The Differential Association Theory

Introduction

The development of the theory of differential association by Edwin Sutherland was an

important milestone in criminology. This theory became instrumental in integrating the view of
sociology in the context of criminology (Akers, 2009). Prior to the development of the
differential association theory, Akers (2009) asserts that criminological schools of thought and
research were mostly unorganized and lacked a universal theoretical framework to guide
research and form a basis for evaluating the findings. Since its development, the differential
association theory has played an integral role in stimulating theoretical revisions and
refinements, has been applied in policies and programs and facilitated empirical research
(Clinard & Meier, 2010). The first two saw several efforts aimed at revising the differential
association theory with the main objectives of explaining the origin and diligence of delinquent
behavior, integrating social learning principles, and incorporating the principles of role theory
and symbolic interaction. Overtime, scholars and researchers have been divided over the validity
of the theory, with some focusing on evaluating the theory empirically by developing methods to
operationalize the concepts stipulated in the theory, developing hypotheses from its principles,
and evaluating those hypotheses empirically. On the other hand, other scholars such as
Kornhauser (1978) have vehemently rejected the differential association theory’s principles that
agree with social control. With these differing perspectives on the theory, this paper discusses the
development of the differential association theory and evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of
the theory. This paper concludes that the differential association theory appears to be supported;
however, it needed additional empirical evaluation aimed at specifying the abstract nature of the
nine principles outlined in the theory.

Overview and Development of the Differential Association Theory

Differential association theory is one of the social learning theories that attempt to explain
deviance and crime. According to Edwin Sutherland, socialization plays an instrumental role in
the development of deviant behavior; for instance, if a person associates with criminals, it is
highly likely that he/she will develop a criminal behavior. Through these associations, one is
likely to learn attitudes, which will dispose that individual to either conform to outside social
norms or become deviant. According to Tittle, Burke, & Jackson (1986), the differential
association theory places emphasis on how a person develops a deviant behavior, but does not
address the reasons why such a person opts to become a criminal. Fundamentally, the theory
maintains that deviant manners are learnable and can be learned through interactions with people
with deviant behaviors. According to Sutherland, these associations help an individual to learn
the motives, rationale and techniques for particular crimes among others (Sutherland, 1974).
Sutherland also asserts that the associations vary depending on factors such as duration and
frequency among others. Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi (2009) asserts that the differential association
theory provides an explanation of why a person opts to adopt a deviant behavior and is more
helpful when elucidating the role of peer influences among delinquent youths.

The theory of differential association was one of the significant contributions by Edwin
Sutherland to criminology in an attempt to explain deviant behavior with regard to social
relationships. This theory deviates from the conventional biological and pathological perspective
by examining deviance in the social context of people. According to Hoffman (2002), Sutherland
refuted the other explanations of crime such as extreme individualism of psychiatry, biological
determinism and economic factors that influence crime. As a result, Sutherland embarked on an
alternative explanation for deviance, which ultimately led to the progress of the theory of
differential association. The fundamental principle of the differential association theory is that
social messages play a more important role in the emergence of deviant behavior than prosocial
messages (Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2009). In this regard, Sutherland was of the opinion that the
concepts of differential social organization and differential association apply to group and
individual levels respectively. In this regard, the differential association theory provides an
understanding of a person becomes a criminal whereas the differential social organization
provides an understanding of why different social entities have varying crime rates.

There are nine principles that make up the differential association theory. First, Sutherland
asserts that deviant behavior is learned, which implies that deviant behavior is not a subject of
pathological inheritance (Clinard & Meier, 2010). In this regard, an individual learn deviant
behavior from other people in his/her social circle such as family and peers, and cannot be
inherited genetically. Second, interaction plays an integral role in the learning of deviant
behavior, which takes place through interpersonal communication. Third, the fundamental part of
learning deviant behavior takes place in intimate personal groups; this implies that impersonal
communication are less significant in the development of deviant behavior. The fundamental
argument here is that deviance is learnt mostly through intimate relationships such as friends and
family, and not from impersonal associations such as mass media and movies. Nevertheless, it is
imperative to note that the influence of mass media in 1930s was not widespread as it is today; as
a result, a number of contemporary differential association scholars concede that mass media
plays an integral role in the learning of deviant behavior (Hoffman, 2002). The fourth principle
of the differential association theory is that learning deviant behavior entails the techniques of a
specific crime and the specific motives, attitudes, rationalizations and drives; this implies that
learning deviant behavior entails several dissimilar dimensions of criminality. The fifth principle
of the theory is that “definitions of the legal code as either unfavorable or favorable has a
significant influence motivation and drives for delinquent behavior.” Simply stated, if a person
interacts with people who perceive violating some laws as a normal or acceptable behavior, that
individual is likely to violate those laws. The sixth principle of the theory of differential
association states that an individual develops a criminal behavior “because of the excess of
definitions that are favorable to violation of law over the definitions that are unfavorable to
violation of the law.” This implies that more illegal behaviors are defined as normal and
acceptable by an individual, then, it is highly likely that that individual will develop deviant
behaviors. Sutherland equates this principle to the principle of differential organization. In this
regard, people not only develop delinquent behaviors as a result of contacts with deviance
elements but also because of the isolation from anti-criminal elements. Simply stated, this
implies that neutral associations with respect to crime have insignificant impact on the genesis of
delinquency (Sutherland, 1974). The seventh principle of the differential association theory
points out that differential association varies in terms of intensity, priority, duration and
frequency. This principle specifies the four core dimensions associated with differential
association. Evaluating the differential association theory requires researchers to operationalize
these dimensions. The eighth principle of the differential association theory points out that the
learning deviant behavior through association with both anti-criminal and criminal patterns
entails all mechanisms involved in any other form of learning. The fundamental inference from
this principle is that the learning of deviant behavior is not exempted from the process of
imitation (Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi, 2009). Simply stated, learning delinquent behavior is
similar to any other learning process. The ninth principle of the differential association theory
states that “whereas criminal behavior is an expression of the 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.” For instance, the motive behind stealing is to secure money; similarly, other
people work in order to have money. Thus, the efforts aimed at explaining deviant behavior
using values and drives (such as money) have been unsuccessful. This is because they provide an
explanation of both lawful and unlawful behavior using the same perspective (Akers, 2009).

Sutherland’s theory of differential association draws upon two main assumptions: first, deviance
takes place when individuals define a particular situation as a suitable occurrence for breaking
laws and social norms; and that the definitions of that particular situation are often acquired via
the history of past experience of a person, especially with respect to his/her previous associations
with other people. Basing on this line of argument, Sutherland did not imply that mere
associations with people of deviant behaviors would result in delinquent behaviors; however, he
perceived criminal behavior as an outcome of conflicting values. People with an excess of
deviant definitions are more predisposed to forming new criminal definitions. In addition, that
individual is more likely to be less receptive to the anti-deviance definitions (Tittle, Burke, &
Jackson, 1986).

Contemporary Views and Criticism of the Theory of Differential Association

The development of the theory of differential association was received with mixed
opinions, with some scholars criticizing and highlighting the flaws in the theory whereas
supporters of the theory maintained that those criticizing the theory misinterpreted it. For
instance, Hoffman (2002) persuasively asserts that most of the criticisms directed at Sutherland’s
theory of differential association are mostly “literary errors” originating from the
misinterpretation of the theory by critics. For instance, most critics have rendered the theory
invalid on account that not every individual who has interacted with criminals developed
criminal behaviors in the end. According to Hoffman (2002), this is a misinterpretation of the
theory’s principle that postulates that individuals learn deviant behaviors via differential
association and not just through contacts with individuals who have broken the law.
Nevertheless, Church, Wharton, & Taylor (2009) managed to point out two significant
weaknesses of the theory of differential association. According to Church, Wharton, & Taylor,
(2009), the first limitation of Sutherland’s differential theory stems from the concept of
“definitions” in the sense that Sutherland fails to provide a precise definition of the concept. In
addition, Sutherland fails to highlight how “excess of definitions” that are favorable to deviant
behavior over unfavorable to criminal behavior can be operationalized. For instance, how many
unlawful behaviors should one define as acceptable to result in “excess of definitions.”
Sutherland fails to provide a succinct definition of the same; therefore, how would one embark
on measuring the concept of “excess of definitions that are favorable to violation of law”? The
second limitation of Sutherland’s theory pointed out by Church, Wharton, & Taylor, (2009) is
that it fails to specify the learning process. In this regard, Church, Wharton, & Taylor, (2009)
assert that the theory of differential association lacks a clue as regards to the specifics to be
incorporated in “all the mechanisms involved in any other form of learning.”

Another criticism leveled against the theory of differential association stems from the
development of cultural deviance theory, which attempted to prove that Sutherland made
erroneous assumptions regarding human behavior and the role that culture plays in influencing
deviance (Hirschi, 2002). There are a number of empirical researchers who have embarked on
not testing or revising the theory of differential association, but rejecting the theory in favor of
social control theory. One of the most prominent scholars who kick started the trend for rejecting
the differential association theory was Kornhauser (1978), who offers an overwhelming critique
of Sutherland’s theory using the social disorganization-social control viewpoint. Kornhauser
(1978) provides an analytical evaluation of the classical theories of crime with regard to the core
aspects of sociology such as behavior, socialization, social order and culture. In his work,
Kornhauser classifies the main theories of crime into disorganization, strain and cultural
deviance perspectives and then asserts that the disorganization theories are superior empirically
and analytically. Kornhauser (1978) formulated the cultural deviance theory, which according to
Hirschi (2002) reduces the theory of differential association to a misrepresentation of human
nature; however, Hoffman (2002) objects these criticisms on account that they are derived from
the misinterpretation of the Sutherland’s theory. Hoffman (2002) asserts that according to this
critique, the differential association theory draws upon the predisposition that there is unlimited
cultural variability and that socialization is entirely successful; this cannot be used to elucidate
the differences in criminal behavior in the same group; rather, it is only applicable to group
differences in criminal behavior. In addition, using the cultural deviance theory to point out the
weakness of differential association theory simply translates to the view that Sutherland’s theory
lacked the means to explain the violation of norms that a person subscribes; Hoffman (2002)
considers this approach to critique as a misinterpretation of Sutherland propositions in his theory.

Another fundamental limitation of Sutherland’s theory of differential association pointed out by

Kornhauser (1978) relates to the problem of specifying the content of definitions that are
favorable to deviance. This is analogous to the criticism that Sutherland’s theory cannot be
evaluated empirically. In another research by Hirschi (2002) to explore the mechanism of social
transmission of delinquency, the researchers compared the impact of the peer’s attitude and the
impact of peer’s behavior and reported that delinquency emerged from the peer’s behavior rather
than the outcome of the attitude obtained from other peers. According to Hirschi (2002), this
implies that Sutherland’s view that peers’ attitude is a significant factor for deviant behavior is
incomplete. Hirschi (2002) summarized the limitations of Sutherland’s theory as follows:

1. The theory is defective on grounds that it fails to take into account the consideration of
free will;
2. The theory draws upon psychology that assumes rational deliberation;
3. The theory does not take into consideration the role of the victim in the development of
deviant behavior;
4. The theory fails to explain the origin of deviance;
5. The theory fails to define core concepts outlined in its principles such as “excess”;
6. Fails to take into consideration the role of biological factors in crime;
7. The theory is not adequately comprehensive since it is not multi-disciplinary;
 8. The theory draws on the assumption that all people can access anti-criminal and criminal
patterns equally.

Strengths of Differential Association Theory

Despite having a number of shortcomings, Sutherland’s theory of differential association

has been greatly applauded among criminologists because of its coherence and simplicity.
According to Akers (2009), although differential association theory has a number of anomalies,
most criminological studies to explore crime have supported the main theme in the theory.
Clinard & Meier (2010) point out that the measures association with the definitions of crime
appears to the generator of deviant behavior and that it exercises its influence in some way via its
impacts on a learned symbolic-construct motivation to take part in deviant behavior. For
instance, according to Regoli, Hewitt, & DeLisi (2009), computer crime is significantly related
to the measures of differential punishment and reinforcement and differential association, which
affirms the validity of Sutherland’s theory. According to Akers (2009), social learning offers a
model elucidation for computer crime. It is apparent that social learning constitutes four main
tenets, which include imitation, definitions, differential punishment and reinforcement and
differential association. In the context of social learning, differential association denotes the
process by which people in dissimilar social environments are exposed to unfavorable deviant
behavior and ultimately learn the respective definitions of favorable and unfavorable deviant
behaviors. Despite the fact that peer groups and family are important factors in differential
association, other factors related to social context such as the school environment are similarly
significant in influencing the learning of normative definitions. Differential punishment and
reinforcement describes the balance existing between social and nonsocial punishment and
rewards associated with individual behavior. According to the assertion of Akers (2009), positive
and negative reinforcers have a tendency of increasing the probability that a particular act or
behavior will come about. Imitation denotes the modeling of a particular behavior through
observing others. Whereas Sutherland asserted that differential association causes crime, the
likelihood of such differential association causing crime is a function of differential social
organization. Clinard & Meier (2010) conducted an analysis on the relationship between
differential association and differential social organization and reported that learning from, and
association with peers, family, schools and the community are significant variables that
determine delinquency.

Another strength of the differential theory is that it accounts for both criminal behavior at the
individual level and the distribution of crime rates across different social settings. Since crime
rates in a social setting are a summary of the frequency of individual delinquent behaviors, they
are determined by the fraction of individuals who receive excess of delinquent behavior patterns
via the process of differential association. Simply stated, the crime rate is determined by the level
to which a social setting is organized in favor of deviant behavior against the level to which it is
organized against deviant behavior; this is referred to as the differential social organization.
Sutherland suggested that structural variables such as family status, ethnicity, age, sex and class
have an effect on individual criminal behavior (and subsequently collective rates of crime),
although only by influencing the likelihood of learning behavior patterns that are favorable and
unfavorable to the violation of law (Sutherland, 1974).
 Conclusion

It is apparent that one of the major weaknesses of the differential association theory is
that it cannot be evaluated empirically; nevertheless, this theory is still a vital principle that can
be used to organize knowledge relating to factors influencing crime. In addition, crime in itself is
a multifaceted concept, which implies that no single theory can be used to provide an explanation
of every aspect of deviant behaviors among individuals and societies. Understanding crime
requires the combination of several theories in order to come up with a better explanation of
crime. Nonetheless, even though the differential association theory has a number of anomalies,
its strengths are unmatched. In addition, there is a feasible solution to the popular belief that the
theory cannot be tested empirically. The difficulty to operationalize the ratio of learned behavior
patterns, which is vital in Sutherland’s theory, can be addressed by conceptualizing it as a
problem associated with measurement error. In this regard, the problem can be tackled
unequivocally by developing a model for measurement error structure of the items that are core
to the definitions construct; this can allow the testing of the specific principles and hypothesis
that can be derived from Sutherland’s theory. Overall, it can be argued that the general principles
outlined in the theory of differential association are ultimately sound; however, their explanation
need more work.

The Differential Association Theory Criminology Essay

Theories within criminology try to explain why and how crime occurs. This is done through
examining various facts that are related to the individuals criminal behaviour and the crime they
commit. There are a wide range of theories which can be used to explain the causes of crime and
deviant behaviour from youths. Youth crime is a major issue in society; this essay will discuss
three theories, the differential association theory, the labelling theory and the rationale choice
theory. The theories will discussed and how they can explain crime will also be discussed, then a
comparison of the theories will be given in order to identify their strengths and weaknesses in
explaining youth crime.

The differential association theory is one of the most valued theories within criminology. This
theory was first discovered by Edwin Sutherland (1947), he developed the differential
association theory in order to explain how youths engage in acts of criminal behaviour. This
theory defines criminal behaviour as learnt behaviour which is acquired through social contact
with other individuals (Hollin, 2007:...). This theory explains how individuals learn how to
engage in criminal behaviour through their attitudes, drive and motive behind the criminal act.
An individual is most likely to be involved in criminal behaviour if they spend numerous amount
of time with a person who has a criminal background and believes that breaking the law is
acceptable. Furthermore Sutherland (1974) identifies nine main factors that can be used to
explain why a person engages in criminal behaviour. This essay will now explain the nine factors
in detail.

The first factor that Sutherland believes is the reason as to why an individual engages in criminal
behaviour is because the behaviour is learned. Sutherland and Cressey (1960) believe that the
actions of an individual are influenced by the people they associate with. It is believed that
because the individual main association is with their family, as that is whom they have grown up
and live with, so therefore the individual social values and norms are formulated from them.
Sutherland also stated that learned behaviour is not invented, nor is it inherited The skills and
techniques required for an individual to engage criminal activity are not automatically obtained
from birth, or through association with criminals, instead they are acquired through a process of
learning (Sutherland & Cressey, 1960: 123).

The second principle refutes the idea that criminal behaviour is learned through the individual
witnessing deviant or criminal behaviour. Instead this believes that criminality is learned
behaviour though interaction with others in the process of communication. At a very young age
children are accustomed to the norms of society, they are taught the roles of both a genders by
people around them. They also learn these roles by observing the male or female characteristics
relating to the specific gender. For example an individual may learn about prostitution through
witnessing the nonverbal responses of these others towards the activity, such as rolling the eyes
or staring and through discussions with people who engage in that activity (Sutherland &
Cressey, 1960: 123). Also Curran (2001) stated that communication is an example of how
criminals are misled into a life of crime and deviant behaviour (Curran, 2001: 143). The third
principle states that individuals commit crime because they are influenced by the behaviour of
intimate people such as family members and close friends. Methods of communication from
television and or media are less effective in influencing the individual (Sutherland and Cressey,
1960: 123).
The fourth factor from Sutherland's theory is that learning criminal behaviour involves learning
specific techniques, drives, motives and rationalization. Having a primary group of people
around does not necessarily mean that the individual will engage in crime, but it does mean that
they have the resources into the criminal rationale. For example being around a person who is
has been convicted of sexual offence, may give the individual knowledge into how to engage in
the same crime, but the individual may choose not to engage in that crime because they know
from their socialization of societal norms that a sexual offence is unacceptable (Sutherland and
Cressey, 1960: 123). Curran (2001) believes that the specific direction of motives and attitudes is
learned from definitions of legal codes such as favourable and unfavourable.The fifth factor can
be noticed when considering cultures form the United Kingdom and the United States. Both
countries have various cultures within them and each culture has different perceptions as to what
is favourable and unfavourable within society and this can cause a cultural conflict. The
individuals pro-criminal or anti-criminal intentions are developed based on learned conceptions
of the law as either favourable or unfavourable (Sutherland & Cressey, 1960:123)

The most important principle within the differential association theory is the sixth principle,
which is when individuals associate themselves with people that engage in criminal behaviour
and believe it is acceptable. Sutherland argues that an individual becomes delinquent only when
"definitions favourable to violation of law" exceed "definitions unfavourable to violation of law"
(Sutherland & Cressey, 1960: 123).The seventh and eight factor states that the association vary
in duration, priority, frequency and intensity. (Sutherland & Cressey, 1960: 123 - 124). For
example, if a young child is raised by a drug user they will be exposed to stronger definitions of
deviant behaviour and will be more to likely to engage in deviant behaviour, than a teenager who
has witnesses someone taking drugs at a party.The final principle believes that even though
criminal behaviour is an expression of needs and values, it cannot be explained by those needs
because criminal behaviour is an expression of the same needs and values (Sutherland &
Cressey,1960: 124). For example if two individuals where both motivated by a need to gain
money and respect, but one person engage in criminal behaviour in order to get the money and
respect. Whereas the other person engaged in conforming behaviour. So therefore the need for
money and respect cannot be used as an explanation for an individual to commit crime.

The second theory that will be discussed is labelling theory. This theory claims that deviance and
conformity does not emerge from the individual's actions, but rather from how others respond to
the actions. Marcionis and Plummer (2005) state that labelling theory highlights social response
to crime and deviance. The labelling theory became dominant in the early 1960s and the late
1970s when it was used as a sociological theory of crime influential in challenging orthodox
positivity criminology. The main academics in this theory were Becker and Lement. Lement
(1951) first established the view of deviant, and later developed by Becker (1963). Labelling
theory has become a dominant paradigm in the explanation of deviance. This theory is created by
the assumption that deviant behaviour is to be not only by the violation of norms within society,
but also by any behaviour which is defined as labelled or deviant. Deviance is not the act itself,
but the responses other individuals give to the act. Becker (1963) believed that social groups
create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitute deviance, and by applying those
rules to particular individuals and labelling them as outsiders. He also stated that deviance is not
the act that the individual commits, but the consequences of the application of others by rules
and sanctions to an offender. And the deviant one is whom the label has successfully been
applied to.

Deviance has been distinguished into primary and secondary deviance by Lement (1951).
Lement described primary deviance as little reactions from others which have little effect on an
individual's self-concept and secondary deviance as people pushing the deviant individual out of
the social circle, which can therefore cause the individual to seek the company of people who
condone deviant behaviour. Lement (1951) further argued that instead of viewing crime as a
leading to control, it may be more productive to view crime as something with control agencies
structured. Secondary deviance leads Goffman (1963) to define deviant career. Goffman stated
that people who acquire a 'stigma' which is a powerful negative label which changes a person's
self-concept and social identity. Criminal prosecution is one way in which an individual is
labelled in a negative, rather than positive way. Scheff (1984) believes that stigmatizing people
can often lead to retrospective labelling, which is the understanding of an individual's past with
the present deviance. Scheff (1984) also believes that retrospective labelling distorts an
individual's life in a prejudicial way guided by stigma and this is an unfair thing to do.
Stigmatizing young people may actually lead them into a deviant career.

Howard Becker (1963) claimed that social groups create deviance by labelling individuals as
outsiders. Through an application of infraction constitute deviance. Furthermore labelling
theory's approach to deviance mainly concentrates on the social reaction to a deviant act
committed by an individual as well as the interaction process that leads up to the labelling. This
theory therefor suggests that too much attention has been given to criminals by criminology
because criminology views criminals as types of people alongside the insufficient attention to the
collection of social control responses. This therefore means that the police, law, media and
public association help shape crime. This is supported by the conflict theory which shows how
deviance reflects on inequalities and power. This approach may also signify that the cause of
crime may be linked to inequalities of race, class and gender. The conflict theory links deviance
to the power of norms and the imagery of the rich and powerful, which the law society supports.

The concept of secondary deviance, stigma and deviant career all demonstrate how individuals
can incorporate the label of deviance into a lasting self-concept . Becker (1963) believes that
labelling is a practical act that has made politicians aware of which rules to enforce and what
behaviour they should regard as deviant. The effects upon an individual being publically labelled
deviant have been examined by Becker (1963) he believes that a label is an unbiased onion,
which contains an evaluation of the individual to whom it is applied. The labelling theory will be
a master label in term of captivating over all other statuses the individuals are under. For
example if one is labelled as a paedophile, criminal or homosexual it will be difficult for the
individual to overlook these labels and see themselves in positive roles such a parent, friend,
worker and neighbour. Other people will view that individual and respond to them according to
the label, also they will assume that the individual has the negative characteristics associated
with the label. Eventually the individual will view themselves in that label because their self-
concept is derived from the responses of others. This can then produce a self-fulfilling prophecy
where the deviant becomes the controlling one.
The third theory that will be discussed is the strain theory. Unlike the differential association and
labelling, this theory believes that social structures within society can influence individuals to
commit crimes. Merton (1938) suggests that there are two types of important elements of social
structure. These elements are the cultural goals, the function of the goals and interests The
second element is how phases of the social structure define how society can go about achieving
these goals, by placing regulations and creating laws (Merton, 1938: 673). Merton (1938)
demonstrates four responses to this strain. The first, conformity, Merton suggests that people
who take this path subscribe to cultural goals and go about achieving these goals by using
society's "institutionalized means." The second path, innovation, suggests that when a person
finds that an obstacle inhibits the ability to achieve the cultural goals, the person will not use
institutionalized means; rather, they will employ other means. The third path, ritualism, describes
a person that will reject the culture goals of society, but use its institutions as an avenue for
advancement. The fourth, is the polar opposite of the path of conformity such that a person who
is retreatist will reject cultural goals and its institutionalized means, people that take this path are
people who essentially are not part of society (Tim Newburn, 2007: 176). The American dream
is a popular culturally defined goal, Merton argued, which through honest-dedicated work,
anyone can achieve this "dream" of wealth. Society defines what avenues are to be considered
legitimate to achieve this goal, for example, earning a college degree and earning a high paying
job would be a legitimate path as defined by our society. Since wealth in American is not
distributed equally Merton (1938) argued that strain often occurs for those who are
undercapitalized and do not have access to these legitimate means. (Tim Newburn, 2007:175 -
176).

Strain theory can cause negative feelings from the outside environment. These feelings include
fear, defeat and despair, the most applicable feeling that can occur is anger. Agnew (1992)
emphasised that individuals become angry when they blame their negative relationships and
circumstances on others (Agnew, 1992: 59). An individual is incited with anger, low inhibitions
and they begin to create a desire for revenge (Agnew, 1992: 60). Agnew stated that individuals
who are subjected to repetitive strain are more likely to engage in delinquent and criminal acts,
this is due to the fact that the individual becomes aggressive because they are unable to cope and
the negative strain may become too much for them (Agnew, 1992: 61).

Overall all three theories give a good explanation of youth crime. The similarity between these
theories is they all aim to give a detailed explanation as to why individuals engage in crime and
deviance. Differential association theory believes that all behaviour is learned and so therefore
deviant behaviour is also learned. This theory focuses on key variables such as the age of the
learner, the intensity of contact with the deviant person whom they learn from and the amount of
good and bad social contacts they have in their lives. Whereas the labelling theory explains
deviance as a social process where individuals are able to define others as deviant. This theory
emphasises on the fact that deviance is relative and the individual only becomes deviant when
they are labelled. Alongside this strain theory explains deviance as the outcome of social strains
within the way society is structured.

As we are always expanding we are looking to grow our team of freelance writers. To find out
more about writing with us then please check our freelance writing jobs page.
Not all theories give a good explanation for tackling youth crime, the labelling theory states that
the label is the route of criminal behaviour, this is not a good explanation because there is a
reason an individual becomes a burglar, not because they have been labelled as one. The
individual is aware that their actions are deviant and that they are breaking the law. Some
academics believe that there should be more research into the labelling theory and why
individuals engage in criminal behaviour. The left realist have stated that the idea of avoiding
labelling in order to avoid deviance is unrealistic. Also Aker (1967) criticised the labelling
theory for claiming that deviants are normal individuals who have been labelled. However the
labelling theory fails to explain why some individuals are labelled and some are not. Another
criticism of the labelling theory is that it is possible to reject the label. Becker (1963) claimed
that once an individual is labelled and accepts the deviant behaviour, all their other qualities
become irrelevant and the label becomes their master status. However there are examples that
show it is possible to reject the label. This example comes from Reiss (19610 study on young
male prostitutes. Although the males engage in homosexual behaviour they regard this behaviour
as work and still maintain their 'straight' image despite working as prostitutes. This study shows
that the labelling theory is open to negotiation as some individuals reject the label.

Differential association theory and the strain theory can be used to tackle youth crime. The
differential association accepts that criminal behaviour is evident across all social classes, and
that criminal attitudes and behaviour is learned through interaction with influential groups. In
order to tackle youth crime the government will need to introduce organizations that aim at using
positive role models to encourage young individuals who do not have positive role models in
their life's. By doing so individuals can learn positive behaviour instead of deviant behaviour
from people who engage in unacceptable behaviour. The differential theory has been criticised in
Glueck (1956) article on 'Theory and fact in Criminology'. Glueck stated that it is difficult to
measure the frequency, duration, priority and intensity of an individual's association, so therefore
this males it impossible to predict and measure how associations result in the learning of criminal
behaviour. It could be argued that the individual did not learn criminal behaviour from an
intimate social group, because the duration, frequency, priority and intensity was not sufficient.
Glueck (1956) argued that if there is no sufficiency then the theory is not falsifiable which
therefore males it defective.

Finally the strain theory can be used to tackle youth crime because it explains the strains with
society that may influence individuals to engage in criminal activity. This theory can enable the
government to improve the social structure within society, for example providing more
employment and better education opportunities. Strain theory has been criticised by Cohen
(1955) who stated that the theory can be accounted for some but not all deviant behaviour.
Cohen also criticised Merton's theory of strain for being too individualistic in describing the
adaptations to strain (Pfohl, 1994: 269).