Edwin H. Sutherland’s theory of differential association argues that criminal behaviorAny criminal action that violates legal codes. is learned through social interaction. A person becomes delinquent when they are exposed to more definitions favorable to breaking the law than to definitions unfavorable to it. This approach moves away from ideas of biological determinism or individual pathology and emphasizes the social context in which crime is transmitted.
Key Points
Differential Association Theory
Main Proponent: Edwin H. Sutherland
First Formulation: 1939 (Principles of CriminologyThe scientific study of crime, criminal behavior, prevention, and societal reactions to deviance within and beyond the criminal justice system., 3rd edition)
Country of Origin: United States
Core Idea: Criminal behavior is learned through social interaction, especially in intimate groups, where definitions favorable to crime outweigh definitions unfavorable to crime.
Foundation for: Social Learning Theory (Akers), Differential Opportunity Theory (Cloward & Ohlin), Cultural Transmission Theories
Theory
Sutherland’s differential association theory posits that criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others who already engage in crime. It is sometimes called the „theory of differential contact,“ but the term „association“ is more precise: not every contact with criminals leads to criminality, but only those that successfully transmit criminal values, attitudes, and techniques.
The central thesis is that people learn to commit crime when they are exposed to an excess of definitions that favor violating the law over those that condemn it. Put simply, criminal behavior is more likely if a person has frequent, intense, and meaningful contact with individuals or groups who justify or model such behavior—and less likely if they are surrounded by conforming influences.
Sutherland summarized his theory in nine key propositions:
- Criminal behavior is learned.
- It is learned in interaction with other people through communication.
- The principal learning takes place within intimate personal groups (rather than, for example, via mass media).
- Learning includes techniques of committing crime as well as specific motives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
- The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal code as favorable or unfavorable.
- A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to law violation over definitions unfavorable to violation.
- Differential associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
- The learning process for criminal behavior involves all the mechanisms used in any other learning.
- While criminal behavior expresses general needs and values, it is not explained by them alone, as non-criminal behavior can stem from the same needs and values (e.g., sexual desire).
Historical Significance:
Although Sutherland’s theory of differential association may seem self-evident today, at the time it marked a decisive break with dominant criminological thinking. In an era still shaped by Lombroso’s biological determinism and the search for innate criminal types, Sutherland shifted the focus radically to social processes. He argued that crime was not biologically inherited or predetermined, but learned through social interaction.
This was a profound innovation: it reframed criminality as the product of ordinary social learning mechanisms that could operate in any community. Rather than labeling certain people as „born criminals,“ Sutherland emphasized environment, culture, and communication, laying the groundwork for sociological and interactionist criminology. His theory challenged reductionist, stigmatizing approaches and opened the door to seeing crime as a social phenomenon amenable to social solutions.
Implications for Criminal Policy
Sutherland’s theory implies a fundamentally rehabilitative approach. If criminal attitudes and behaviors are learned, they can, in principle, be unlearned or replaced with prosocial alternatives. Justice and social policy should therefore aim to surround offenders with non-criminal influences and disrupt social environments that reinforce criminal definitions and values.
More broadly, criminal law and correctional systems should prioritize rehabilitation over mere punishment, recognizing that behavior change is possible through social learning and supportive interventions.
Sutherland developed his theory in the early-to-mid 20th century, an era marked by rapid urbanization, immigration, and industrial change in the United States. The “typical” offender in sociological studies of the time was often imagined as a young, working-class male involved in street gangs, petty theft, or vice industries—what later generations might picture as “greasers” with slicked-back hair and leather jackets.
Sutherland’s work also directly challenged stereotypes about crime being a lower-class problem. Famously, he coined the term „white-collar crime“ to highlight that learning criminal behavior was not confined to street gangs but also occurred in corporate boardrooms. His framework insisted that crime existed across social classes and was always rooted in learned definitions favorable to violation of the law.
Critical Appraisal & Relevance
Sutherland’s differential association theory has faced criticism for its conceptual gaps and potential tautology: crime must already exist for it to be transmitted. Critics also argue that it underestimates individual variation in cognitive capacities and fails to explain impulsive or affective crimes driven by emotion rather than learned definitions.
Sutherland himself acknowledged that individual differences matter, and later theorists expanded on his ideas. Cloward and Ohlin emphasized access to illegitimate means, while Glaser argued that identification with deviant models is more important than mere contact. Akers (and Eysenck) incorporated principles of conditioning and social learning, detailing how imitation, reinforcement, and modeling shape behavior.
Despite these criticisms, differential association marked a turning point in criminology by shifting focus from individual pathology or biological determinism to social processes. It paved the way for sociological and socio-psychological explanations of crime, emphasizing that deviance is not innate but learned through cultural transmission.
Literature
- Edwin H. Sutherland (1924): Principles of Criminology. 1966 edition with Donald R. Cressey, Philadelphia.