Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
