Abstract
The first formal statement of Edwin H. Sutherland’s theory of differential association appeared in the third edition of his Principles of Criminology, in 1939. Sutherland later pointed out that the idea of differential association was included in an earlier edition of the text, where it was stated that any person can be trained to adopt and follow any pattern of behaviour which he is able to execute, that failure to follow a prescribed pattern of behaviour is due to inconsistencies in the culture, and that “culture conflict” is therefore the fundamental condition to be considered in any explanation of crime.1 He confessed that he was unaware that this statement was a general theory of criminal behaviour.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Edwin H. Sutherland, Principles of Criminology, Second Edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1934, pp. 51–52.
Edwin H. Sutherland, “Development of the Theory”, in Albert Cohen, Alfred Lindesmith and Karl Schuessler, Editors, The Sutherland Papers, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1956, p. 16.
J. Michael and M. J. Adler, Crime, Law and Social Science, New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1933.
Thorsten Sellin, Culture Conflict and Crime, New York: Social Science Research Council, 1938. In the preface to this volume, Mark A. May says “Professor Sellin wishes to record here his appreciation to his colleague on the subcommittee, Professor Sutherland, who during the entire period that this monograph has been in preparation has assisted with his wise counsel”.
Alfred R. Lindesmith, Opiate Addiction, Bloomington: Principia Press, 1947. Publication of this book was delayed about ten years by the war.
This summary has been taken from Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cressey, Principles of Criminology, Sixth Edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1960, pp. 68–69. See also Donald R. Cressey, Other People’s Money: A Study of the Social Psychology of Emblezzlement, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953.
“Development of the Theory”, op. cit., p. 18.
Edwin H. Sutherland, Principles of Criminology, Third Edition, Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1939, pp. 4–9
Development of the Theory“, op. cit., p. 18.
See Henry D. McKay, “The Neighbourhood and Child Conduct”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 261 (January, 1949), pp. 32–42.
“Development of the Theory”, op. cit., p. 21.
See Richard C. Fuller, “Morals and the Criminal Law”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 32 (March-April, 1942), pp. 624–630.
William Seagle, “Primitive Law and Professor Malinowski”, American Anthropologist, 39 (April-June, 1937), p. 284.
Bertram M. Beck, “The Young in Conflict: Blueprint for the Future”, California Youth Authority Quarterly, 13:3–10, Summer, 1960.
Robert G. Caldwell, Criminology, New York: Ronald Press, 1956, p. 182;
Ruth S. Cavan, Criminology, Second Edition, New York: Crowell, 1955, p. 701;
Marshall B. Clinard, The Process of Urbanization and Criminal Behaviour“, American journal of Sociology, 48 (September, 1942), pp. 202–213;
“Rural Criminal Offenders”, American journal of Sociology, 50 (July, 1944), pp. 38–45;
“Criminological Theories of Violations of Wartime Regulations”, American Sociological Review, 11 (June, 1946), pp. 258–270;
“The Sociology of Delinquency and Crime”, in Joseph Gittler, Editor, Review of Sociology, New York: Wiley, 1957, p. 477; and Sociology of Deviant Behaviour, New York: Rinehart, 1957, p. 240;
H. Warren Dunham and Mary Knauer, “The Juvenile Court in Its Relationship to Adult Criminality”, Social Forces, 32 (March, 1954), pp. 290–296;
Mabel A. Elliott, Crime in Modern Society, New York: Harper Bros., 1952, pp. 347–348;
Sheldon Glueck, “Theory and Fact in Criminology”, British journal of Delinquency, 7 (October, 1956), pp. 92–109;
Robert E. Lane, “Why Businessmen Violate the Law”, journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 44 (July-August, 1953); pp. 151–165;
Walter C. Reckless, The Etiology of Delinquent and Criminal Behaviour, New York: Social Science Council, 1943, p. 60;
James F. Short, Jr., “Differential Association and Delinquency”, Social Problems, 4 (January, 1957), pp. 233–239; and “Differential Association with Delinquent Friends and Delinquent Behaviour”, Pacific Sociological Review, 1 (Spring, 1958), pp. 20–25;
Harrison M. Trice, “Sociological Factors in Association with A. A.”, journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 48 (November-December, 1957), pp. 374–386;
George B. Vold, Theoretical Criminology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1958, pp. 194–195.
Op. cit., p. 194. But see below, p. 87, note 36.
Harry Elmer Barnes and Negley K. Teeters, New Horizons in Criminology, Third Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Prentice-Hall, 1959, p. 159; Caldwell, op. cit., pp. 182–183;
Cavan, op. cit., p. 701;
Clinard, “The Process of Urbanization and Criminal Behaviour”, op. cit.; “Rural Criminal Offenders”, op. cit., and “Criminological Theories of Violations of Wartime Regulations”, op. cit.; Elliott, op. cit., p. 274;
Daniel Glaser, “The Sociological Approach to Crime and Correction”, Law and Contemporary Problems, 23 (Autumn, 1958), pp. 683–702; and Differential Association and Criminological Prediction: “Problems of Measurement”, Social Problems, 8 (Summer, 1960) pp. 6–14;
Glueck, op. cit.; Lane, op. cit.; Reckless, op. cit., p. 60;
Harry M. Shulman, “The Family and Juvenile Delinquency”, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 261 (January, 1949), pp. 21–31;
Donald R. Taft, Criminology, New York: Macmillan, 1956, p. 338.
Caldwell, op. cit., pp. 182–184; Cavan, op. cit., p. 701; Elliott, op. cit., p. 274;
Richard R. Korn and Lloyd W. McCorkle, Criminology and Penology, New York: Holt, 1959, pp. 297–298; Vold, op. cit., pp. 197–198.
Arthur L. Leader, “A Differential Theory of Criminality, Sociology and Social Research, 26 (September, 1941), pp. 45–53.
Glueck, op. cit.;
Clarence R. Jeffery, “An Integrated Theory of Crime and Criminal Behaviour”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 49 (March _April, 1959), pp. 533–552;
Leader, op. cit.; Martin H. Neumeyer, Juvenile Delinquency in Modern Society, Second Edition, New York: Van Nostrand, 1955, p. 152;
James F. Short, Jr., “Differential Association as a Hypothesis: Problems of Empirical Testing”, Social Problems, 8 (Summer, 1960), pp. 14–25;
Trice, op. cit.; S. Kirson Weinberg, “Theories of Criminality and Problems of Prediction”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 45 (November-December, 1954), pp. 412–429.
See the statement on p. 19, above.
Op. cit., p. 182.
Clinard, Sociology of Deviant Behaviour, op. cit., p. 204; Glueck, op. cit., p. 99; Jeffery, op. cit., p. 537.
Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, Revised Edition, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957, pp. 85–117.
Milton L. Barron, The Juvenile in Delinquent Society, New York: Knopf; 1954, p. 101.
Elliott, op. cit., p. 274.
Clinard, “Criminological Theories of Violations of Wartime Regulations”, op. cit.
Taft writes of differential association “with others who have become relative failures or criminals”, but Sutherland’s theory has nothing to say about association with “failures”, unless “failures” and “persons presenting criminal behaviour patterns” are used synonymously. Op. cit.; p. 338.
Walter C. Reckless, The Crime Problem, Second Edition, New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1955, p. 169. This kind of error may stem from Sutherland himself; for in his work on the professional thief he used the term “differential association” to characterize the members of the behaviour system, rather than to describe the process presented in the first statement of his theory, two years later. See Edwin H. Sutherland, The Professional Thief, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937, pp. 206–207.
Howard B. Gill, “An Operational View of Criminology”, Archives of Criminal Psychodynamics, October, 1957, p. 284; Jeffery, op. cit.
Clinard, “Criminological Theories of Violations of Wartime Regulations”, op. cit. If these “modalities”, as Sutherland called them, are ignored, then the theory would equate the impact of a behaviour pattern presented once in a radio show with the impact of a pattern presented numerous times to a child who deeply loved and resprected the donor. It does not so equate the patterns.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1964 Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, Netherlands
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cressey, D.R. (1964). A Statement of the Theory. In: Delinquency, Crime and Differential Association. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9015-2_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-9015-2_1
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-011-8336-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-9015-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive