Jeremy Gordon
Web Project, Section 4
Contemporary Usage and Popularity of Differential Association Within Criminology
During his time, Edwin Sutherland was one of the most revered figures in the history of sociological criminology (McCarthy 1996). Unfortunately, as Matsueda (1988:277) points out in a review of the ‘current state of differential association theory’ by the 1980s Sutherland’s theory had fallen from grace, replaced by social control or integrated theories. This conclusion is supported by Stitt and Giacopassi’s (1992:4) finding that only 11 out of 215 empirically based articles focus on the theory of differential association in 28 volumes of Criminology (1963-91), which calculates to just over 5 per cent. As with most theories differential association had become outdated. However, in the early 1990s everything changed.
According to an InfoTrac “OneFile” search (Gale Group 2000), seven articles have been published in Criminology since Stitt and Giacopassi’s (1992) analysis, an increase of over 50 per cent in just nine years. Additionally, approximately 14 articles have been published in various criminological journals, along with several Ph.D. dissertations and books, identifying what McCarthy (1996:145) refers to as a “revitalization of the theory of differential association in the field of criminology.”
Since the renewed interest in Sutherland’s theory, it has been used in various ways to explain crime and delinquency. For example, Warr (1993) evaluates the theory of differential association’s ability to explain the age distribution of crime. In addition to age, researchers such as Alarid et al. (2000) and Heimer and De Coster (1999) look at differential association, among other theories, to explain variations in crime according to gender. Another approach, by Smith and Brame (1994), attempts to find which theoretical models are most appropriate in explaining the “initiation and continuation of delinquent behavior” (607), of which differential association is included and supported by evidence.
Another trend in current research involves using differential association to explain deviant behaviors of today. For example, Hagedorn et al. (1998) attempted to use Sutherland’s theory, along with social control theory, to explain the variations in gang drug use, but were unsuccessful. Of course, according to Sutherland and Cressey (1978) this comes as no surprise. The theory was formulated specifically for explaining variation in deviance at the individual level not the group level. Along those lines, Catalano et al. (1996) and Labouvie (1996) focused on the ability of differential association to explain and predict the use of illegal substances. These authors found much more support for the predictive power of Sutherland’s theory than Hagedorn et al. (1998) since they focused specifically on individual users (Catalano et al. 1996, Labouvie 1996).
Another “new” topic to which differential association is being applied involves computer crimes. Skinner and Fream (1997) examine the origins of computer crimes by testing the ability of social learning theory, including differential association, to explain these behaviors. They assert that since social learning theory has been empirically verified across numerous studies and claims to apply to all types of deviant behavior it should be applicable to illegal computer activities. Additionally, “the very nature of computer crimes requires individuals to learn not only how to operate a highly technical piece of equipment but also specific procedures, programming, and techniques for using the computer illegally” (Skinner & Fream 1997: 498). Ultimately this study demonstrates that measures of differential association, as well as differential reinforcement, are significantly related to a variety of computer activities, among college students, and calls for future research to further expand on this issue (514).
While using differential association to explain various types of crime has been a popular topic, some research has focused on clearing up many of the inconsistencies associated with the theory. Warr and Stafford (1991) argue that the mechanism by which delinquency is socially transmitted remains unclear. While Sutherland’s theory claims that delinquency is a result of an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of law, which are acquired through intimate social interaction with peers (Sutherland 1947), the findings of this study suggest that the behavior of peers is a much stronger influence than attitudes (Warr & Stafford 1991: 862). As such, the authors claim that Sutherland’s theory is incomplete and needs to be altered to include such information (862). Additionally, Akers (1996) identifies two weaknesses within the theory, while simultaneously offering support by attacking criticism associated with viewing differential association as a cultural deviance theory.
Regardless of how it has been used, an increased number of studies have begun focusing on differential association. As such, the theory itself is making a come back into the field of criminology, as well as several other disciplines. Thus, Sutherland’s theory has been in use now for over 50 years and continues to be quite popular in explaining why individuals commit deviant acts. Based on all of the evidence it is apparent to this writer, and many others, that Edwin Hardin Sutherland was one of the greatest criminological theorists of all time. Additionally, the theory differential association is far from being abandoned, perhaps having the strength to carry on for another five decades.
Akers, Ronald L. 1996. “Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance
theory?” Criminology 34(2):229-247.
Alarid, Leanne Fiftal, Velmer s. Burton Jr., and Francis T. Cullen. 2000. “Gender and
crime among felony offenders: assessing the generality of social control and
differential association theories.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
37(2):171-200.
Catalano, Richard F., Rick Kosterman, J. David Hawkins, Robert D. Abbott, Michael D.
Newcomb. 1996. “Modeling the etiology of adolescent substance abuse: a test of
the social development model.” Journal of Drug Issues 26(2):429-456.
John M. Hagedorn, Jose Torres, and Greg Giglio. 1998.
“Cocaine,
kicks, and strain:
patterns of substance use in Milwaukee gangs.” Contemporary Drug Problems
25(1):113-145
Heimer, Karen and Stacy De Coster. 1999. “The gendering of violent delinquency.”
Criminology 37(2):277-314.
InfoTrac Web: Florida State University. http://infotrac.galegroup.com/itweb/tall28252.
Gale Group (2000).
Labouvie, Erich. 1996. “Maturing out of substance use: selection and self-correction.”
Journal of Drug Issues 26(2):457-476.
Matsueda, Ross L.
1988. “The current state of
differential association theory.” Crime
and Delinquency 34(3):277-306.
McCarthy, Bill. 1996. “The attitudes and actions of others: tutelage and Sutherland’s
theory of differential association.” British Journal of Criminology 36(1):135-147.
Skinner, William F. and Anne M. Fream. 1997. “A social learning theory analysis of
computer crime among college students.” Journal of Crime and Delinquency
34(4):495-518.
Smith, Douglas A. and Robert Brame. 1994. “On the initiation and continuation of
delinquency.” Criminology 32(4):607-629.
Stitt, B. G., and D. Giacopassi. 1992. “Trends in the connectivity of theory and research
in criminology.” The Criminologist 17:1-6.
Sutherland, Edwin H. and Donald R. Cressey. 1978. Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B.
Lippincott Company.
Warr, Mark. 1993. “Age, peers, and delinquency.” Criminology 31(1):17-40.
Warr, Mark and Mark Stafford. 1991. “The influence of delinquent peers: what they
think or what they do?” Criminology 29(4):851-866.