Various theories of White

Collar Crime
Differential Association Theory
• Differential association is a theory developed by Edwin
Sutherland (1883–1950) proposing that through interaction
with others, individuals learn the values, attitudes,
techniques, and motives for criminal behaviour.
• This theory focuses on how individuals learn to become
criminals.
• It explains criminal behavior through the process of socialization and
the contacts between members of social groups to which one belongs
a certain delinquent.
• Sutherland presented his theory of differential association in 1939 in
his work named Principles of Criminology.
• The theory was supplemented twice till 1947, in order to make many
changes later, and finally was shaped by Sutherland’s student Donald
R. Cressey.
• He considers that the scientific explanation for criminal behavior can
be expressed in terms of the process by which it is operated at the
moment of the crime happens.
• Some authors consider that the theory of differential association
belongs to a set of criminological theories that are called theories of
symbolic interaction (by George Herbert Mead and developed
by Herbert Blumer)
Symbolic Interaction Theory
1. Humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings
they ascribe to those things.
2. The meaning of such things is derived from, or arises out
of, the social interaction that one has with others and the
society.
3. The Meanings are handled in, and modified through, an
interpretative process used by the person in dealing with
the things he encounters.
Development of Differential Association Theory
• Before Sutherland introduced his theory of differential
association, the explanations for criminal behavior were varied
and inconsistent.
• Seeing this as a weakness, law professor Jerome Michael and
philosopher Mortimer J. Adler published a critique of the field
that argued that criminology hadn’t produced any scientifically-
backed theories for criminal activity.
• Sutherland saw this as a call to arms and used rigorous scientific
methods to develop differential association theory.
• According to this theory, an individual learns delinquent behavior,
accepts it from others, and learning flows through the communication
process.
• An individual becomes delinquent, if he accepts values that support
the violation of law, and not the values of conventional culture.
• The process of learning delinquent behavior involves all the
mechanisms that are important for learning in general.
Base taken from Gabriel Tarde
• Even the French sociologist Gabriel Tarde (1912) had found that
people learn delinquent behaviors through imitation and association,
just as they learn to pursue a profession.
• Edwin H. Sutherland got Tarde's idea as the basis and developed the
theory of the causes of delinquent behavior, which one he called the
theory of different association
• Sutherland hypothesized that people learn delinquent behavior
through association with people who violate social norms.
 Rules are meant to be broken “Douglas MacArthur”

• Criminal behavior is a learning consequence, in that case when an

individual associates with members of delinquent groups, as a result
they approach and adopt their habits.
• By associating with such persons, the individual behaves in opposition
with applicable social norms, takes criminal values and rejects those
that are consistent.
• Thus, individuals think that the law must be violated, not to be
respected, so in that case there is a cultural conflict between society
and the individual
"whom you spend time with, you are the same"
• The potential delinquent does not have any reason to associate with
the other delinquents, but it is sufficient that he is often in that
situation to hear attitudes that support crime or portray it in a
positive light.
• Sutherland’s worked on professional thieves, and found that in
order to become a professional thief, one must become a
member of a group of professional thieves and learn through
them.
• Sutherland initially outlined his theory in 1939 in the third
edition of his book Principles of Criminology.
• He then revised the theory for the fourth edition of the book in
1947.
• Since then, differential association theory has remained popular
in the field of criminology and has sparked a great deal of
research.
• One of the reasons for the theory’s continued pertinence is
its broad ability to explain all kinds of criminal activity, from
juvenile delinquency to white collar crime.
9 postulates
• Sutherland presented 9 postulates that express the main topic of 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.
 Criminal behavior tends to justify the behavior
• Definitions in favour of violating the law could be specific.
• For example, This store is insured. If I steal these items, its
a victimless crime
• Definitions can also be more general, as in This is public land,
so I have the right to do whatever I want on it.
• These definitions motivate and justify criminal activity.
• Meanwhile, definitions unfavorable to violating the law push
back against these notions.
• Such definitions can include, Stealing is immoral or Violating
the law is always wrong
• While the individual is most likely to be influenced by definitions
provided by friends and family members, learning can also
occur at school or through the media.
• For example, the media often romanticize criminals.
• If an individual favours stories of mafia kingpins the exposure to
this media may impact the individuals learning because it
includes some messages that favour breaking the law.
• If an individual focuses on those messages, they could
contribute to an individuals choice to engage in criminal
behaviour.
Skills are required to learn criminal activities
• In addition, even if an individual has the inclination to
commit a crime, they must have the skills necessary to do so.
• These skills could be complex and more challenging to learn,
like those involved in computer hacking, or more easily
accessible, like stealing goods from stores.

• One person can learn these skills by associating himself with

skilled criminals
Criticism
• The theory has been criticized for failing to take individual
differences into account.
• Personality traits may interact with one’s environment to create
outcomes that differential association theory cannot explain.
• They may also be surrounded by influences that don’t espouse
the value of criminal activity and choose to rebel by becoming a
criminal anyway.
• People are independent, individually motivated beings. As a
result, they may not learn to become criminals in the ways
differential association predicts.
• Sutherlands theory has been attacked by many scholars like
Sheldon Glueck, Mabel Elliott, Robert Caldwell, 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, Sutherland has ignored the role of personality or the
role of biological and psychological factors in crime.

• George Void has maintained that Sutherland has ignored the role of secondary
contact and formal groups in criminality.

• Clarence Ray Jeffery holds that Sutherlands theory fails to explain the origin of
criminality since criminality has to exist before it can be learnt from someone
else.
• Mabel Elliot says Sutherlands 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.
• Herbert Bloch is of the opinion that it is virtually impossible
to measure associations in comparative quantitative terms.
• Glueck maintains that an individual does not learn every kind
of behaviour from others; many acts are learnt naturally.
• Caldwell 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.
• Daniel Glaser modified Sutherlands 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.
Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development
(CSDD)
• The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (CSDD) is a
prospective longitudinal study of 411 London males who were first
assessed in 1961–1962 at age 8–9.
• The main aim of the CSDD is to study the development of offending
and antisocial behaviour from childhood to adulthood.
• The males have been interviewed nine times from age 8 to age 48, and
they have been searched in criminal records up to age 61.
• Their parents, children, teachers, peers, and female partners have also
been interviewed.
• Numerous childhood, adolescent, and adult factors have been
measured, including individual, family, and socio-economic factors.
• Up to age 61, 44% of the males were convicted of criminal offences.
• The CSDD shows how a combination of childhood adversities tends to
lead to a combination of adult adversities including offending.
• The study also found that when the men were aged 32, 37%
had been convicted of a criminal offence.
• This rose to only 41 per cent when the men were surveyed at
48 years.
• The most frequent number of offences were committed when
the men were aged 17−20 years of age, suggesting that if
males were at risk of becoming criminals, then this was the age
at which they were most likely to offend.
• The study found a number of predictors at 8–10 years of age, which were thought
to be related to later delinquency and offending.
• These fell into six categories
1.Antisocial behaviour, including being troublesome in school, dishonesty and
aggressiveness.
2.Hyperactivity, attention deficit disorder, daring, risk-taking and poor concentration.
3.Low intelligence and poor school attainment.
4.Family criminality, convicted parents, older siblings and siblings with behavioural
problems.
5.Family poverty, large family size and poor housing.
6.Poor parental child-rearing behaviour, including harsh and inconsistent discipline,
poor supervision, neglect and parental conflict.
9 ways to become a criminal
• Thank You