Differential Association Theory that was first developed by Edwin Sutherland was one of the first truly sociological explanations of crime (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2015). It was formed around the idea of symbolic interaction, which was developed by Sutherland’s mentor, George Herbert Mead. Symbolic interaction argues that how we perceive other people’s interpretations of our behavior will dramatically impact our own thinking and acting (Cwick, 2018). This is a micro level approach to explaining crime as it focuses on the individual rather than the social structure (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2015). Differential Association has several different assumptions. The first is that people are neither inherently good, nor inherently bad (Cwick, 2018). …show more content…
He proposed that criminal behavior is learned and that it is learned through interaction with others, particularly in interpersonal groups, or intimate and valued relationships a person has (Cwick, 2018). “The process for learning criminal behavior is the same process for learning any other behavior” (Cwick, 2018). In a person’s interpersonal groups, they learn techniques for how to commit crime, and the motivations, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes behind why they should or should not commit crime (Cwick, 2018). If explanations are in favor of committing crime, they are what Sutherland terms ‘definitions favorable to law violation,’ however if the explanations are not in favor of committing crime, they are what Sutherland terms ‘definitions unfavorable to law violation’ (Cwick, 2018). In order for a person to actually become delinquent, they have to have an excess of definitions that are favorable to law violation (Cwick, 2018). This means that the definitions in favor of law violation have to outweigh the definitions that are not in favor of law violation (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2015; Cwick, …show more content…
Many of Sutherland’s concepts, such as what constitutes as ‘definitions of law violations,’ are theoretically defined vaguely and not operationally defined at all, which leaves researchers having to develop their own operational definitions (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis, 2015). This makes it difficult to measure and test Sutherland’s principle of ‘definitions favorable to law violation’ or other premises he establishes (Cwick, 2018). Without solid operational definitions it is also hard to observe several of Sutherland’s premises as it is unclear as what to look for in a person’s thoughts or actions. If universal operational definitions for Sutherland’s principles were developed, perhaps the theory’s testability would no longer pose an