Abstract
AbstractIt is argued that the attempts of Burgess and Akers and of Adams to formulate Sutherland's differential association theory in the language of operant conditioning theory fail to preserve Sutherland's interesting insights by reducing his theory to the mere claim that criminal behavior is operant conditioning behavior. Questions are then raised about the truth of even this claim. Some attention is also given to the question of the verification of both Sutherland's original theory and the operant Conditioning reformulations of it.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
