When American Criminologist Edwin Sutherland first proposed his theory of differential association, his intention was to create a theory that explained why some members of a community become criminals and some do not. Sutherland realized that even though certain crimes are more common in minority communities, not all members of that community are criminals. This also holds true with more affluent communities. His theory is meant to go beyond racial and ethnic barriers and explain the factors that influence criminal behavior.
First presented by Sutherland in 1939, the differential association theory uses a sociological approach to explain how criminals learn the techniques and rationalizations of criminal behavior. This theory was finalized in 1947 in the fourth edition of Sutherland’s book, “The Principles of Criminology”. Considered to be a forerunner in a new shift in thought, differential association was one of the first theories to veer away from the earlier classical individualist theories that focused on the individual and subscribed to the idea of the born criminal. According to Sutherland, the tendency for criminality is neither inherited nor predestined. Instead, his theory contends that outside factors have a significant influence over an individual’s behavior. Just as socially acceptable behavior is learned by interacting and communicating with others, so too is deviant behavior.
Like other learning theorists, Sutherland argued that small, intimate groups are where the most important learning takes place. These groups are those with whom the individual associates with on a regular basis such as family and friends. Of these groups, the primary reference group is the family since that is where one’s understanding of values and societal norms first begins. People teach each other a variety of things during social interaction. Among these things are the rationale, attitudes, and techniques used to justify and commit crimes. Sutherland referred to this as “definitions favorable to violation of law”. These definitions will be reinforced if deviant individuals are part of the person’s life for a period of time; the longer the duration of contact, the higher the risk of criminal behavior. Simply put, deviant behavior is learnable and is learned through frequent association with others who believe in and engage in criminal acts. The earlier in life the person comes into contact with deviant members of their group, the higher the risk that the person will follow the path of becoming a criminal.
Criminal behavior may be an expression of general needs and values but this does not explain crime because non-criminal behavior is also an expression of the same needs and values. For example, if a person sees something they need but cannot afford, he or she may decide to simply take it without paying for it. Yet, another person in the same situation may decide to either do without the needed object or save enough money to buy it. These decisions are dependent upon the level of the person’s definitions that are either favorable or unfavorable to violations of law. Those with an excess of definitions favorable to law breaking will view criminal acts as a social norm.
Rooted in the Chicago School of criminology, Sutherland’s theory continues to be among the most respected criminological theories today. Differential association has been criticized for being too general and failing to address certain personalized crimes, however, advocates of the theory responded by refining it and applying it to a broader range of deviant behavior.