior and societal crime rates.
Cressey, in Principles of Criminology
(Sutherland and Cressey, 1970), sets
forth the present status of the theory
in detail. Essentially, it remains un-
tested, due to problemsin operational-
izing the theory'sconcepts.Criminolo-
gists have been unable to resolve the
difficulties inherent in handling the
abundant mentalistic concepts con-
tained in differentialassociation.
Empirical attempts to test differ-
ential associationhave involved corre-
lations of some measureof delinquent
behavior (such as police or court
records, or self reports) with the
degree to which the subjectsassociated
with criminal patterns (Short, 1960;
Voss, 1964; Reiss and Rhodes, 1964;
Stanfield, 1966; Stratton, 1967; Mat-
thews, 1968). These studies revealed
only low to moderate correlationsbe-
tween criminal behavior and associa-
tion with criminal behavior patterns,
and theoretical interpretations have
been difficult. There have been other
empiricallybased approachesalso, such
as the Pfuhl (1970) support of the
Sutherland assertion that mass media
do not play a part in the learning of
criminal behavior. Nevertheless, there
is widespread dissatisfactionwith the
theory's non-amenabilityto empirical
test.
Possibilities for resolution of the
theory'smethodologicalproblems, and
direct empirical testing of the ade-
quacy of the theory, were recently
459
suggested by Burgess and Akers
(1966b), who systematicallyspecified,
in operantconditioningterms,the pro-
cess of learninginvolved in differential
association.Their paper (and Jeffery,
1965) representsa fundamentallydif-
ferent approachfrom the voluminous
works concernedwith the theory over
the past 30 years.Both (but especially
the Burgess and Akers paper) have
attracted attention from sociologists
and criminologists, being quoted
(Zimberoff, 1968), referenced (Suth-
erland and Cressey, 1970; Ray and
Kilburn, 1970; Karen and Bower,
1968; Gibbons, 1968) and reprinted
(Cressey and Ward, 1969; Burgess
and Bushell, 1969).
Since Sutherland'sdeath, the indi-
vidual most closely identifiedwith the
theory has been Cressey,who recently
included the Burgess and Akers paper
among a group of works identified as
"... the major theories of criminolo-
gists . . ." (Cresseyand Ward, 1969:
xii). Moreover, Cressey identifies the
Burgess and Akers paper as "... the
most promising lead in this area ..."
(Cresseyand Ward, 1969: xii) in his
discussion of attempts to specify the
learning process in differential asso-
ciation. A careful reading of the
Burgess and Akers (1966b) paper,
however, reveals fundamental over-
sights of such a nature that those un-
familiar with operant conditioning
principles may be misled. Moreover,
their propositionsare inconsistentwith
the operant conditioning dictum that
variables be restricted to observable
events.
As Burchard (1971) notes, there
has been a "remarkable"increase re-
cently in the attemptsto apply learning
principleswithin criminologyand cor-
rections. He identifies as a "critical
problem"a "... misunderstandingof
460 SOCIALPROBLEMS

the basicprinciplesof applied behavior of differential association can be de-

analysis .. ." (Burchard,1971:306). rived, reformulating the theory, and
It is necessaryat this early stage in the helping criminologists become aware
introduction of operant conditioning of advances in learning theory. They
to criminologists to attempt to com- combine Sutherland'sfirst and eighth
municate to those in our own dis- propositions into a single proposition
cipline, without alteration,those basic that:
principles so meticulously induced in Criminal behavior is learned according
the psychologicallaboratories.1 to the principlesof operantconditioning
(Burgess & Akers, 1966b:137).
PROPOSITIONS
CRIMINOLOGICAL
Their summarydescriptionof operant
Following Burgess and Akers
(1966b) and Sutherlandand Cressey principles is succinctand lucid. How-
(1970), the empirical generalizations ever, one fundamentalmatter requires
of deviantbehaviorare statedin Table comment.They state:
1. One distinguishing characteristic of
operant behavior as opposed to respon-
BURGESS AND AKERS dent behavior,then, is that the latter is
Sutherland's 1st and 8th Proposition a function of its antecedent stimuli,
where the former is a function of its
Burgess and Akers indicate that al- antecedent environmental consequences
though differentialassociationremains (p. 133).
untested due to problems in opera-
tionalization, operant conditioning Although temporaldistinctionsbecome
quite minute in some experiments,the
principlesare capableof providing the
refined constructsnecessaryto update ordering of the events in time is un-
the theory so that it explains both equivocal. At time1 exist antecedent
individual criminalityand crime rates, entities;at time2exist the behaviorand
and becomes empiricallytestable.Pro- its concomitantenvironmentalentities;
at time3 exist the environmentalcon-
posing their end results to be a re-
shaping of differentialassociation(but sequences whose covariation with a
not a new theory), they state their second, almost identical behavior at
time4 is of interest. It can be argued
goals as making explicit the learning that Burgess and Akers's statementis
process from which the propositions not merely inaccuratebut contradic-
1 For a discussionof operantprinciples
tory, for "antecedent"means "before"
in the psychologicalliterature,see Hendry and
(1969), Kelleher and Gollub (1962),
"consequences"implies "after."If
Kimble (1961), Skinner (1953), and they mean that a given behavioris the
Staats and Staats (1963). Discussion of result of a similar behavior having
these principles from the perspective of occurred earlier and having been re-
"behavioralsociology" may be found in inforced,
they have phrased it un-
Burgess and Akers (1966a), Burgess and
Bushell (1969), and Franklin (1970, cearly.
1971). The application of learning prin- They present experimentalevidence
ciples to other constructs is not new. to support the conclusion that normal
Forty-nine years ago Burnham (1924) social behaviorand certainnoncriminal
translatedpsychoanalytictheory into learn- forms of deviant behavior are deter-
ing terms, and 32 years ago Vamberg mined by the laws of operantbehavior.
(1941) was relatingbehaviorismand crimi-
nality. Do criminalbehaviors,they ask, obey
 TABLE 1
PROPOSITIONS CRIMINALBEHAVIOR
REGARDING
Sutherland Burgess-Akers
I. Criminalbehavioris learned. I. Criminalbehavioris learnedaccordingto I.
VIII. The process of learning criminalbe- the principlesof operantconditioning. th
havior by associationwith criminaland anti-
criminalpatternsinvolves all of the mech-
anismsthat are involvedin any otherlearning.
II. Criminalbehavioris learned in interac- II. Criminalbehavioris learnedboth in non- II.
tion with other personsin a processof com- social situations that are reinforcingor dis- so
munication. criminativeand throughthat social interaction cr
in which the behavior of other persons is in
reinforcingor discriminativefor criminalbe- rei
havior. ha
III. The principalpart of the learning of III. The principal part of the learning of III
criminalbehavioroccurswithin intimateper- criminal behavior occurs in those groups cri
sonal groups. which comprisethe individual'smajor source wh
of reinforcements. of
IV. When criminalbehavioris learned,the IV. The learning of criminalbehavior, in- IV
learningincludesa) techniquesof committing cluding specific techniques, attitudes, and clu
the crime,which are sometimesvery compli- avoidance procedures,is a function of the ulu
cated, sometimesvery simple; b) the specific effective and available reinforcers,and the ced
directionof motives, drives, rationalizations, existing reinforcementcontingencies. pu
and attitudes. pu
tro
V. The specific direction of motives and V. The specificclass of behaviorswhich are
drivesis learnedfrom definitionsof the legal learnedand their frequencyof occurrenceare
codes as favorableor unfavorable. a function of the reinforcerswhich are effec-
tive and available, and the rules and norms
by which these reinforcersare applied.
 TABLE 1 (Continued)
Sutherland Burgess-Akers
VI. A personbecomesdelinquentbecauseof VI. Criminalbehavioris a functionof norms V.
an excessof definitionsfavorableto violation which are discriminativefor criminal beha- wh
of law over definitionsunfavorableto viola- vior, the learning of which take place when for
tions of law. such behavioris more highly reinforcedthan an
noncriminalbehavior. for
mo
VII. Differential associationsmay vary in VII. The strengthof criminalbehavioris a VI
frequency,duration,priority,and intensity. direct function of the amount,frequency,and a
probabilityof its reinforcement. an
ish
ab
IX. While criminalbehavioris an expres-
sion of general needs and values, it is not
explainedby those general needs and values Omit
since noncriminalbehavioris an expression
of the sameneedsand values.
 Differential Association 463

the same laws as normal behaviors? sion of reinforcement. Further, they

They inquire:
Can we be sure that these same prin-
ciples are operatinghere? Unfortunately, reformulationin terms of social iden-
no studies have attempted to test di- tification is both incomplete and less
rectly the relevance of these behavioral parsimonious than a learning theory
principles to criminal behavior (1966b: formulation.
136).
This is a straightforward,empirical
question which suggests that such an
effect should be demonstratedand fol-
lowed by a number of replications,
varying the criminalbehaviorsand the
means of operationalizing them. A
fundamentalaspect of such a demon-
stration is a broaderissue confronting
all of criminological research: crim-
inologists have not (perhaps cannot)
precisely and unequivocally specified,
identified, and measuredtheir depen-
dent variable. To ask if behavior,
which is differentiatedfrom other be-
havior only by the label we place upon
it, is governed by a separatebody of
behavioralprinciplesis a pseudo issue.
Neither Sutherland nor the proponents
of learning principles have suggested
that their theories should be restricted
to affectivelyspecific behaviors.More-
over, this issue raised by Burgess and
Akers stands in sharp contradictionto
a position they take at a later point in
their paper when they state, in a posi-
tion that logically follows from their
first proposition:
Thus, if Sutherlandcan be interpretedas
meaning that criminal and noncriminal
behaviors cannot be maintainedby the
same set of reinforcers,we must dis-
agree (p. 145).
Sutherland's2nd Proposition
Presenting empirical support for
their position, they arguethat symbolic
interaction,though necessary,is not a
sufficient explanation of criminality,
and becomes so only with the inclu-
present convincing empirical support
for their position that Glaser's (1956)
Sutherland's3rd Proposition
Burgess and Akers alter the third
proposition so that "intimatepersonal
groups" becomes "those groups which
comprisethe individual'smajor source
of reinforcements," suggesting that
such groups may include mass media
and reference groups. However, their
term "groups," which suggests only
social interactionalelements, conflicts
with their position that nonsocialvari-
ables should be included.
Sutherland's4th Proposition
In their treatment of the fourth
proposition, Burgess and Akers retain
Sutherland's term "technique" and
change "rationalization"(a mentalistic
concept) to "avoidance procedures"
(actual behavior), a definite refine-
ment of the proposition.They identify
Sutherland's focus as "motivation,"
and identify this with the Staats and
Staats(1963) treatmentof "attitudes,"
the second variablethey retain in their
revised proposition. They appear to
have incorporated Sutherland's "mo-
tives-drives-attitudes"triad under the
Staats and Staats (1963) concept of
"attitudes." However, the process
(classical conditioning of meaning,
not operant conditioning as specified
by the Burgess and Akers proposition
1) theorized by Staats and Staats to
produce "attitude" responses remains
an unresolved empirical issue. Cohen
(1964), Rozelle (1967), Insko and
Oakes (1966), and Page (1969) have
challenged the Staats and Staats posi-
464 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

tion, primarily on the awarenessand Whether the spirit of a learningprin-

demand characteristics issue. Staats ciple translationis upheld by the in-
(1969) has replied, and other works clusion of the terms "rule" and
(Zanna, et al., 1970; Bakker-DePree, "norm"is less clear. If the term "dis-
et al., 1970; Miller, 1966) have sup- criminativestimulus"were to be used
ported Staats.Identificationof this set in place of "rules" and "norms" in
of empirical studies as part of the propositionfive, then it could be com-
"laws" Burgess and Akers had indi- bined with proposition four.
catedwould underlietheir propositions
Sutherland's6th Proposition
may be consideredpremature.Further,
they have left out a significant theo- Burgess and Akers's (1966b:142)
reticalaspectof the Staats(and others) treatmentof the sixth proposition is
work, which is relevant to criminal especially important,as it is the prin-
behavior. That body of literature ciple of differential association.They
clearly demonstratesthat attitudes are state:
not learned from reinforcersonly, but Criminalbehavioris a functionof norms
may be learned from aversive stimuli which are discriminativefor criminalbe-
also. Burgess and Akers's proposition havior,the learningof which takes place
is limited to "positive attitudes." A when such behavior is more highly re-
inforcedthan noncriminalbehavior.
more fundamental issue, however, is
the mere inclusion of attitude, a frail It is entirelypossible for an individual
concept at best (Franklin, 1969). to learn and to maintain criminal be-
Prestholt (1969) has rejectedthe tra- havior completelydevoid of any social
ditional concept of attitude and has component. Burgess and Akers are
suggested a new concept based on unequivocal on this point. However,
operantprinciples.Tarter (1970), re- their proposition limits the SDs con-
sponding to learning principles, sug- trolling criminal behavior to social
gests the prevailingconceptof attitude norms. Of course, the Burgess and
be discardedcompletely.Certainly,the Akers propositionsix is consistentwith
retention of "attitude"in the Burgess Sutherland'sposition that social vari-
and Akers fourth propositionservesto ables are the causativevariableunder-
maintainthe difficultiesinherentin the lying criminal behavior, but not with
mentalistic concepts which have so the earlierBurgess and Akers position
plagued differential association. The (their proposition two). If they are
way out of this theoreticalquagmireis to admit nonsocial variables in proposi-
to speak not of attitudes,but of stim- tion two, they must also admit non-
ulus and responsechains. social variables as discriminative stim-
uli in proposition six, unless they
Sutherland's5th Proposition mean to imply that nonsocial variables
Burgess and Akers's use of the term can serve as reinforcers, but not as
"effective" in both their fourth and SDs. This cannot be the case, for in
fifth proposition is superfluous.A re- proposition two, they state, "Criminal
inforcer is by definition effective. behavior is learned . . . in nonsocial
When it stops being effective, it is no situations that are discriminative .."
longer a reinforcer.The revised fifth (Burgess & Akers, 1966b:139).
proposition appears to be an accurate Also, they state (p. 139), "For ex-
translation of Sutherland's meaning. ample, specific individuals as physical
 Differential Association 465

stimuli may acquirediscriminativecon- representthe choice of those empirical

trol over an individual's behavior." generalizationsfrom the field of learn-
Yet proposition six clearly includes ing most applicableto behavioridenti-
only social variablesas the stimuli dis- fied as criminal. The answer is, pos-
criminativefor criminalbehavior.Pos- sibly not. This does not mean that a
sibly, Burgess and Akers meant that thoughtful scrutiny of the principles
norms are the stimuli which most of learning cannot produce a compre-
often possess discriminative control hensive, yet pragmatic,set of proposi-
over criminal behavior. Although this tions. However, such a task is beyond
may be true, it is not what the proposi- the scope of this analysis.
tion says. Thus, the Burgessand Akers Burgess and Akers have indicated
propositionstwo and six are contradic- that Sutherland'spropositionsare de-
tory. Moreover, an inclusive body of ficient for their failure to include non-
learning principles of criminal be- social (noninteractional) variables.
havior must include not only humans This issue will allow researchersto
functioning as nonsocial entities, but test the adequacy of the Sutherland
nonhuman elements as well. theory. If nonsocial variables can be
shown to be of major importancein
Sutherland's7th Proposition the acquisitionor maintenanceof de-
Earlier,Burgess and Akers included viance, differentialassociationmay be
deprivationlevel in their discussionof consideredinadequate.
the learning process. Yet, they have
left it out at the most significantpoint CRIMINOLOGICALLY APPLIED
-the causal proposition. A complete PRINCIPLES OF
identificationof those variables neces- LEARNING
sary to account for the strength of the Learning principles have already
learning of criminal behavior must in- been applied in clinical criminology,
clude the level of the state variables, empiricallytested, and shown to hold
both those internal to the individual promise (Bailey, et al., 1970; Barlow,
or group and the "nature"of the re- et al., 1969; Bednar,et al., 1970; Bel-
inforcer, and aversivestimuli. Such an castro, 1969; Brown and L'Abate,
addition is consistentwith Sutherland's 1969; Buehler, et al., 1966; Burchard,
term "intensity." 1967; Clements and McKee, 1968;
Cohen, et al., 1969; Colman and
DISCUSSION
Baker, 1969; Jesness, 1970; Klein-
The propositionsset forth in Table knecht, 1969; Martin, et al., 1968;
1 are not theory in the usual socio- Meichenbaugh, et al., 1968; Milan,
logical sense. They are the result of 1971; Perkins, 1967; Phillips, 1968;
an inductive process, based on data Schwitzgebel, 1967; Schwitzgebeland
from the psychologist's laboratories. Kolb, 1964; Staats and Butterfield,
They are those empirical generaliza- 1965; Tyler and Brown, 1967, 1968).
tions from the field of learning iden- A review (Adams, 1972) of em-
tified by criminologistsas necessaryfor pirical tests of operant conditioning
both prediction and manipulation of principles within the criminal justice
deviant behaviorat individual and so- system revealed only those sources
cial levels of analysis. It is necessary cited immediately above. Several of
to ask, therefore, if these propositions those sources are concernedonly with
466 SOCIAL PROBLEMS

learningof an academicnatureand are had successfully readjusted. Schwitz-

not addressed to "therapeutic"be-
havior change. Only 14 studies met
the criteriaof being methodologically
sound, and including as a dependent
variable some behavior which would
contributeto the S's noncriminalad-
justment.Those studies (see Table 2),
which span the major offender types
and correctional agencies, have sup-
ported "correctionalbehaviormodifica-
tion." However, only three studies
(Colman and Baker, 1969; Klein-
knecht, 1969; Schwitzgebeland Kolk,
1964) have included a follow-up as-
sessment. Colman and Baker (1969)
report a behaviormodificationexperi-
ment utilizing primarily nonsocial re-
inforcers, but including social reward
and punishment,with institutionalized
military offenders. A variety of be-
haviors, from work behavior to social
cooperation, was successfully shaped.
The follow-up revealedthat 70 percent
of the experimental group had suc-
cessfullyreadjustedto Army life, while
only 28 percent of a control group
gebel and Kolb (1964) used both so-
cial and nonsocialreinforcersto shape
the arrival time of adolescent male
offenders who were paid to talk into
a tape recorder.A three-yearfollow-
up revealed the experimental group
to have significantlyfewer arrestsand
months of incarcerationthan a con-
trol group. Kleinknecht (1969) used
nonsocialrewardand punishmentwith
trafficoffenderswho had violated their
probation.He made restricteddriving
licenses (valid for only a few weeks
at a time) contingentupon good driv-
ing. In a three-monthfollow-up, the
experimental group showed signifi-
cantly more days before a trafficviola-
tion occurredthan did a controlgroup.
However, the groups did not differ in
the absolute number of accidents or
trafficviolations.
Those papers reviewing the correc-
tional behavior modificationliterature
(Bailey, 1970; Hindelang, 1970;
Stumphauzer, 1970; Vietor, 1967;
Yates, 1970; Zimberoff, 1968) have

TABLE 2
EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF THE APPLICATION OF OPERANT CONDITIONING
PRINCIPLES IN CLINICAL CRIMINOLG5

Institutional setting Community setting

Adult Juvenile Adult Juvenile

Supports operant 1. Brown & 1. Tyler & 1. Barlow, et 1. Schwitzgebel

principles L'Abate Brown (1967) al. (1969) & Kolb
(1969) 2. Burchard 2. Kleinknecht (1964)
2. Boren & (1967) (1969) 2. Schwitzgebel
Colman 3. Phillips (1968) (1967)
(1970) 4. Bailey, et al. 3. Perkins
3. Belcastro (1970) (1967)
(1969)
Does not support
operant
principles
In progress 1. Milan (1971) 1. Jesness (1970)
 Differential Association
cautiously suggested that these prin-
ciples can be advantageouslyapplied
within the criminal justice system.
In addition to the studies cited
above, there are a large number of
studies from outside the criminal jus-
tice system, indicating that operant
conditioning principles have success-
fully altered human behavior.2
It appearsthat criminologicaltheory
and practice can successfully employ
operant conditioningprinciples. These
comprise the process of learning left
out of differential association. How-
ever, sociologists and criminologists
are attuned to observing primarilyso-
cial variables,often in an ex post facto
manner, for explanationsof behavior.
This analysishas suggestedthat a great
deal is to be gained by abandoning
biases for types of variablesand specu-
lations about intangibles, and simply
focusing on the consequencesof be-
havior. It will be found that some
consequencesare followed by changes,
while others are not. It is a simple
matter to deal solely with those con-
sequences having an observable im-
pact on the behaviorand disregarding
the remainder. By so doing, we in-
crease the likelihood that the relation-
ships we consider are the important
ones.
In our focus on deviant or criminal
behavior,we must distinguishbetween
the acquisitionand the maintenanceof
behavior. It is quite possible that very
different variables account for these
two stages. Sutherland seemed to be
concerned with the acquisition stage.
However, once the behavioris emitted,
and reinforced, "association"becomes
irrelevantand the reinforcingeffect of
2 Reviews may be found in Fieldman
(1966); Franks (1969); Grossberg
(1964); Rhinard (1969); Yates (1970).
Also see footnote 1.
467
the deviancetakesover (maintenance).
This distinction may prove to have
considerable significance for clinical
criminology.
REFERENCES
Adams, R.
1972 An Experimental Evaluation of
the Adequacy of Differential As-
sociation Theory and a Theoreti-
cal Formulation of a Learning
Theory of Criminal Behavior.
(Doctoral dissertation, Florida
State University) Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University Microfilm,
No. 72-13,483.
Bailey, J. S.
1970 Home-Based Reinforcement and
the Modification of Pre-Delin-
quents' Classroom Behavior. (Doc-
toral dissertation, University of
Kansas) Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University Microfilms, No. 70-
25298.
Bailey, J. S., M. M. Wolf, and E. L.
Phillips
1970 "Home-based reinforcement of
pre-delinquents' classroom be-
havior." Journal of Applied Be-
havior Analysis 3:223-233.
Bakker-dePree, B. J., P. B. Defares, and
E. J. Zwann
1970 "The conditioning of evaluative
meaning." Acta Psychologica 32:
281-289.
Barlow, D. H., H. Leitenberg, and W. S.
Agras
1969 "Experimental control of sexual
deviation through manipulation
of noxious scene in covert sen-
sitization." Journal of Abnormal
Psychology 74:596-601.
Bednar, R. J., P. F. Zelhart, L. Greathoure,
and S. Weinberg
1970 "Operant conditioning principles
in the treatment of learning and
behavior problems with delinquent
boys." Journal of Counseling Psy-
chology 17:492-497.
Belcastro, F. P.
1969 "The use of programmed instruc-
tion in Canadian correctional in-
stitutions." The Canadian Journal
of Corrections 4:233-240.
Brown, E. C. and L. L'Abate
1969 "An appraisal of teaching ma-
468 SOCIALPROBLEMS
chines and programmedinstruc-
tion with special referenceto the
modificationof deviantbehavior,"
in C. M. Franks (ed.) Behavior
Therapy-Appraisal and Status.
New York; McGraw-Hill.
Buehler,R. E., G. R. Patterson,and J. M.
Furniss
1966 "The reinforcementof behavior
in institutionalsettings."Behavior
Researchand Therapy4:157-167.
Burchard,J. D.
1967 "Systematicsocialization:A pro-
grammed environment for the
habilitation of antisocial retar-
dates." PsychologicalRecord 17:
461-476.
1971 "Behavior modificationwith de-
linquents: Some unforeseen con-
tingencies." Americal Journal of
Orthopsychiatry 41:306-311.
Burgess,R. L. and R. A. Akers
1966a "Are operantprinciplestautologi-
cal?" Psychological Record 16:
305-312.
1966b "A differential association rein-
forcementtheory of criminal be-
havior." Social Problems 14:
128-147.
1969 Behavioral Sociology-The Ex-
perimental Analysis of Social
Process. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Burnham,W. H.
1924 The Normal Mind. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Clements,C. B. and J. M. McKee
1968 "Programmedinstructionfor in-
stitutionalizedoffenders: Contin-
gency managementand perform-
ance contracts." Psychological
Reports 22:957-964.
Cohen, B. H.
1964 "Role of awareness in meaning
establishedby classical condition-
ing." Journal of Experimental
Psychology67:373-378.
Cohen, H. L., J. A. Filipczak, J. J. Bis,
J. Cohen and P. Larkin
1969 "Establishingmotivationally ori-
entated educational environments
for institutionalizedadolescents." Insko,C. A. andW. F. Oakes
Proceedingsof the 59th Annual
Meeting of the AmericanPsycho-
pathologicalAssociation.
Colman,A. D. and S. L. Baker
1969 "Utilization of an operant con-
ditioning model for the treatment
of character and behavior dis-
orders in a military setting."
American Journal of Psychiatry
125:101-109.
Cressey,D. R. and D. A. Ward
1969 Delinquency, Crime and Social
Process. New York: Harper and
Row.
Feldman,M. P.
1966 "Aversiontherapyfor sexual de-
viations: A critical review." Psy-
chological Bulletin 65:65-79.
Franklin,B. J.
1969 "Attitudes and behavior: Mea-
surement precision, conceptual
confusion,or theoreticalnaivete?"
Proceedings of the Southwest
SociologicalAssociation19:112.
Franklin,C. W., Jr.
1970 "Towardsa clarificationof oper-
ant principles in human interac-
tion." The PsychologicalReview
20:489-494.
Franklin,C. J., Jr.
1971 "Operantconcepts and social in-
teraction."PacificSociologicalRe-
view 14:5-20.
Franks,C. M.
1969 BehaviorTherapy: Appraisaland
Status. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gibbons,D. C.
1968 Society, Crime, and Criminal
Careers. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Glaser, D.
1956 "Criminality theories and be-
havioral images."AmericanJour-
nal of Sociology61:433-444.
Grossberg,J. M.
1964 "Behavior therapy: A review."
PsychologicalBulletin 62:77-88.
Hendry,D. P. (ed.)
1969 ConditionalReinforcement. Home-
wood, Ill.: Dorsey.
Hindelang,M. J.
1970 "A learningtheory of the correc-
tional process." Issues in Crimi-
nology: A Behavioral Science.
Journal in Criminologyand Cor-
rections 5:43-58.
1966 "Awarenessand "conditioning"of
attitudes."Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology4:487-496.
Jeffery, C. R.
1965 "Criminalbehavior and learning
 Differential Association
theory."The Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminologyand Police Sci-
ence 3:294-300.
Jesness,C. F.
1970 The Youth CenterResearchProj-
ect: Differential Treatment of
Delinquentsin Institutions.Sacra-
mento, California:AmericanJus-
tice Institute.
Karen,R. L. and R. C. Bower
1968 "A behavioralanalysisof a social
control agency: Synanon." The
Journalof Researchin Crimeand
Delinquency5:18-34.
Kelleher, R. and L. R. Collub
1962 "A review of positive conditional
reinforcement."Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Be-
havior 5:543-597.
Kimble, J.
1961 Conditioningand Learning.New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kleinknecht,R. A.
1969 A programof behaviormodifica-
tion for problemdrivers.In R. D.
Rubin and C. M. Franks (eds.)
Advances in Behavior Therapy.
New York: AcademicPress.
Martin, M., R. Burkholder,T. Rosenthal,
R. Tharp, and G. Thorpe
1968 "Programming behavior change
and reintegration into school
milieux of extremeadolescentde-
viants." Behavior Research and
Therapy 6:371-383.
Matthews,V. M.
1968 "Differential identification: An
empirical note." Social Problems
15:376-383.
Meichenbaum,D. H., K. S. Bowers, and
R. R. Rose
1968 "Modification of classroom be-
havior of institutionalizedfemale
adolescent offenders." Behavior
Researchand Therapy 6:343-353.
Milan, M. A.
1971 An EcologicalExperimentin Cor-
rections:A ProgrammedEnviron-
ment for Behavior Modification.
Elmore, Alabama: Rehabilitation
ResearchFoundation.
Miller, A. W.
1966 "Relationships of awareness to
verbal learning efficiency and
meaning change." Psychological
Reporter3:875-883.
Mower, D. H.
469
1966 "The behaviortherapieswith spe-
cial reference to modelling and
imitation." American Journal of
Psychotherapy20:439-461.
Page, M. M.
1969 "Social psychology and classical
conditioning of attitudes experi-
ment." Journalof Personalityand
Social PsychologyVII:177-186.
Perkins,M. J.
1967 Effects of Play Therapy and Be-
havior Modification Approaches
with Conduct Problem Boys.
(Doctoral dissertation,University
of Illinois) Ann Arbor,Michigan:
University Microfilms,No. 1830.
Pfuhl, E. H., Jr.
1970 "Mass media and reported de-
linquent behavior: A negative
case," in M. E. Wolfgang, L.
Savitz, and N. Johnson (eds.)
The Sociology of Crime and De-
linquency.New York: Wiley.
Phillips, E. L.
1968 "Achievementplace: Token rein-
forcementproceduresin a 'home-
style' rehabilitation setting for
'pre-delinquent'boys." Journal of
Applied BehaviorAnalysis 1:213-
223.
Prestholdt,P. H.
1969 The Effects of Social Reinforce-
ment and Punishment on At-
titudinalOperants.(Doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Minne-
sota) Ann Arbor,Michigan:Uni-
versity Microfilms,No. 6840.
Ray, E. T. and K. L. Kilburn
1970 "Behaviormodificationtechniques
applied to community behavior
problems." Criminology 8:173-
184.
Riess, A. J. and A. L. Rhodes
1964 "An empiricaltest of differential
association theory." Journal of
Research in Crime and Delin-
quency 1:5-18.
Rhinard,L. D.
1969 A Comparisonof the Effectiveness
of Non-Directive Play Therapy
and Behavior Modification Ap-
proaches. (Doctoral dissertation,
Florida State University) Ann
Arbor, Michigan: University
Microfilms,No. 11155.
Rozelle, R. M.
1967 Learning Evaluative Responses:
470 SOCIALPROBLEMS
An Attempt to Experimentally
Demonstrate a Learning Theory
Interpretationof Attitude Change.
(Doctoral dissertation, North-
western University) Ann Arbor,
Michigan: University Microfilms,
No. 66-14055.
Schwitzgebel,R. and D. A. Kolb
1964 "Inducing behavior change in
adolescentdelinquents."Behavior
Researchand Therapy 1:297-304.
Short,J. F., Jr.
1960 "Differential association as a
hypothesis:Problemsof empirical
testing."Social Problems8:14-25.
Skinner,B. F.
1953 Science and Human Behavior.
New York: Macmillan.
Staats,A. W.
1969 "Experimentaldemand character-
istics and the classical condition-
ing of attitudes."Journal of Per-
sonalityand SocialPsychology11:
187-192.
Staats,A. W. and W. H. Butterfield
1965 "Treatmentof nonreading in a
culturally deprived juvenile de-
linquent: An applicationof rein-
forcementprinciples."Child De-
velopment36:925-942.
Staats,A. W. and C. K. Staats
1963 Complex Human Behavior-A
Systemic Extension of Learning
Principles.New York: Holt, Rine-
hart and Winston.
Stanfield,R.
1960 "The interactionof family vari-
ables and gang variables in the
aetiology of delinquency."Social
Problems13:411-417.
Stratton,J. R.
1967 "Differentialidentificationand at-
titudes toward the law." Social
Forces 46(2):256-262.
Stumphauzer,J. S.
1970 "Behaviormodificationwith juve-
nile delinquents." Florida Cor-
rectional Institution Treatment
Notes 1.
Sutherland,E. H. and D. Cressey
1970 Principles of Criminology.Phila-
delphia: Lippincott.
Tarter,D. E.
1970 "Attitude: The mental myth."
The American Sociologist 5:276-
278.
Tyler, V. 0. and G. D. Brown
1967 "The use of swift, brief isolation
as a group control device for in-
stitutionalized delinquents." Be-
havior Researchand Therapy5:1-
9.
Tyler, V. 0. and G. D. Brown
1968 "Tokenreinforcementof academic
performancewith institutionalized
delinquentboys."Journalof Edu-
cationalPsychology59:164-168.
Vambery,R.
1941 "Criminologyand behaviorism."
Journal of CriminalLaw, Crimi-
nology and Police Science32:158-
173.
Vietor, W. P.
1967 "Conditioningas a form of psy-
chotherapyin treatingdelinquents:
Some data from the literature."
ExcerptaCriminologica7:3-6.
Voss, H. L.
1964 "Differential association and de-
linquent behavior." Social Prob-
lems 12:78-85.
Yates, A.
1970 Behavior Therapy. New York:
Wiley.
Zanna, M. P., C. A. Kiesler, and P. A.
Pilkonis
1970 "Positive and negative attitudinal
affect establishedby classicalcon-
ditioning."Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology4:321-328.
Zimberoff,S. J.
1968 "Behaviorand modificationwith
delinquents." Correctional Psy-
chologist 3:11-25.