Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory in Practice

Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory is an attempt to explain the motivations and mindsets associated with criminal behavior. In essence, it states that criminal behavior, like much of human behavior, is learned rather than innate; that otherwise transgressive actions become valid when a person associates with others who provide such validation.

According to Sutherland, the degree and frequency of criminal associations varies widely, but the mechanism is the same as with any other learned behavior. The most powerful influences come when the incipient criminal participates in small, intimate groups. In such groups, criminal behavior becomes a shared value, along with, importantly, the perceptions of society and the assumptions that validate breaking the rules of what might be perceived as an uncaring or unjust society. Breaking the rules becomes not just accepted but praiseworthy behavior. Sutherland, Cressy, and Luckenbill (1995) were careful to explain that criminal behavior is not based on needs: “While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values, since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values (p.68). What occurs is that a criminal’s associations create in his mind the values that say that criminal behavior is an acceptable, even the preferable way to meet one’s needs.

Since the theory was formulated, many researchers have attempted to empirically validate Sutherland’s criminal theory. There is a rich mine of data to use, in that demographics and statistics related to criminal populations in developed countries are readily available. For example, Bruinsma (1992) determined that “It is the deviancy of others that has the most substantial impact: the more youngsters have contact with their friends, the stronger the impact…on the development of positive definitions” (p.29). Many in the criminological and behavioral fields have found a strong correlation between the associations a person has when young and future behavior.

It is interesting to examine the motivations behind a specific type of criminal behavior: terrorism, or the commission of violent acts of mass murder and/or destruction, frequently with an avowed political motivation. The political motivation rings hollow in the statements of most terrorists, however, simply because most terrorist acts are, if anything, counterproductive to the political or social agenda the terrorists profess to support. Through the lens of Sutherland, then, a terrorist’s actions are the result of associations with other like-minded individuals in small, closely-knit groups. Conventional morality is subsumed to the expressed philosophies and mindset of the group. Borum (2010) notes that significantly, “Social scientists have recognized perceived injustice and humiliation as central factors in understanding violence generally and terrorism specifically” (p. 4). The terrorist reasons that conventional morality (almost all societies view killing as immoral) does not apply; this can be seen in that many terrorist manifestoes state that a “war” exists between them and their targets, justifying acts of mass murder of the “enemy.”

Still, one wonders just how distorted a person’s mindset has to be to rationalize mass killing, often of people whose only association with the perceived enemy is that they are citizens of that country. The answer, in terms of the Differential Association Theory, is that the small, intimate nature of terrorist cells is an ideal breeding ground for differentiated, anti-social thinking. Some of the most notorious terrorist organizations continually quote an ideology based on perceived injustice: the PLO (Israel’s existence), Al-Qaida (the West’s supposed disrespect for Islam), and the IRA (Britain’s continued military presence in Northern Ireland). In each case, group collaboration and reinforcement serves to justify horrific acts by individuals.

References

Borum, R. (2010). Understanding terrorist psychology. Miami, FL: University of South Florida Press.

Bruinsma, G. J. (1992). Differential association theory reconsidered: An extension and its empirical test. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8(1), 29-49.

Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., & Luckenbill, D. (1995). The theory of differential association. In Deviance: A symbolic interactionist approach (pp. 64-68). Lanham, MD: General Hall.