Differential Association Theory

What is differential association theory?

Differential association theory is Sutherland's account of how criminal behavior can be learned through social relationships. It includes learning techniques, motives and interpretations favorable or unfavorable to lawbreaking.

Sutherland (1940) applies this account to white-collar as well as other crime. The nine propositions in Principles of Criminology place particular weight on an excess of definitions favorable to violating the law. They also state that general needs alone cannot explain crime, because lawful behavior can serve the same needs.

Sutherland’s nine propositions

In compact form, the theory proposes:

1. Offending is acquired through learning.
2. Communication with other people supplies that learning.
3. Close personal groups are its main setting.
4. People learn both methods and reasons for offending.
5. They learn attitudes that support or oppose breaking laws.
6. A balance favoring lawbreaking encourages offending.
7. Associations differ in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
8. The process uses mechanisms also involved in other learning.
9. General needs do not distinguish crime from lawful ways to meet those needs.

Four ways associations differ

The seventh proposition is about the character of the contact, not just the number of people someone knows:

• Frequency: how often contact occurs—for example, daily conversations rather than an occasional encounter.
• Duration: how long each contact lasts or how long the relationship continues.
• Priority: how early the learning occurs. The account proposed that patterns learned in childhood might persist, while acknowledging that this proposed importance of early learning had not been adequately established.
• Intensity: the significance of the source and relationship, including the source's prestige and the emotional reactions tied to the association.

These dimensions help explain why repeated messages from an admired close associate might carry a different weight from a passing comment by a stranger. They are parts of the proposed theory, not a validated formula for predicting who will offend.

Differential association theory example

Imagine a newcomer entering a workplace where colleagues repeatedly excuse dishonest reporting. The theory directs attention to the justifications learned in that group, rather than treating contact with one dishonest person as a sufficient explanation. This is an illustration, not a finding about a particular workplace.

What the theory does not establish

The theory is not a claim that merely knowing someone who commits crimes inevitably causes offending. Its propositions describe a proposed learning explanation that requires empirical testing.