Offense-Specific Models of the Differential Association Process

This paper attempts to clarify ambiguities and assess the offense-specific nature of Sutherland's differential association theory. We employ two-stage least squares to estimate causal effects in structural equation models specific to six different crimes and two non-criminal deviant acts using data from a large-scale survey of adults. The findings indicate: (1) As Sutherland claimed, excess association with definitions favorable to crime and/or deviance tends to increase crime/deviance (measured here by self-predictions), but this effect is mainly indirect, through increasing motivation to engage in deviant acts; (2) The same differential association process holds for a range of crimes and also for the two non-criminal deviant acts, suggesting that Sutherland's theory is more widely applicable than he himself claimed. Our analysis also suggests one conclusion that is more speculative: Definitions (social messages) favorable to different forms of crime/deviance may form several independent domains rather than a single general domain referring to all crime/deviance.

[1]  Charles R. Tittle,et al.  Modeling Sutherland's Theory of Differential Association: Toward an Empirical Clarification , 1986 .

[2]  Ronald L. Akers,et al.  Social Learning Theory and Adolescent Cigarette Smoking: A Longitudinal Study , 1985 .

[3]  J. Chaiken,et al.  Offender Types and Public Policy , 1984 .

[4]  Scott L. Feld,et al.  The Structured Use of Personal Associates , 1984 .

[5]  R. Akers,et al.  Are self-reports of adolescent deviance valid? Biochemical measures, randomized response, and the bogus pipeline in smoking behavior. , 1983 .

[6]  R. Matsueda.  Testing control theory and differential association: A causal modeling approach. , 1982 .

[7]  J. Harry,et al.  Deterrent and Experiential Effects in Perceptual Deterrence Research: a Replication and Extension , 1982 .

[8]  S. Scheerer.  Cannabis criminals. The social effects of punishment on drug users , 1981 .

[9]  Susan M. Jaquith.  ADOLESCENT MARIJUANA AND ALCOHOL USE , 1981 .

[10]  W. W. Minor,et al.  Techniques of Neutralization: a Reconceptualization and Empirical Examination , 1981 .

[11]  D. Andrews.  Some Experimental Investigations of the Principles of Differential Association Through Deliberate Manipulations of the Structure of Service Systems , 1980 .

[12]  Harold G. Grasmick,et al.  LINKING ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED CERTAINTY OF PUNISHMENT , 1979 .

[13]  K. Halbasch.  DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT THEORY EXAMINED , 1979 .

[14]  L. Lanza-Kaduce,et al.  Social learning and deviant behavior: a specific test of a general theory. , 1979, American sociological review.

[15]  E. Campbell,et al.  Assessing the Linkage of Norms, Environments, and Deviance , 1977 .

[16]  William T. Bielby,et al.  Structural Equation Models , 1977 .

[17]  O. D. Duncan,et al.  Introduction to Structural Equation Models. , 1977 .

[18]  M. Hout.  A Cautionary Note On the Use of Two-Stage Least Squares , 1977 .

[19]  W. Gove,et al.  Deterrence: Some Theoretical Considerations , 1975 .

[20]  Norval Morris,et al.  Punishment and Deterrence , 1974 .

[21]  Reed Adams.  Differential Association and Learning Principles Revisited , 1973 .

[22]  F. Zimring,et al.  Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control , 1973 .

[23]  G. Jensen,et al.  Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A Test of the Differential Association Perspective , 1972, American Journal of Sociology.

[24]  D C Gibbons,et al.  Observations on the Study of Crime Causation , 1971, American Journal of Sociology.

[25]  A. Liska.  Interpreting the Causal Structure of Differential Association Theory , 1969 .

[26]  Robert L. Akers,et al.  A Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior , 1966 .

[27]  Melvin L. De Fleur,et al.  A Reformulation of Sutherland's Differential Association Theory and a Strategy for Empirical Verification , 1966 .

[28]  C. Jeffery.  Criminal behavior and learning theory. , 1965 .

[29]  H. L. Voss.  Differential Association and Reported Delinquent Behavior: A Replication , 1964 .

[30]  A. Reiss,,et al.  An Empirical Test of Differential Association Theory* , 1964 .

[31]  J. Short,et al.  Differential Association with Delinquent Friends and Delinquent Behavior , 1958 .

[32]  Gresham M. Sykes,et al.  Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. , 1957 .

[33]  D. Cressey.  Application and Verification of the Differential Association Theory , 1952 .

[34]  F. Cullen.  Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory: The Emergence of a Structuring Tradition , 1984 .

[35]  Ted Chiricos,et al.  Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions really deter? , 1983 .

[36]  J. Hagan.  Deterrence Reconsidered: Methodological Innovations , 1982 .

[37]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Attitude and Attitude Change , 1981 .

[38]  Harold G. Grasmick,et al.  Legal punishment, social disapproval and internalization as inhibitors of illegal behavior. , 1980 .

[39]  Charles R. Tittle,et al.  Sanctions and social deviance: The question of deterrence , 1980 .

[40]  J. Fox.  Simultaneous Equation Models and Two-Stage Least Squares , 1979 .

[41]  B. Griffin,et al.  Drug Use and Differential Association. , 1978 .

[42]  E. Hanushek.  Statistical methods for social scientists , 1977 .

[43]  J. Gibbs.  Crime, punishment, and deterrence , 1975 .

[44]  Ronald L. Akers,et al.  Deviant behavior;: A social learning approach , 1973 .

[45]  M. B. Clinard,et al.  Crime in developing countries: A comparative perspective , 1973 .

[46]  J. J. F. Short.  Differential Association and Delinquency , 1957 .