Differential Association Theory
Introduction
The Differential Association Theory was developed by Edwin Sutherland, a seismologist, and it states that a crime takes place when the right conditions favoring its occurrence are present (Siegel, 2013). On the other hand, a crime is not bound to take place if conditions disfavoring its occurrence are present. Sutherland explained that the occurrence of crime is often driven by intimate groups offering insight, guidance and techniques used in committing these crimes (Siegel, 2013). Sutherland adds that in most cases, group influences affecting individual character tends to be the main causes of crime. This discussion aims to discuss the Differential Association Theory in details and highlight the basic principles behind this theory.
Siegel (2013) points that in high school, the character and mannerisms of most individuals is often defined by groups and cliques. In most cases groups of students with unruly behavior or character often quarrel with the relevant authorities and regulations within the institution. This behavior is explained through the differentiation association theory which attempts to demonstrate the conditions that leads to such crimes. On the other hand, there are student groups that are well behaved and very keen to follow institution’s regulations and such groups tend to have the least likelihood of committing crime which Sutherland explains is because conditions disfavoring its occurrence are present (Siegel, 2013). From this explanation, it is quite clear that the two groups have different understanding regarding the real definition of what makes up a crime.
Although these groups might have a different understanding of crime, Siegel (2013) suggests that they tend to have a similar learning process mechanism based on whether they are learning criminality or conformity. According to Sutherland’s theory, excessive definitions on favorable law violations definitions tends to drive an individual to become delinquent which perfectly fits with the first group (Siegel, 2013). Consequently, the absence of excessive unfavorable law violation definitions compels individuals to conformity which fits with the second group (Siegel, 2013). In other words, Sutherland implies that the difference between these two groups is based on delinquent levels in terms of conditions which are either favorable or unfavorable. The only difference between differentiation association delinquency levels is based on the frequency with which individual members in these groups meet the group’s agenda and priority, as well as the intensity of the message diisucssed and duration of these groups meetings (Siegel, 2013).
As such, differentiation association theory tends to describe the influence that cliques or groups end to have in an individual’s likelihood of committing crime. Chakraborti and Garland (2009) argue that the only limitation to this theory is that it has failed to consider individuals who tend to be introverted or individuals with very strong characters and is unlikely to be influenced in any way through groups. Although this theory has such shortcomings, it is still able to explain the different types of crime and how their growth is influenced through groups.
The Basic Principles Differential Association Theory
According to Edwin Sutherland, crime is a deviant behavior acquired from other people or groups with the aim of realizing a specific goal (Krohn, 2009). Through the basic principles of Differential Association Theory, Edwin Sutherland reflects on the origins of crime and he strongly believed that deviance behavior or crime was not economically or biologically driven but it was learnt through different socialization processes.
Krohn (2009) points that the differential association theory is made up of nine different principles which are outline below;
a. The first principles suggests that criminal behavior is learnt
b. The second principle notes that criminal behavior is learnt from other people through face-to-face interaction or communication.
c. Another Principe suggest that learning takes places in intimate groups or during small gathering that encourage face-to-face interaction
d. Individuals learn or acquire different techniques of committing crime by participating in these intimate groups where they also acquire appropriate attitudes and the rationalizations for engaging in these behaviors
e. Another principle suggests that individuals learn how to direct their motives on the basis of whether they consider a legal code unfavorable of favorable to a particular crime.
f. Sutherland also suggests that individuals are likely to learn crime and other deviant behaviors when the definitions favorable to deviance are more compelling than the definitions unfavorable to law violations.
g. Specific delinquent behaviors are dependent on the duration and frequency of a specific learning experience.
h. Another principle notes that learning delinquent behavior is like any other type of learning process.
i. Finally, Sutherland expresses that both deviant and non-deviant behaviors usually express similar needs with the main difference being the means through which individuals choose to pursue their objectives.
According to Sutherland, the above principles can be used to explain different forms of deviant behaviors such as fighting or violent crime (Krohn, 2009). Sutherland’s nine propositions are based on three important concepts namely;
1. Normative Conflict
2. Differential Association
3. Differential Group Organization
Based on these three groups, it becomes easy to trace the origins and roots of deviant behaviors either at the individual, group or societal levels. For instance, at the society level, crime tends to be grouped in normative conflict which is often a conflict involves attitudes towards specific beliefs, norms or ideas (Krohn, 2009). On the other hand, differentiation association tends to harbor different beliefs in regards to law with some considering law to be among the established rules that have to be followed regardless of the circumstances involved, while at the same time some individuals reason that law refers to a set of rules that can be violated under specific circumstances (Krohn, 2009).
A common deviant behavior that can be explained using these principles is fighting. According to Sutherland, fighting is a learned behavior and it is developed through the influence of excessive attitudes and beliefs that tend to favor fighting (Hirschi, 2002). This can be explained by the fact that fighting tends to uncommon in groups or societies that disregard it to be an appropriate behavior. Sutherland goes further to suggest that this behavior is often acquired through face-to-face interactions with groups that believe in fighting as an acceptable behavior. For example, children are more likely to engage in fighting if their parents condone this kind of deviant behavior (Hirschi, 2002). However, Sutherland notes that peer influence on its own does have the capacity to compel individuals to engage in fighting.
Instead, individuals are likely to learn a particular fighting technique and the definitions that are favorable to fighting. What follows this learning process would be classified as rationalizations that individuals are likely to use in order to justify their actions or behavior to engage in fighting. For example, some people are likely to justify fighting as an acceptable behavior by arguing that almost everyone fights (Hirschi, 2002). In other cases, some people will justify fighting as an expression or demonstration of true masculinity. However, these definitions can be easily erased by principles or definitions that are against law violations such as; Fighting is bad, or its cause’s unnecessary suffering to other individuals (Hirschi, 2002). Based on this understanding, Sutherland argues that whether individuals choose to engage in deviant behaviors or refrain from them, it is mainly dependent on the frequency, duration or intensity involved while presenting these definitions.
From the foregoing, Sutherland’s theory argues that group influence plays a huge role in determining whether individuals engage in crime or refrain from it. The assumptions made with this theory is that when groups have strong organization against crime, they will give numerous definitions that are favor their criminal behavior while presenting very few definitions that are unfavorable to crime (Franzese, 2009). Secondly, Franzese (2009) adds that individuals that grow up in close interaction with groups favoring crime or any other form of deviant behavior are more likely to engage themselves in that particular behavior compared to individuals who grow up in groups that are strongly against any form of crime or deviant behavior
Conclusion
In conclusion, differentiation association theory describes the influence that cliques or groups end to have in an individual’s likelihood of committing crime. Sutherland explained that the occurrence of crime is often driven by intimate groups offering insight, guidance and techniques used in committing these crimes. He further adds that in most cases, group influences affecting individual character tends to be the main causes of crime. The only limitation to this theory is that it has failed to consider individuals who tend to be introverted or individuals with very strong characters and is unlikely to be influenced in any way through groups. However, although this theory has its shortcomings, it still has the ability to explain the different types of crime and how their growth is influenced through groups.
References
Chakraborti, N., & Garland, J. (2009).Hate crime: Impact, causes and responses. London: SAGE.
Franzese, R. J. (2009).The Sociology of Deviance: Differences, Tradition, and Stigma. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.
Hirschi, T. (2002).Causes of delinquency. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction Publishers.
Krohn, M. D. (2009). Handbook on Crime and Deviance. Dordrecht: Springer.
Siegel, L. J. (2013). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
