Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory: A Foundational Perspective on Learned Criminal Behavior

In the realm of criminology, understanding the roots of criminal behavior has long fascinated scholars and practitioners alike. Edwin H. Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory stands as a revolutionary framework that shifts the focus from individual pathology to social learning processes. By asserting that criminal behavior is not an inherent trait but rather a product of social interactions within intimate groups, Sutherland invites us to reconsider how we perceive delinquency and its origins in our communities. This perspective challenges conventional wisdom by highlighting the critical role that family, friends, and societal influences play in shaping behaviors deemed deviant.

As we delve deeper into Sutherland’s groundbreaking theory, it becomes evident that understanding crime through this lens not only enriches our comprehension of individual actions but also illuminates broader patterns within society. From white-collar crimes committed by those in power to juvenile delinquency among at-risk youth, Differential Association Theory provides valuable insights into why individuals gravitate toward anti-social behaviors based on their surrounding influences. By exploring these dynamics further, we can develop more effective interventions aimed at preventing crime through positive reinforcement of lawful conduct while fostering healthier social environments for future generations.

Introduction to Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory

Edwin H. Sutherland (1883-1950) is widely recognized as one of the most important criminologists of the twentieth century, primarily for formulating the “differential association” theory of crime and delinquency. Sutherland’s theory represents a significant shift in criminological thought, moving away from explanations rooted in biological or psychiatric pathologies that were popular at the time. Instead, it firmly anchored criminology within the discipline of sociology by proposing that criminal behavior is learned.

Historical Evolution and Conceptual Refinements

Sutherland’s “differential association” theory was not static but underwent significant development across successive editions of his textbook, Principles of Criminology. Initially, in the 1924 edition, Sutherland adopted a “multiple-factor” approach to explaining crime (Bruinsma, 1992). However, even at this early stage, he was focused on a universal explanation of crime, the interaction between individuals and their social environment, and the idea that crime, like all other behaviors, is learned rather than resulting from “heritable defects” (Akers, 1998, p. 23).

By the 1934 edition, Sutherland’s own perspective began to emerge more clearly, emphasizing that a “failure to follow a prescribed pattern of behavior is due to the inconsistency and lack of harmony in the influences which direct the individual”. This linked crime to “cultural conflict,” a central concept in the “Chicago school” of sociology that Sutherland joined (Bruinsma, 1992). The first full statement of his theory, featuring seven propositions, appeared in the 1939 edition, attempting to connect macro-level culture conflicts and meso-level social disorganization with individual-level contacts with criminals (Matsueda, 1988).

The Definitive Version of Sutherland’s Theory

The definitive 1947 version of the theory, consisting of nine propositions, significantly refined these ideas. A notable change was the elimination of propositions concerning higher aggregational levels, shifting the focus primarily to the individual learning process. Although he separated the concept of “differential social organization” (to explain crime rates) from “differential association” (to explain individual criminal behavior), Sutherland maintained that these concepts must be consistent and linked (Akers, 1998, p. 22). This distinction aimed to explain why individuals commit crimes while also making sense of variations in crime rates across groups and societies.

The learning process itself, according to Sutherland, involves “all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning” (Kusumawati, 2021). He also recognized that an exact quantifiable “ratio” of definitions favorable to unfavorable would be “extremely difficult” to produce, but conceptually, if favorable definitions are exactly counterbalanced by unfavorable ones (a ratio of 1:1 or “unity”), the outcome becomes “increasingly uncertain” (Akers, 1998, p. 29).

Core Propositions of Differential Association Theory (1947 Version)

Sutherland’s final theory is comprised of nine propositions:

1. Criminal behavior is learned. It is not inherited, nor is it invented by someone not already trained in crime.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a process of communication. This includes verbal communication and “the communication of gestures”.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes:
   • Techniques of committing the crime (which can be simple or complicated).
   • The specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of legal codes as favorable or unfavorable.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. This is the principle of differential association. It’s crucial to understand that this is not simply associating with “bad companions,” but rather about the balance of exposure to differing patterns and “definitions” (rationalizations and attitudes).
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
   • Frequency and duration are straightforward.
   • Priority refers to the idea that early childhood learning (lawful or delinquent) may persist throughout life, though Sutherland noted this hadn’t been fully demonstrated.
   • Intensity relates to factors like the prestige of the source of a criminal or anti-criminal pattern and emotional reactions.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. Sutherland briefly noted that this involves more than direct imitation.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, because non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values (Akers, 2000, pp. 72-74).

---

Sutherland believed that his theory could explain a wide range of criminal behavior, including “white-collar crime,” which he defined as crimes committed by individuals in positions of power during their occupations. He argued that the same processes of learning definitions favorable to law violation, such as rationalizing illegal business practices, applied to the upper classes as well. His work on white-collar crime and “The Professional Thief” are seen as practical illustrations of differential association.

The Macro-Micro Link: Differential Social Organization

A crucial, yet sometimes overlooked, aspect of Sutherland’s broader vision was the link between his micro-level theory of individual criminal behavior (differential association) and macro-level explanations for variations in crime rates. Sutherland distinguished between “differential association” as an explanation for individual behavior and “differential social organization” (or “social disorganization”) as a theory for group or societal crime rates. He posited that the latter explains why individuals are exposed to the particular patterns of associations they have (Akers, 1998, p. 22).

Sutherland believed that his theory could “make sense of the gross facts about crime and delinquency” and was greatly concerned with organizing and integrating factual information about crime rates (Sutherland et al., 1992, p. 100). He saw differential social organization as the cause of differences in group or societal crime rates, which in turn was consistent with differential association explaining individual behavior. This perspective suggests that social structure arranges different sets of learning environments, thereby influencing patterns of associations and reinforcement. For example, in communities with high crime rates (socially disorganized areas), individuals are more likely to be exposed to definitions favorable to crime, which is consistent with the principles of differential association (Hirschi, 1969, p. 15).

Later reformulations, particularly Akers’ Social Structure and Social Learning (SSSL) model, explicitly attempted to integrate these macro-level social structural factors (like social disorganization or location in the social structure by class, race, gender) with the micro-level social learning variables (Akers, 1998, p. 326). This integration views social structure as shaping the learning environments that either promote or inhibit criminal behavior.

Empirical Research On Differential Association Theory

The Reiss and Rhodes Study

Reiss and Rhodes’ empirical study (1964) significantly contributed to the understanding and critical evaluation of Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory by providing a direct empirical test using self-reported actual delinquent behavior of boys in close friendship triads. Their primary finding was that the probability of an individual committing a specific delinquent act depends upon the commission of the act by other members of the friendship triad.

However, they critically noted that Sutherland “never explicitly formulated his hypothesis of differential association in operational terms,” leading them to devise their own approach. A key contribution was demonstrating that a literal deduction from Sutherland’s theory—that all or none of the boys in a close friendship triad should report committing the same kind of offense—was not observed. Instead, they found a “substantial number of triads where only one or two members… committed the same kind of delinquent act,” which “call[s] into question any postulate about the homogeneity of law-violative behavior in triads through differential association”.

They concluded that the observed distribution of delinquency in close friendship triads departs “somewhat less from a random model than the differential association hypothesis,” especially for more serious offenses. This suggests that a strict interpretation of differential association as a sufficient explanation for individual delinquency has limitations.

The Role of Social Class in Delinquency

Furthermore, Reiss and Rhodes introduced important nuances regarding the theory’s applicability. They found that the dependence of a boy’s delinquent behavior on his close friends’ behavior is not independent of social class status. For blue-collar boys, this dependence holds for all six kinds of delinquency, but for white-collar boys, it is true only for less serious offenses like theft under $50 or vandalism; serious delinquent behavior among white-collar boys was “relatively independent of their close friendship choices”. This finding lends support to theories like those of Cohen and Miller, which differentiate between lower and middle-class gang behavior.

They also clarified that while most delinquent behavior is group activity, “behavioral homophily in triads does not necessarily involve association in the commission of offenses”, noting that some offenses are more clearly group activities than others. Overall, their study’s findings were “disappointing to proponents of differential association theory” because the observed association, while greater than chance, was “well below what one would expect from the learning hypothesis”. They emphasized that the study “cannot be construed as a test of the genetic formulation of the differential association hypothesis,” highlighting the persistent difficulty in testing inferences from the theory.

The Reed Adams Study

Reed Adams’ study (1974) presented a direct empirical challenge to Sutherland’s theory by experimentally comparing the influence of social and nonsocial variables on criminal behavior. Through a randomized two-factor design experiment focusing on theft, Adams found that a nonsocial variable (monetary reinforcement unrelated to peer pressure) was “considerably more powerful” than a social variable (monetary reinforcement from a delinquent peer) in determining theft behavior. This finding contradicts the premise that social interactions are the primary or sole determinants of criminal behavior, suggesting that theories like Sutherland’s, which predominantly consider social factors, are not fully supported by empirical evidence.

The study also highlights critical methodological issues, noting that Sutherland “never explicitly formulated his hypothesis of differential association in operational terms,” which has long hindered adequate empirical assessment. Adams concludes that criminologists should integrate both social and nonsocial variables into their explanations of criminal behavior, proposing that nonsocial factors might be crucial for understanding the “birth of criminal behavior”.

Aldurawish’s Findings: The Interplay of Parental, Peer, and Environmental Influences on Delinquency

Munirah Abdulrah Aldurawish’s qualitative study on juvenile delinquency (2021) found that deviant peer groups and deviant parents have a similar and significant effect on a teenager’s life during adolescence, reinforcing the idea that both types of intimate groups play an important role in influencing behavior.

The research hypothesized a direct linkage between having deviant parents or friends and becoming involved in criminal activity, and the findings supported the strong influence of both. Beyond direct association, the study also identified that slum neighborhoods, a fragile personality, and poverty play critical roles in delinquency, broadening the understanding of contributing factors beyond purely social learning. Importantly, Aldurawish’s work underscores the potential for a “great parent role” to help reduce juvenile delinquency, offering a practical implication derived from the theoretical understanding of differential association. Overall, the study highlights that while deviant behavior is learned through interaction within intimate groups, a complex interplay of social, environmental, and individual factors contributes to juvenile delinquency.

Policy Implications and Practical Applications

Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, along with its subsequent social learning reformulations, offers clear implications for crime prevention and intervention, moving beyond simply explaining criminal behavior. The theory suggests that since criminal behavior is learned, it can also be unlearned or prevented through structured interventions that alter learning environments (Sutherland et al., 1992, p. 333).

The core idea is that promoting “relations in the culture of law-abiding groups” and discouraging “relations in procriminal culture” are essential for modifying criminality (Sutherland et al., 1992, p. 583). This means that conventional or anti-criminal attitudes and behaviors should be appreciated and reinforced, while expressions of disapproval for criminal acts should be fostered.

The Role of Parents and Family in Socially Deviant Behavior

Understanding Differential Association Theory’s premise that criminal behavior is learned through social interaction within intimate personal groups provides a foundation for developing practical interventions aimed at preventing or reducing delinquency and criminal activity. One significant area of application revolves around the critical influence of parents and peer groups. Aldurawish’s qualitative study highlights that deviant peer groups and deviant parents similarly impact a teenager’s life, underscoring the importance of both in shaping behavior (Aldurawish, 2021). This implies that interventions focusing on strengthening positive parental roles can be highly effective in reducing juvenile delinquency.

Extending this, Apriliani Kusumawati’s research on children (2024) examined the role of family in acts of terrorism, noting that both parents significantly influence and contribute to the formation of crimes committed by children, particularly as the family is the “first party that provides the basic values for children”. This connection between parental ideology and a child’s susceptibility to radicalization points towards the necessity of family-centered deradicalization programs.

The underlying message is that deviance stems from a variety of social influences beyond the juvenile’s immediate peer group.

Specific Policy and Program Applications

• Targeting association patterns: Interventions could aim to reduce exposure to definitions favorable to law violation and increase exposure to conventional, anti-criminal definitions (Sutherland et al., 1992, p. 583).
• Direct manipulation of service systems: Some experimental investigations have explored manipulating the structure of service systems to apply principles of differential association deliberately (Anderson, 1999).
• Addressing white-collar crime: Sutherland’s own work on white-collar crime explicitly used differential association to explain how individuals in positions of power learn to rationalize illegal business practices. This implied that interventions targeting such groups should focus on altering the “definitions” prevalent in their professional environments (Akers, 1998, pp. 41-42).
• Family and peer interventions: The emphasis on intimate personal groups as primary learning contexts suggests that interventions should focus on family and peer relationships. For example, some programs apply General Strain Theory (which integrates with social learning and social bonding theories) in family and school interventions (Akers, 2000, p. 162).
• Beyond clinical methods: Differential association implies that traditional “clinical methods” alone may be insufficient to modify criminality because they don’t directly address “group relations” and the learning environments where crime is acquired. Therefore, programs should focus on broader social and group contexts (Sutherland et al., 1992, p. 583).
• Integrated approaches: Social learning theory, as an extension of differential association, is often a main component of various integrative models in criminology, suggesting its utility in comprehensive crime reduction strategies alongside social bonding and strain theories (Cullen et al., 2011, p. 358).

---

These implications highlight the theory’s focus on socialization processes and the balance of influences an individual receives, rather than solely on individual pathology or deterrence through punishment.

Criticisms of Differential Association Theory

Despite its widespread influence, Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory faced several criticisms:

• Untestability and Vagueness: A frequent criticism was that Sutherland did not explicitly formulate his hypothesis in operational terms, making it difficult to empirically test concepts like “excess of definitions,” “duration,” or “intensity”. Researchers often reported insurmountable problems in testing it (Rojek & Jensen, 1995, p. 100; Bruinsma, 1992).
• Emphasis on Class: Many criminologist criticize Sutherland’s emphasis on class as “a major explanation for how crime is created and laws are enforced” (Moyer, 2001, p. 238).
• “Bad Companions” Misinterpretation: A common misconception was that the theory simply meant people become criminals by associating with other criminals (“bad companions”). However, the theory emphasizes the learning of “definitions” or patterns of behavior, which can come from anyone, criminal or non-criminal (Sutherland et al., 1992).
• Origin of Crime: Critics argued that the theory explains how criminal behavior is transmitted but not its initial origin (Sanders, 1981, p. 73).
• “Cultural Deviance” Critique: Some scholars, notably Ruth Kornhauser and Travis Hirschi, characterized differential association as a “cultural deviance” theory. This critique suggests the theory rests on faulty assumptions, such as definitions compelling norm violation or the impossibility for individuals to deviate from their group’s culture. Ronald Akers, a key figure in the theory’s development, strongly refuted this, arguing that such interpretations misrepresent Sutherland’s original intent and the social learning reformulation (Akers, 1998, p. 90).

Neglect of Individual Differences or Situational Factors

One of the most glaring weaknesses of Differential Association Theory is its neglect of the role of personality traits. Sutherland himself acknowledged that his theory might need to account for personality traits, although he questioned how such traits would supplement his learning-based approach (Sutherland et al., 1992, p. 95). This long-standing criticism, noting the theory’s failure to consider personality traits and individual differences, has been a frequent point of discussion in academic literature. Recent research by Natalija Djakovic and Michael T. Rowlands (2024) directly addresses this gap by investigating the predictive power of personality traits, specifically the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy), alongside Differential Association Theory variables in predicting antisocial behavior.

Their study found that Dark Triad traits, as well as interpersonal/affective features and lifestyle features, are significant predictors of antisocial behavior. Crucially, they demonstrated that Dark Triad traits and total psychopathy contributed significant additional variance in antisocial behavior even after accounting for differential association theory variables. This suggests that while social learning plays a vital role, inherent personality dispositions offer a powerful and independent explanation for criminal behavior, leading to a more comprehensive and robust model for predicting antisocial acts when integrated with the principles of differential association.

Comparison to Other Theories of Criminology

Differential Association Theory laid crucial groundwork for subsequent sociological explanations of crime and continues to be compared, contrasted, and integrated with various other criminological perspectives.

Social Learning Theory (Ronald Akers):

• Akers’ Social Learning Theory is the most direct and significant reformulation and extension of Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory (Rojek & Jensen, 1995, p. 128).
• Akers and Robert Burgess explicitly identified the learning mechanisms that Sutherland left unspecified, incorporating principles from operant and respondent conditioning developed by behavioral psychologists. This includes concepts like differential reinforcement (behavior shaped by rewards and punishments) and imitation (observational learning) (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 120).
• Social Learning Theory is seen as a broader and more thoroughly tested theory than Sutherland’s original. Empirical tests consistently show strong support for social learning variables, often explaining more variance in criminal behavior than other theoretical models (Akers & Sellers, 2009, p. 120)..
• Akers also proposed the Social Structure and Social Learning (SSSL) model, which integrates macro-level social structural factors (like social disorganization or location in the social structure by class, race, gender) with the micro-level social learning variables (Cullen et al., 2011, p. 54).

See Akers’ Social Learning Theory for more information on this theory

Social Control Theory:

• Control theories pose a different fundamental question: “Why does anyone conform? Why don’t we all violate the rules?” (Sanders, 1981, p. 63).
• Early proponents, like Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, often presented control theory (including their General Theory of Crime and low self-control) as incompatible with social learning and other “positivistic” theories, arguing that self-control is the primary cause of crime (Akers, 1998, p. 91).
• However, others have attempted to integrate them, recognizing that social control involves social learning through socialization. For instance, Differential Anticipation Theory combines elements of control and differential association. David F. Luckenbill revised Sutherland’s textbook, maintaining the original statements while acknowledging other revisions (Akers, 2000, p 87).

Strain Theory:

• Strain theories focus on the motivation for crime arising from social structural pressures and individual experiences of strain (e.g., status frustration) (Cullen et al., 2011).
• Delbert Elliott’s integrative model explicitly combines propositions from strain, social control, and social learning theories, suggesting that high strain and weak conventional bonds can lead youth to associate with and imitate delinquent peers (Sanders, 1981, p. 63). Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory further refines this perspective (Cullen et al., 2011).

See Strain Theory for more information on this theory

Labeling Theory:

Labeling theory concentrates on the societal reaction to deviance and how the application of stigmatizing labels can lead to further criminal behavior. Kaplan’s work, for example, explores how self-esteem mediates learning, bonding, and labeling effects (Akers, 2000, p. 255).

See Labeling Theory for more information on this theory

Differential Opportunity Theory (Richard Cloward & Lloyd Ohlin):

While influenced by Sutherland, Cloward and Ohlin criticized Merton’s anomie theory and emphasized that delinquent subcultures arise based on socially structured variations in the availability of illegitimate means (Moyer, 2001, p. 71).

Classical Theory:

Sutherland’s theory explicitly contrasted with classical perspectives that emphasize free will and rational choice, as differential association views criminal behavior as learned rather than a purely chosen act based on cost-benefit analysis (Sutherland et al., 1992).

Biological and Psychological Theories:

Sutherland was critical of the prevailing biological and psychological theories that attributed crime to inherent defects or individual pathologies. His theory offered a starkly different, sociological explanation (Moyer, 2001, p. 120).

Conflict Theory:

Sutherland’s work, particularly on white-collar crime, is recognized as a forerunner of current conflict theory, by asserting that definitions favorable to crime could be prevalent in upper-class business communities (Moyer, 2001, p. 120).

Associated Concepts

• Deviance: This refers to any behavior, thought, or characteristic that significantly departs from what is considered appropriate, acceptable, or typical within a particular social group, culture, or society.
• Atavistic Theory of Crime: This theory proposed by Cesare Lombroso in the late 19th century suggests that criminals are “born criminal” due to their physiological traits.
• Amoral Model: This is a theoretical framework that outlines the development and manifestation of dark creativity. It traces a creative action from its Antecedents to Mechanisms and Operands to its Realization, and to the subsequent After-effects and Legacy to act.
• Subculture of Violence Theory: This theory proposes that certain groups or subcultures within society develop norms and values that condone or even encourage the use of violence.
• Social Norms: These are the unwritten rules guiding behavior within societies, impacting interactions, individual choices, and overall well-being. While fostering social cohesion, they can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and inhibit individuality.
• Life-Course and Developmental Criminology: This examination of deviant behavior focuses on how biological, social, and psychological factors shape criminal behaviors across an individual’s lifespan.
• Social Bond Theory: This theory developed by Travis Hirschi, explores why most individuals refrain from criminal activity by emphasizing the importance of social bonds. It asserts that strong attachments, commitments, involvement, and beliefs deter deviance, while weakened connections may lead to delinquent behavior.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

In conclusion, Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory fundamentally reshapes our understanding of criminal behavior by emphasizing the significance of social learning within intimate relationships. As we have explored throughout this article, the theory illustrates how individuals are influenced by their associations with others—whether those influences be positive or negative. This shift from viewing crime solely as an individual failing to recognizing its roots in community and familial dynamics allows for a more comprehensive approach to addressing delinquency. By acknowledging that criminal behaviors are learned through interactions and not predetermined, we open the door to transformative strategies aimed at cultivating healthier social environments.

Ultimately, integrating Sutherland’s insights into contemporary criminological practices offers promising pathways for intervention and prevention efforts. As society grapples with various forms of crime—from street-level offenses to complex white-collar fraud—it becomes increasingly clear that fostering supportive networks can counteract negative influences. By prioritizing positive relationships and reinforcing lawful attitudes within communities, we can strive toward reducing crime rates while promoting resilience among future generations. Thus, embracing the tenets of Differential Association Theory is not just an academic exercise; it serves as a vital blueprint for building safer societies rooted in understanding and empathy rather than stigma and isolation.

Last Update: August 13, 2025