EXPLORING THE PRINCIPLES OF DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION
There are many different aspects to why a person commits a crime. Numerous studies over a period of years, easily dated back as early as the 1800’s, exemplify that not only are there various theories regarding the means behind criminal acts but also to the extent of which criminologists disagree about the process by which one becomes a criminal. It is the intention of this paper to focus on social learning theory which emphasizes that crime is a learned behavior.
The person most known for this way of thinking, which he entitled the differential association theory, is Edwin Sutherland (date or year dates needed here). Prior to this point, crime had in large been thought to have been a psychological or biological issue (Brown p. 323 - this is MLA style, you just need the date for APA style). Sutherland, however, directed criminal behavior to that which is learned as any other behavior is learned. Sutherland’s theory includes nine principles which break down criminal behavior into the process of which it is learned. It is the objective of this paper to present each point along with examples of each to support Sutherland’s findings.
Literature Review
While Edwin Sutherland is credited for the theory which he calls the Differential Association Theory, others have followed in his steps and researched the issue of societal impact on criminals. This next section will overview other such prominent figures who have directed their research in the area of social learning as an explanation for criminal or delinquent behavior from a microlevel sociological theoretical perspective.
Research conducted by Leanne Alarid and colleagues (2000), by means of self-reported offenses, supported the Differential Association Theory as well as results which also lend support to another competing theory, Hirschi’s social control theory. However, as a whole, their results are stronger and more consistent in favor of the Differential Association Theory. Results also suggest that the Differential Association Theory has a greater effect on males than females. Additional support in favor of the Differential Association Theory can be understood through the positive relationships of peer attachment to all the crime measures for the sample of this study (Alarid, 2000). Similarly, a strong parental bond had a consistent relationship with crime in the sample. A closer relationship showed a decrease in criminal behavior.
Recently, R.L Akers (1998) has combined differential association theory with operant conditioning. Akers suggest that, “delinquent conduct is more likely to develop when the peers of an adolescent define delinquent behavior as appropriate and reward that individual for delinquent behavior. Research has contributed to the belief that criminal behavior is a learned behavior and research testing has established that associating with people that are criminals or delinquent is a very strong predictor of involvement of such behavior.
The research of C.R.Bartol (1989) suggests ties to community and that of socialization reflect the actual individual behavior. This is similar to G. Simmel’s (1922) idea that people’s actions are tied to their attachments with people and institutions. Both researchers’ findings, though distant in time, are conducive to support such findings that suggest stronger bonds to healthy community ties reduce criminal behavior.
Research Plan
Research has been executed to prove the validity or lack thereof in regards
to the differential association theory. In some instances, researchers look at
both the differential association theory perspective and the social control
theory perspective. Whereas the differential association theory focuses on
crime as a learned behavior, the social control theory focuses on crime as a
behavior resulting from a lack of community and family involvement void of any
particular ties. Due to the close relation between the two theories, some
researchers choose to examine both perspectives in their research.
L.F. Alarid in a study involving 1153 participants, tests
both the differential association theory and the social control theory. All
data used in the experiment was gained directly through participants
themselves. Alarid wanted to find whether or not, one or both theories
contributed to delinquency, particularly in juveniles, or if these theories
could also serve to explain criminal behavior among adults. Characteristics of
the study include and are detailed further in Table 1:
-participants originated from the inner city at the time of arrest
-age of participants ranging from 17 – 28 years of age
-the mean level of education completed by participants was at the 10th
grade level
-the median household income for women in the study was $16,800 and
for men it was $27,500.
|
TABLE 1: SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend for Chart: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A - Characteristic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
B - Women (n = 122) |
|
|
|
||
|
C - Men (n = 1,031) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A |
|
|
B |
|
C |
|
Age (17-28 years) |
|
20.6 |
|
19.5 |
|
|
Race\ethnicity (percentage) |
|
|
|
||
|
African American |
|
44.3 |
|
44.4 |
|
|
Caucasian |
|
45.1 |
|
31.4 |
|
|
Hispanic |
|
|
10.7 |
|
23.8 |
|
Formal Education (years) |
10.5 |
|
10.3 |
||
|
Marital\partner attachment |
|
|
|
||
|
(percentage attached) |
32 |
|
35.1 |
||
|
Number of children (percentage) |
|
|
|
||
|
None |
|
|
46.7 |
|
69.8 |
|
One |
|
|
30.3 |
|
21.3 |
|
Two |
|
|
9.8 |
|
6.1 |
|
Three or more |
|
13.1 |
|
2.9 |
|
|
Median household income (in dollars) |
16,800 |
|
27,500 |
||
|
Current conviction (percentage) |
|
|
|
||
|
Drug |
|
|
41.8 |
|
28.9 |
|
Person |
|
|
19.7 |
|
19.5 |
|
Property |
|
|
38.5 |
|
51.6 |
The dependent variable in the
study involved self reported delinquent behavior as utilized by the National
Youth Survey. The study used Cronbach’s alpha method to test reliability and
the level of reliability was significant. The dependent variables in this study
were measured from theoretical tests. It was noted by the researcher that
participants responses were rated on a 6 point Likert scale with answers ranging
from strongly agree to strongly disagree.
Marriage
commitment, attachment to parents and friends, community involvement and beliefs
were looked at to measure the adult social bond in respect to the social control
theory (2000). In regards of the differential association theory, researchers
looked at 3 variables related to this theory which include: participants
definitions in regards to the law, others’ definitions in regards to the law and
the number of friends participants have which are involved in delinquent or
criminal behavior.
The findings
of this study are organized into charts by the researcher. Table 2 organizes
the components of the dependent and the independent variable.
Legend for Chart:
A - Variable
B - Number of Items
C - Women Reliability
D - Women Mean (SD)
E - Men Reliability
F - Men Mean (SD)
G - Sample F-Ratio
A B C D
E F G
Dependent
General crime 35 .82 8.57 (5.12)
(range: 0-26)
.90 9.49 (6.85) 2.06
(range: 0-31)
Violent crime 9 .61 1.64 (1.25)
(range: 0-6)
.66 1.72 (1.70) 0.27
(range: 0-9)
Property crime 15 .72 2.98 (2.60)
(range: 0-11)
.85 4.19 (3.76) 11.99[**]
(range: 0-17)
Drug crime 11 .76 3.96 (2.55)
(range: 0-11)
.81 3.62 (2.72) 1.68
(range: 0-11)
Independent
Social control
Marital/partner
attachment 1 -- 0.32 (0.47)
-- 0.35 (0.48) 0.48
Parental
attachment 3 .75 15.25 (2.98)
.64 14.87 (3.02) 1.77
Peer attachment 2 .81 6.84 (2.91)
.73 7.68 (2.79) 9.58[**]
Involvement 2 .69 6.44 (2.89)
.56 6.09 (2.69) 1.82
Belief 2 .63 8.88 (2.41)
.51 8.11 (2.40) 11.23[**]
Differential association
Individual
definitions 5 .77 10.97 (4.95)
.62 11.98 (4.52) 5.30[*]
Others' definitions 3 .71 9.50 (3.79)
.66 10.11 (3.61) 3.11
Criminal friends 1 -- 2.87 (1.66)
-- 2.77 (1.85) 0.30
[*] p < .05. [**] p < .01.
Table 3 shows that for most of the sample, all 3 of the variable related to the differential association theory were “significantly and directly correlated with property, violent, and drug offenses” (2000). This table also shows that strong family ties and community involvement are significantly correlated with criminal behavior. This aspect supports the social control theory. Evidence was substantiated for participants who actively got along with their parents with a correlation to a less likelihood to become involved in criminal behavior. It was noted that whether or not a woman was married was a strong predictor of crime but not significant in predicting male behavior. In support of the differential association theory, an important aspect of the study was the relation of men’s criminal behavior to peer attachment. Increased peer attachment in regards of criminal behavior as a learned behavior increased when attachment was stronger.
Legend for Chart:
B - General Crime
C - Violent Crime
D - Property Crime
E - Drug Crime
F - Peer Attachment
G - Parental Attachment
H - Marital/Partner Attachment
I - Involvement
J - Individual Belief
K - Other Definitions
L - Criminal Definitions
M - Friends
A B C D
E F G H
I J K L
M
General crime 1.00
Violent crime .75[**] 1.00
Property crime .91[**] .60[**] 1.00
Drug crime .80[**] .44[**] .53[**]
1.00
Peer attachment .15[**] .09[**] .14[**]
.13[**] 1.00
Parent attachment -.23[**] -.16[**] -.22[**]
-.18[**] .05 1.00
Marital/partner attachment -.05 -.01 -.10[**]
-.00 -.07[*] .04 1.00
Involvement -.19[**] -.12[**] -.20[**]
-.14[**] -.10[**] -.01 .10[**]
1.00
Belief -.25[**] -.24[**] -.20[**]
-.18[**] -.02 .21[**] -.02
.18[**] 1.00
Individual definitions .27[**] .29[**] .24[**]
.18[**] .04 -.22[**] -.02
-.17[**] -.54[**] 1.00
Others' definitions .37[**] .32[**] .34[**]
.24[**] .02 -.18[**] -.07[*]
-.28[**] -.29[**] .28[**] 1.00
Criminal friends .39[**] .30[**] .37[**]
.29[**] .02 -.12[**] -.09[**]
-.22[**] -.27[**] .27[**] .42[**]
1.00
[*] p < .05. [**] p < .01.
Legend for Chart:
B - General Crime
C - Violent Crime
D - Property Crime
E - Drug Crime
F - Peer Attachment
G - Parental Attachment
H - Marital/Partner Attachment
I - Involvement
J - Individual Belief
K - Other Definitions
L - Criminal Definitions
M - Friends
A B C D
E F G H
I J K L
M
General crime 1.00
Violent crime .61[**] 1.00
Property crime .86[**] .41[**] 1.00
Drug crime .83[**] .32[**] .50[**]
1.00
Peer attachment .32[**] .13 .31[**]
.27[**] 1.00
Parent attachment -.35[**] -.24[**] -.33[**]
-.25[**] -.12 1.00
Marital/partner attachment -.30[**] -.09 -.29[**]
-.26[**] -.20[*] .08 1.00
Involvement -.26[**] -.38[**] -.13
-.19[*] -.10 -.12 .07
1.00
Belief -.22[*] -.17[*] -.19[*]
-.16 -.13 .27[**] .10
.09 1.00
Individual definitions .28[**] .23[*] .21[*]
.24[**] .19[*] -.20[*] -.01
-.16 -.50[**] 1.00
Others' definitions .47[**] .35[**] .35[**]
.42[**] .17 -.24[**] -.00
-.32[**] -.18[*] .33[**] 1.00
Criminal friends .31[**] .22[**] .28[**]
.23[**] .03 -.10 -.00
-.13 -.12 .14 .28[**]
1.00
[*] p < .05. [**] p < .01.
Table 4 suggests differential association theory is stronger for men. This table shows that this theory is more significant in regards of males versus females. The variables of the differential association theory had greater significance in predicting crime.
Legend for Chart:
A - Variable Name
B - Women (n = 122)
C - Men (n = 1,031)
D - Women and Men (N = 1,153)
A B C
D
Social control
Marital/partner attachment
(0 = not attached) .21 (2.27)[**] .01 (.08)
.02 (.33)
Parental attachment -.31 (-.53)[**] -.09 (-.21)[**]
-.12 (-.32)[**]
Peer attachment .07 (.12) .06 (.16)[*]
.07 (.16)[*]
Involvement -.24 (-.43)[**] -.06 (-.16)[*]
-.07 (-.18)[*]
Belief .03 (.05) -.06 (-.17)
-.05 (-.15)
Differential association
Individual definitions .11 (.11) .12 (.19)[**]
.12 (.17)[**]
Others' definitions .18 (.31)[*] .16 (.31)[**]
.16 (.30)[**]
Criminal friends .16 (.50)[*] .26 (.98)[**]
.26 (.94)[**]
Control variables
Age -.08 (-.15) .03 (.08)
.01 (.04)
Gender (0 = male) -- -- -- --
-.05 (-.93)
Race (0 = non-White) .22 (2.23)[**] .19 (2.75)[**]
.19 (2.64)[**]
R2 .51 .29
.30
[*] p < .05. [**] p < .01.
Table 5 suggests that both social control theory and differential association theory are explanations for criminal behavior. However, once again, all variables of the differential association theory were significant more so in favor of males. In the instance of female criminal behavior, both theories contributed to the explanation of such delinquency.
Legend for Chart:
A - Variable Name
B - Drug Crime Women
C - Drug Crime Men
D - Drug Crime Sample
E - Property Crime Women
F - Property Crime Men
G - Property Crime Sample
H - Violent Crime Women
I - Violent Crime Men
J - Violent Crime Sample
A B C
D E F
G H I
J
Social control
Marital/partner attachment .16 (.89)[*] .04 (.24)
.06 (.33)[*] .21 (1.17)[**] -.04 (-.32)
-.02 (-.18) .08 (.21) .02 (.07)
.02 (.08)
Parental attachment -.18 (-.15)[*] -.06 (-.05)
-.06 (-.07)[*] -.29 (-.26)[**] -.10 (-.12)[**]
-.12 (-.18)[**] -.29 (-.12)[**] -.06 (-.04)[*]
-.10 (-.07)[**]
Peer attachment -.02 (-.02) .06 (.06)
.06 (.06)[*] .15 (.14) .06 (.08)[*]
.07 (.09)[*] .01 (.00) .06 (.04)
.05 (.03)
Involvement -.22 (-.20)[**] -.07 (-.07)[*]
-.09 (-.08)[**] -.10 (-.09) -.07 (-.10)[*]
-.07 (-.09)[*] -.34 (-.15)[**] .01 (.01)
-.02 (-.01)
Belief .01 (.01) -.08 (-.09)[*]
-.07 (-.08)[*] .02 (.02) -.02 (-.03)
-.02 (-.03) .01 (.01) -.05 (-.04)
-.04 (-.03)
Differential association
Individual definitions .11 (.06) .08 (.05)[*]
.09 (.05)[*] .06 (.03) .10 (.08)[**]