Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory & Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory

This article is written by Zeerak Jabeen of Law at Central University of Kashmir, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

“Society prepares the crime; the criminal commits it.” 

– Henry Thomas Buckle

INTRODUCTION

Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory and Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory are two prominent theories in the field of criminology that attempt to explain the development of criminal behavior. While both theories focus on the social factors contributing to criminal behavior, their emphasis and approach differ.^[1]

Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory suggests that criminal behavior is learned through interactions with others, primarily in intimate personal groups. The theory emphasizes the importance of socialization and learning in the development of criminal behavior. It suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they have more frequent, longer, earlier, and more intense exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values.^[2]

On the other hand, Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory focuses on the role of social factors in creating a state of vulnerability to criminal behavior. According to Reckless, specific individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior because they are exposed to social pressures and stressors that increase their vulnerability to criminal behavior. Reckless identified two types of social pressures: internal and external. Internal pressures refer to the individual’s inadequacy, frustration, and anger. In contrast, external pressures refer to social conditions, such as poverty and unemployment, that create stress and strain on the individual.^[3]

While both theories focus on the importance of social factors in developing criminal behavior, they differ in their approach. Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory emphasizes the role of learning and socialization, while Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory focuses on the social pressures that create a state of vulnerability to criminal behavior. Both theories have been influential in criminology and contributed to our understanding of the social factors contributing to criminal behavior.

Both theories have contributed to our understanding of the complex interplay between social factors and criminal behavior, and they have stimulated further research and theorizing in the field of criminology. Some scholars have attempted to integrate both theories’ elements into more comprehensive criminal behavior models. In contrast, others have proposed alternative approaches that emphasize different aspects of the relationship between society and crime.

SUTHERLAND’S DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY

Differential Association Theory is a criminological theory developed by sociologist Edwin Sutherland in the 1940s. The theory suggests that criminal behavior is learned through social interactions with other individuals in one’s environment. According to the theory, individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they have more exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values than to anti-criminal attitudes and values.^[4]

The theory proposes that criminal behavior is learned through a process of association with others who have similar attitudes and values toward criminal behavior. This association can occur within intimate personal groups such as family, peers, and close friends. The theory suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they have more frequent, longer, earlier, and more intense exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values.^[5]

The theory also introduces the concept of differential reinforcement, which suggests that behavior is reinforced or punished by rewards or punishments. In the context of criminal behavior, individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they receive rewards for doing so or when they do not receive punishment for engaging in criminal behavior. Sutherland’s theory has been influential in the field of criminology and has stimulated further research and theorizing. Some scholars have attempted to refine the theory by integrating elements of other theories or by focusing on specific types of criminal behavior. Others have proposed alternative theories that emphasize different aspects of the relationship between society and crime. Overall, Differential Association Theory remains an important contribution to our understanding of the complex interplay between social factors and criminal behavior. 

Sutherland identified nine key factors that influence the process of differential association: frequency, duration, priority, intensity, age, sex, values, techniques, and attitudes. He suggested that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they have more frequent, longer, earlier, and more intense exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values. He introduced nine propositions as part of his Differential Association Theory, which was designed to explain the learning of criminal behavior through social interactions. These propositions introduced three key concepts that are central to the theory: differential association, definitions, and differential reinforcement. 

The nine propositions of the theory are:

1. Criminal behavior is learned through social interaction.
2. Criminal behavior is learned within intimate personal groups.
3. The learning of criminal behavior includes techniques, motives, and attitudes.
4. Criminal behavior is a result of an excess of definitions favorable to the violation of the law over definitions unfavorable to the violation of the law.
5. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity.
6. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns involves all the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning process.
7. Criminal behavior is not explained by general needs and values.
8. Criminal behavior is expressed through an individual’s general needs and values but is not caused by them.
9. Criminal behavior is a result of differential reinforcement, where behavior is reinforced or punished by rewards or punishments.^[6]

The first three propositions introduce the concept of differential association, which refers to the idea that individuals learn criminal behavior through exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values within their social environment. The fourth proposition introduces the concept of definitions, which refers to an individual’s attitudes toward criminal behavior, and whether they view it as right or wrong. The fifth proposition highlights that the process of learning criminal behavior through association is influenced by the frequency, duration, priority, and intensity of an individual’s exposure to pro-criminal attitudes and values.

Finally, the last three propositions introduce the concept of differential reinforcement, which refers to the idea that behavior is reinforced or punished by rewards or punishments. These propositions suggest that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior when they receive rewards for doing so or when they do not receive punishment for engaging in criminal behavior.

Together, these nine propositions and the concepts they introduce provide a framework for understanding how individuals learn criminal behavior through social interactions and how social environments can shape an individual’s attitudes and behaviors.

Scope:

The scope of Differential Association Theory is quite broad, and its applicability to a range of different social settings and populations makes it a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the complex factors that contribute to criminal behavior. One of the strengths of the theory is its applicability to a wide range of different types of criminal behavior, from property crimes to violent offenses. The theory also emphasizes the importance of social context in shaping criminal behavior and can be applied to a variety of different social settings, from family and peer groups to larger social institutions.^[7]

Additionally, Differential Association Theory can be used to explore the ways in which cultural and societal norms may influence criminal behavior and to identify potential interventions and strategies for preventing and addressing criminality.^[8]

Criticism:

Although Differential Association Theory has been influential in the field of criminology, it has also faced criticism from scholars who question its assumptions and applicability.^[9] Some of the criticisms of the theory are:

1. Lack of empirical evidence: Some scholars argue that the empirical evidence supporting Differential Association Theory is weak and that the theory is based on assumptions rather than rigorous empirical testing.
2. Overemphasis on social learning: Some critics argue that the theory places too much emphasis on social learning as the sole cause of criminal behavior and that other factors, such as individual psychology, personality traits, and biological factors, should also be considered.
3. Ignoring individual agency: Critics argue that the theory ignores the role of individual agency and free will and that it implies that individuals have no choice but to engage in criminal behavior if they are exposed to pro-criminal attitudes and values.
4. Difficulty in measuring concepts: Some scholars argue that concepts such as “definitions” and “differential association” are difficult to measure and quantify, making it challenging to test the theory empirically.
5. Limited scope: Some critics argue that Differential Association Theory is limited in scope and only applies to certain types of criminal behavior, such as property crimes and white-collar crimes, and may not be applicable to other types of crime.

Despite these criticisms, Differential Association Theory remains a significant contribution to the field of criminology, and its emphasis on the social dimensions of criminal behavior continues to be influential.^[10]

RECKLESS’S SOCIAL VULNERABLE THEORY

Social Vulnerability Theory is a criminological theory that suggests that individuals who experience social and personal stressors are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than those who do not experience such stressors. The theory was developed by Walter Reckless in the 1960s as an extension of his containment theory.^[11]

The theory proposes that individuals who are exposed to certain social and personal stressors are more likely to engage in criminal behavior because these stressors weaken their capacity for self-control. These stressors may include poverty, unemployment, family instability, lack of social support, discrimination, and others.

Reckless argued that an individual’s level of containment – a combination of internal and external factors that constrain or control their behavior – plays a crucial role in determining whether they engage in criminal behavior. Internal containment includes factors such as self-esteem, self-concept, and moral beliefs, while external containment includes factors such as social norms, the legal system, and formal institutions.

Reckless suggested that individuals who have strong containment are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, even when they experience social vulnerability. On the other hand, individuals who have weak containment are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, even when they do not experience social vulnerability.^[12]

Social Vulnerability Theory has been influential in the field of criminology and has stimulated further research and theorizing. Some scholars have attempted to refine the theory by integrating elements of other theories or by focusing on specific types of criminal behavior. Others have proposed alternative theories that emphasize different aspects of the relationship between social factors and criminal behavior.^[13]

Social Vulnerability Theory, therefore, highlights the importance of addressing social and personal stressors as a means of reducing criminal behavior, and it remains an important contribution to our understanding of the complex interplay between social factors and criminal behavior.

Inner and Outer Containment:

Inner and outer containment are two components of Reckless’s Social Vulnerability Theory, which proposes that individuals who experience social and personal stressors are more likely to engage in criminal behavior unless they have strong internal and external containment.

Inner containment refers to an individual’s internal self-control mechanisms, including self-esteem, self-concept, and moral beliefs. Individuals with strong inner containment are better able to resist the pressures to engage in criminal behavior even when they are exposed to social and personal stressors.^[14]

Outer containment, on the other hand, refers to the external factors that limit an individual’s ability to engage in criminal behavior. These external factors include social norms, the legal system, and formal institutions. For example, the threat of punishment by law enforcement agencies can be a strong outer containment mechanism that limits an individual’s ability to engage in criminal behavior. ^[15]

Reckless argued that individuals with strong inner and outer containment are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, even when they experience social and personal stressors. In contrast, individuals with weak inner and outer containment are more likely to engage in criminal behavior, even when they do not experience social and personal stressors.^[16]

Overall, Reckless’s theory emphasizes the importance of both internal and external factors in preventing criminal behavior and highlights the need for interventions that strengthen both inner and outer containment mechanisms to reduce crime and improve social outcomes.

Scope:

The scope of Social Vulnerable Theory is broad and encompasses a range of individual-level and external factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Its focus on social vulnerability and external pressures makes it a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the complex factors that contribute to criminality in a variety of different social settings and populations. One of the strengths of the theory is its focus on the individual-level factors that contribute to criminal behavior, including social vulnerability and external pressures that may weaken an individual’s capacity for self-control. This perspective allows the theory to be applied to a wide range of different types of criminal behavior, from property crimes to violent offenses and can be useful for understanding the complex interplay between individual-level and external factors that contribute to criminality. Social Vulnerable Theory can also be used to explore the ways in which social institutions and cultural norms may contribute to social vulnerability and weaken individuals’ capacity for self-control and to identify potential interventions and strategies for preventing and addressing criminal behavior.^[17]

Criticism:

Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory has also faced some criticism over the years. Some of the main criticisms include the following:

1. A simplistic view of crime: Some critics argue that Reckless’s theory presents a simplistic view of criminal behavior, as it suggests that criminal behavior can be explained solely by the interaction of individual-level factors and external stressors. This may overlook the complex social and cultural factors that contribute to crime, such as poverty, racism, and social inequality.
2. Limited applicability: Reckless’s theory was primarily developed to explain delinquent behavior among youth, and some scholars argue that it may not fully account for other types of criminal behavior or for the experiences of adults who engage in criminal activity.
3. Lack of attention to social context: Some critics argue that Reckless’s theory fails to adequately consider the broader social and cultural context in which criminal behavior occurs and may overlook the impact of factors such as peer pressure, cultural norms, and community dynamics on an individual’s decision to engage in criminal activity.
4. Lack of clarity on causal mechanisms: Some scholars have criticized Reckless’s theory for its lack of clarity regarding the causal mechanisms that link social vulnerability and criminal behavior. It remains unclear exactly how social and personal stressors weaken an individual’s capacity for self-control and leads to criminal behavior.

Overall, while Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory has made important contributions to our understanding of the relationship between social vulnerability and criminal behavior, it has faced some criticism and continues to be refined and developed by scholars in the field.

 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SUTHERLAND’S DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY AND RECKLESS’S SOCIAL VULNERABLE THEORY

While both Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory and Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory are important theoretical frameworks for understanding criminal behavior, they differ in several key ways.^[18]

1. Focus: Differential Association Theory focuses on how criminal behavior is learned through social interactions with others who have deviant attitudes and values. Social Vulnerable Theory, on the other hand, emphasizes how social vulnerability can weaken an individual’s capacity for self-control, leading to criminal behavior.
2. Learning vs. Capacity: Differential Association Theory emphasizes the importance of learning criminal behavior through social interactions, while Social Vulnerable Theory focuses on the role of social vulnerability in weakening an individual’s capacity for self-control.
3. Social vs. Individual: Differential Association Theory emphasizes the importance of social context and peer relationships in shaping an individual’s behavior, while Social Vulnerable Theory highlights the importance of individual-level and external factors in contributing to criminal behavior.
4. Causality: Differential Association Theory suggests that criminal behavior is a result of learning from others, while Social Vulnerable Theory emphasizes the complex interplay between individual-level and external factors contributing to criminal behavior.

CONCLUSION

Edward Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory is an important contribution to the field of criminology. It suggests that criminal behavior is learned through social interactions with others who have deviant attitudes and values. The theory emphasizes the role of socialization processes and the importance of social context in shaping behavior. While Differential Association Theory has faced criticism over the years, it remains a significant theoretical framework for understanding the origins of criminal behavior. The theory has been influential in shaping modern criminology and has helped to spur further research on the role of social factors in criminal behavior. Differential Association Theory highlights the importance of social interactions and peer relationships in shaping an individual’s behavior and provides a useful framework for understanding the complex factors that contribute to criminality.

Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory is a valuable theoretical framework for understanding the relationship between social vulnerability and criminal behavior. The theory suggests that social vulnerability can weaken an individual’s capacity for self-control, leading to criminal behavior.

The theory has several strengths, including its emphasis on the importance of social factors in shaping behavior, its focus on the interaction between individual-level and external factors, and its applicability to a range of different types of criminal behavior. However, Reckless’s theory has also faced criticism, including its potential oversimplification of criminal behavior, its limited applicability to certain types of crime and certain populations, and its lack of clarity on the causal mechanisms that link social vulnerability and criminal behavior. Despite these limitations, Reckless’s Social Vulnerable Theory remains an important contribution to the field of criminology and has helped to shape our understanding of the complex factors that contribute to criminal behavior.

Both theories emphasize the importance of social and environmental factors in shaping criminal behavior and provide a useful framework for understanding the complex interplay between individual-level and external factors that contribute to criminality.

---

^[1] Ronald L. Akers, Christine S. Sellers, Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, Application, 17,23, (6th ed.,2013)

^[2] Jan Gorecki, Crime Causation Theories: Failures and Perspectives, 25 The British Journal of Sociology, 461, 463(1974)

^[3] Walter C. Reckless, Simon Dinitz, Pioneering with Self–Concept As a Vulnerability Factor in Delinquency, 58 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 515, 522(1968)

^[4] Francis T. Cullen, Pamela Wilcox, Sutherland, Edwin H.: Differential Association Theory and Differential Social Organization, in Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Ross L. Matsueda, 2010.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7]  Ross L. Matsueda, Differential Association Theory, 125-130.

^[8] Ibid.

^[9]  Ross L. Matsueda, The Current State of Differential Association Theory, 34 Crime & Delinquency, 277, 285-299(1985)

^[10] Gerben J. N. Bruinsma, Differential Association Theory Reconsidered: An Extension and Its Empirical Test, 8 Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 30-31(1992)

^[11] Bernard, Thomas J.. “Walter Reckless“. Encyclopedia Britannica, 15 Jan. 2023, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Walter-Reckless. Accessed 17 April 2023.

^{[12] [12]} Walter C. Reckless, Simon Dinitz, Pioneering with Self–Concept As a Vulnerability Factor in Delinquency, 58 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 515, 522(1968)

^[13] Walter C. Reckless, Simon Dinitz, Pioneering with Self–Concept As a Vulnerability Factor in Delinquency, 58 Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 515, 518(1968)

^[14] Jamie L. Flexon, Reckless, Walter C.: Containment Theory, 777-782 in Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Francis T. Cullen & Pamela Wilcox, 2010

^[15] Ibid.

^[16] Ibid.

^{[17] [17]} Jamie L. Flexon, Reckless, Walter C.: Containment Theory, 777-782 in Encyclopedia of Criminological Theory, Francis T. Cullen & Pamela Wilcox, 2010

^[18] Harwin L. Voss, Differential Association and Containment Theory: A Theoretical Convergence, 47 Oxford University Press, 381-391.