Theory that individuals learn deviance in proportion to number of deviant acts they are exposed to

Differential Association

Differential association provides the context in which learning occurs. According to the theory, the most important contexts for learning criminal behavior include peer groups and family units, though varying entities such as schools, neighbors, and media also provide alternative settings where some learning of criminal behavior may ensue. There are two fundamental aspects of differential association, namely the behavioral-interactional and normative dimensions. The behavioral-interactional dimension refers to the direct and indirect interactions and associations with individuals that engage in delinquent activities. The normative dimension refers to the values which one is exposed to as a result of one's associations and interactions with others. It is worth noting that the normative dimension was inherent in Sutherland's original theory; Akers' formulation of SLT keeps the normative dimension but adds the behavioral-interactional dimension to the overarching differential association construct. As differential associations set the learning context, SLT anticipates that the learning mechanisms including imitation, definitions, and differential reinforcement are in large part influenced by one's differential associations. For instance, the theory suggests that individuals with a greater proportion of their peers who engage in criminal behavior will be exposed to more delinquent models, will be subjected to a greater number of definitions favorable to delinquency, and will perceive more rewards and benefits associated with criminal conduct. In turn, these individuals will be more likely to engage in criminal behavior. In other words, the effect of differential association on criminal behavior is hypothesized to, at least in large part, be mediated by the imitation, definitions, and differential reinforcement variables.

Why Do Employees Steal?

Two major causes of employee theft are employee personal problems and the environment. Employee personal problems often affect behavior on the job. Financial troubles, domestic discord, drug abuse, and excessive gambling can contribute to theft. It is inappropriate to state that every employee who has such problems will steal, but during trying times, the pressure to steal may be greater. Research by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (2010: 4–5) revealed that the most common behavioral “red flags” of offenders were living beyond their means (43%) and financial difficulties (36%). A wise employer should be alert to troubled employees and suggest referral to an Employee Assistance Program (see Chapter 18).

The environment also affects internal theft. Blades (2010: 35) writes that an individual’s differences (e.g., ethnicity, accent, or hobbies) can result in bullying or tormenting by co-workers that can lead to alienation and thoughts of revenge, such as theft and violence. Management must ensure that the corporate culture facilitates respect for individual difference. A system of policies, procedures, awareness, and training are essential. Otherwise, litigation can result, besides other losses.

Politicians, corporate executives, and other “pillars of society” are constantly being found guilty of some form of crime, resulting in inadequate socialization. In other words, poor examples are set: employees may observe managerial illegalities and then act similarly. In many businesses, because so many people are stealing, those who do not steal are the deviants and outcasts; theft becomes normal and honesty becomes abnormal. Some managers believe that employee theft improves morale and makes boring jobs exciting. In certain workplaces, employees are actually instructed to be dishonest. This can be seen when receiving department workers are told by their supervisor to accept overages during truck deliveries without notifying the vendor.

Edwin Sutherland, a noted criminologist, offered his theory of differential association to explain crime. Simply put, criminal behavior is learned during interaction with others, and a person commits crime because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. The implication of this theory for the workplace is that superiors and colleagues in a company are probably a more important determinant of crime than is the personality of the individual. Conklin (2001: 278–279) writes in his criminology textbook that a former head of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Division of Enforcement stated bluntly: “Our largest corporations have trained some of our brightest young people to be dishonest.”

A study of college student knowledge of how to commit computer crimes found that threat of punishment had little influence on their misdeeds. In this study, the strongest predictor of computer crime was differential association with others who presented definitions favorable to violation of the law (Skinner and Fream, 1997: 495–518).

The implications for security from differential association theory point to the importance of ethical conduct by top management, who should set a good example in the socialization of all employees. In addition, since criminal laws can be impotent, preventive security strategies are essential.

What are your views of the way in which internal theft was handled at Smith’s lumberyard #7 in the preceding box?

When employees steal, a hodgepodge of rationalizations (excuses) is mentally reviewed to relieve guilt feelings. Some of these rationalizations are “Everybody does it,” “It’s a fringe benefit,” and “They aren’t paying me enough.” Research by Klenowski et al. (2011) found through interviews of white-collar offenders that they rely on gender themes of masculinity and femininity to justify their criminal behavior. The researchers show that men and women account for their crimes in different ways. Generally, both seek to minimize guilt and maintain a positive self-image; however, men used self-reliance (e.g., accomplish goals in the business world at the expense of all else) while women relied on necessity (e.g., self-defined distressed financial situation) to rationalize criminal behavior. The researchers concluded that it is easier for men to deny harm, condemn accusers, and argue that the behavior is normal than it is for women.

Donald R. Cressey(1971), in his classic study, analyzed thousands of offenders to ascertain common factors associated with inside thievery. He found three characteristics that must be present before theft would be committed. Cressey’s employee theft formula is

Motivation + Opportunity+Rationalization=Theft

Motivation develops from a need for money to finance a debt or a drug problem or to win approval from others. Opportunity occurs at many unprotected locations, such as a loading dock. Cressey observed that embezzlers’ financial problems are “nonshareable” because of embarrassment or shame, and they rationalize their illegal behavior. This formula illustrates the need for security and an honest environment.

The theoretical foundations explained in Chapter 3 are applicable to our discussion here as to why employees steal. Deterrence has its limitations because following a crime, the certainty of both swift action by authorities and punishment often do not occur. Prevention seeks proactive security methods to reduce the probability of harmful events and to mitigate losses if harmful events occur. Rational choice theory, related to deterrence theory, points out that a person studies the consequences of a crime against the benefits prior to committing the crime and chooses a criminal act if the rewards offset the consequences.Routine activity theory notes that crime occurs when three elements converge: (1) a motivated offender, (2) a suitable target, and (3) the absence of a capable guardian. Rational choice theory and routine activity theory are sometimes viewed as opportunity theories that seek to reduce opportunities for crime by changing physical features of the environment, implementing security strategies, and changing behavior. Situational crime prevention techniques offer practical strategies to reduce opportunities for crime. Examples include increasing the effort and risks confronting the offender. These theories have practical application to the employee theft problem.

Speed (2003: 31–48) offers insights into the complexity of employee dishonesty, what deters and motivates employee thieves, and management countermeasures. He focused his research on a major retailer in the United Kingdom to learn how loss prevention could be better targeted. Speed studied company records of employee offenders and surveyed attitudes of a sample of employees. He proposed a management strategy that divides employees into four groups, based on age and length of service, and then designed loss prevention strategies for each group. The four groups and the strategies for each are summarized next:

First group: Employees 20 years of age or younger, new to the company

Second group: Employees in their 20s, employed with the company for about two years

Third group: Employees with greater length of service and experience than the first two groups

Fourth group: Employees with considerably greater length of service or are much older

Speed’s research shows that the first group presents great risk of theft because they are less likely to be deterred by disapproval by others or by losing their jobs. However, more of them fear being caught than the slightly more experienced employees. The first group commits the simplest types of offenses with the lowest values. Strategies for this group include restricted access to high-risk operations and ensuring they are complying with systems. The second group also presents great risk of theft because they are confident they will avoid detection. They commit high value offenses but are influenced more than the first group by the possibility of losing their jobs. The recommended strategy for this group is to portray the risks of criminality and the possibility of prosecution. Theft among the third group is less common, but more complex and less easy to detect. This group is more likely to be deterred by disapproval by others. Controls that remove opportunities are less likely to be successful with this group. A more successful strategy is to remind them of the status and benefits they maintain within the company and the financial impact of offending. The fourth group represents the lowest risk but the greatest confidence of not being caught. This group is similar to the third group on other characteristics.

Extensions or Reformulations in the Cultural Conflict/Differential Association Tradition

The most prominent elaboration of ideas that has been linked with the cultural conflict/differential association theory is Ronald Aker's ‘social learning’ theory. Social learning theorists believe that although ‘definitions’ play a role in the learning of conventional and unconventional behavior, such definitions do not capture all ways of learning delinquency. Social learning theory does fit with the normative conflict/differential association theory in that the learning processes are normal and can involve learning of expectations that conflict with the law. Moreover, the perspective has been expanded to include both ‘micro’ and ‘macro’ issues and is now called a ‘social structure-social learning theory (SSSL).’ It has been extended to apply to variations among societies as well as variations among socially differentiated categories of people within societies (see Akers, 1998; Jensen and Akers, 2003; Akers and Jensen, 2003).

Two life course theories can be considered part of this tradition as well. Terence Thornberry (1987) proposed an ‘interactionist’ theory that he believes integrates social control and social learning theory. It is classified here as a life course theory in the social learning tradition because the factors that influence delinquency and crime are supposed to vary by age and the stage in a delinquent career from initiation to persistence to desistence. Mark Warr (1993, 2002) has elaborated a life course perspective that specifically incorporates ideas, concepts and propositions from differential association and social learning theory.

Classical Perspectives on Deviance and Power

The primary classical perspectives on deviance – such as anomie by Merton, subculture by Cohen, differential association by Sutherland and Cressy, conflict by Quinney, and their derivatives – contain three basic assumptions. First, they all assume the preexistence of a deviant category or definition; second, the individual deviant is viewed by the rest of society as violating an established norm or value; and third, particular actors within society (e.g., social control agents) will react to the perceived violator by negatively sanctioning the deviant behavior. While the latter two assumptions are theoretically and empirically informed, assuming the preexistence of a deviant category is highly problematic. It pronounces ‘deviance’ as a fixed category with unchanging parameters throughout history and across different cultures.

Definitions of appropriate and inappropriate social conduct are subject to a variety of dynamic elements and shifting historical conditions, some examples of which have been examined theoretically by Gusfield and Erikson; to assume otherwise – that definitions of appropriate social behavior somehow preexist and are lodged permanently within society – is to fundamentally misapprehend the parameters of deviance and power. In the earlier part of this century the Chicago School of Sociology firmly opened the door for this analysis of the relevance of the power to define via W. I. Thomas’s observation that if people define situations as real, then they are real in their consequences. Moreover, research from the Chicago School noted the transition zone where more recent immigrant groups would find themselves more likely to be defined as deviant as they struggled to become more fully integrated into mainstream society. The research noted explicitly the conflict of power for immigrants and revealed implicitly the roles of the market economy, which often restricted access to the mainstream, and the clash of social classes.

At a more explicit level, social class entered as a variable into the sociological study of deviance via Merton’s anomie theory. He argued that the social class distribution of crime was a key problem. Merton explained this distribution by examining the social stresses that might lead to different forms of individual deviant behavior. Burglary, for example, might be motivated by a desire for material success and an inability to achieve those institutionalized goals through legitimate means of occupational roles. The fact that this condition was statistically more frequent among the unemployed and marginally employed accounted for the observed (or assumed) relationships between burglary and social class. Merton explicated the power of societal norms in influencing individuals to seek high status which he referred to as one of the institutionalized goals of society.

The relationship between deviance and social class was also critical for subsequent researchers, such as Sutherland and Cressy. The emerging theory of differential association, however, began with a different view of the social class distribution of deviance. This theory suggested that deviance is common among all social classes and that the process of differential association creates a bias against those members of society with little power. Subsequent studies of white-collar crime demonstrated, for example, that becoming a price fixer involved the same basic learning and social support processes that led to becoming a burglar. What is interesting, from the power and deviance approach, is that this study raised serious questions about the political issues of definition. Why is it the case that offenses committed by higher status members of society typically are lightly sanctioned (e.g., corporate offenses often are adjudicated under civil rather than criminal law), while offenses committed by lower class individuals receive not only a harsher (criminal) sanction but in many instances a sanction vastly disproportionate to the relative harm of the offense?

This concern with explaining society’s reaction to deviance rather than the motivation of the actor was addressed more thoroughly by the labeling theory of the 1960s. Many sociologists suggested that the critical factor needing attention was the reaction to deviance. This reorientation, in turn, resulted in the rebirth of the sociology of law. The labeling theorists remained partially tied to the traditional concern with motivation, despite their revolution in perspective. In particular, most of them sought to demonstrate how sanctioning and the associated stigma serve to reinforce and stabilize the deviant behavior of the individual. Labeling theorists tended to take as their central mission the exorcism of explanations of deviance in terms of individual characteristics. It was believed by these theorists that deviance is a property conferred on rather than inherent in the actor. However, in fighting this war with their predecessors and focusing on the consequences of stigma, labeling theorists often overlooked the sources of the deviant labels being imposed by powerful agencies, the ways in which such labels changed, and especially the explicit processes of power underlying the development and imposition of labels.

Many of the factors that may contribute to changes in the definition of acts or actors have been touched upon by a variety of labeling theorists. Among these theories are those that discuss the methods used by the deviants, and the status of the definers (labelers) and the defined. The focus of the labeling approach, however, has been somewhat misdirected. As an illustration, it may be instructive to compare these developments with contemporary developments in the sociological field called stratification. The research in stratification has taken the direction of emphasizing individual motivational issues at the expense of political and structural questions. The field became consumed with the process of status attainment by individuals, tracing out the career trajectories of individuals in the occupational structure, and with the rather precise estimation of the role of actual performance versus unearned progress in an individual’s career development – but failed to account for impediments to the attainment of status, for example, as a result of inequities in power.

Some ideologies present a system of thought that offers what could be considered a pragmatist’s view of deviance and social control. Rather than attempting to explain, define, or alter how deviance is viewed, these explanations simply accept that deviance exists and must be controlled. Related to this idea is the concept of pluralism. Pluralism appeared to many as a working feature of the political system that allowed for at least minimal fulfillment of the needs of all groups in society. While it is accepted that there are competing power elites, it is believed that by the nature of their competing interests no group is able to wield an inordinate amount of control or power over another. Based on these perspectives, there can be some similarities in interpretations of political reality between those in power and those subjected to that power. Politics, as the ongoing discussion of means and ends, seemed to subside since what was meaningful for the rulers appeared meaningful for the ruled as well. These pluralistic perspectives fell by the wayside during the political protests of the late 1960s.

The history of the sociology of deviance is also replete with debates concerning the relative importance of legal and extralegal factors in society’s reaction to deviancy. The notion that societal reaction is the most fundamental process of deviance is an established observation. The literature to date reveals that society nearly always ‘reacts’ to deviancy, so continued efforts to estimate the relative impact of legal and extralegal factors are no longer particularly fruitful. The attendant body of knowledge currently consists of a number of competing and divergent arguments, and while each has some merit and potential in explaining the process of the reaction to deviant behavior, they appear, as Sumner demonstrates, incapable of being reconciled with one another, and moreover fail to address the role of power by which behavior comes to be defined as deviant. A power and deviance approach specifies and then seeks to elaborate the conditions under which amorphous behavior becomes ‘defined’ as deviant, or behavior that was once characterized as deviant becomes ‘redefined’ as some kind of nondeviant conduct or attribute, as in the case, for example, when the medical or psychiatric communities redefine a deviant behavior as a physiological malady or cognitive abnormality (i.e., ‘sickness’).

4.2 Differential Association

A related intellectual development was linked to one of the most dominant theories of the twentieth century—differential association. In 1934, Sutherland's Principles of Criminology was published (Sutherland 1934). As described by a leading student of the theory, ‘The balance of learned criminal and anticriminal definitions determines whether one will be conforming or deviant with respect to a given legal code. If the balance of definitions is favorable to abiding by the law, the outcome is conformity; if violative definitions are in excess criminal behavior is the result’ (Akers 1998, p. 27). Burgess and Akers (1966) revised the theory to argue that an individual is more likely to commit a violation when he/she differentially associates with others who commit, model, and support law violation; the violation is differentially reinforced; he/she is exposed to more deviant than conforming behavior; and his/her own learned definitions are favorable to committing deviance (Akers 1998, p. 51). Differential association theory thus turns on the idea that delinquency is learned, and that exposure to delinquent definitions (the ratio of definitions favorable to law violation over definitions unfavorable) is the key to explanation.

Contemporary Realities: Prospects and Paradoxes

By the late-twentieth century, a new era of mass immigration, now overwhelmingly non-European in composition, had again raised familiar questions about the ‘assimilability’ of the newcomers and their children, and concerns that many of them might become consigned to vast multiethnic formations on the other side of new color lines. Gans (1992a) questioned the American myth of nearly automatic immigrant success and delineated six theoretical ‘scenarios’ for the incorporation of the new second generation as they were beginning to enter the workforce, hinging on economic and other conditions. Three were positive scenarios, positing upward mobility driven by educational attainment, ethnic succession, or niche improvement. Three posited negative futures, projecting the reverse of the previous three (educational failure, the stalling of ethnic succession in the legal economy, niche shrinkage) – a ‘second-generation decline’ potentially exacerbated by a combination of economic downturns or nonlabor-intensive economic growth, the second generation's refusal or inability to accept the jobs their parents held, and competition from successive new waves of immigrants. Rather than experiencing upward mobility, the second generation (or segments of it, especially the children of undocumented immigrants) would join the ranks of urban poor.

The new realities also raised questions about the applicability of explanatory models developed in connection with the experience of European ethnics, despite the fact that contemporary immigrants were being incorporated in a post-Civil Rights context – if also officially categorized by new and pervasive pan-ethnic labels – characterized more by ethnic revivals and identity politics than forced Americanization campaigns. While assimilation (as indexed by acculturation, socioeconomic mobility, residential integration, naturalized citizenship) may still represent a ‘master trend’ for many of today's immigrants, as Alba and Nee (2003) have argued, it is subject to too many contingencies and affected by too many variables to render the notion of a relatively uniform and straightforward path convincing (aside from the swift switch to English among immigrants' children, which cuts across all classes and nationalities).

Instead, as Portes and Zhou (1993) framed it a year after Gans' six scenarios, the present second generation of children of immigrants can be seen as undergoing a process of ‘segmented assimilation’ where outcomes vary across immigrant minorities, and where rapid integration and acceptance into the American mainstream represent just one possible alternative. Why this is so hinges on a number of factors: internal characteristics, including the immigrants' level of human capital and the structure and cohesiveness of their families, interact in complex but patterned ways with external contexts of reception – government policies and programs, the economy in areas of settlement, employer preferences in local labor markets, the extent of racial discrimination and nativist hostility, the strength of existing ethnic communities – to form the conditions within which immigrants and their children adapt to different sectors of American society.

‘Segmented assimilation’ processes – i.e., adaptations that take place within varying opportunity structures and are shaped through differential associations, reference groups, experiences, and attachments, especially in primary social relationships stratified by race, religion, region, and class – are not new in the American experience (Rumbaut, 1997). Caste restrictions based on race (extending to all aspects of social life, including citizenship), the ‘triple melting pot’ of religion-bounded intermarriages, the structural pluralism of ‘ethclasses,’ the persistence of ethnic groups as political interest groups, are all indicative of such adaptations. Alba and Nee (2003), thinking about the divergent outcomes that will likely obtain in the first decades of the twenty-first century, concede the point and put it well:

The contemporary immigration scene displays complex, contradictory patterns, from rapid assimilation apparent among some professionals and their children to the new way of sojourning apparent in some transnational circuits, and to the potential among other immigrant groups for incorporation as racialized minorities … Clearly, assimilation will not apply to all immigrant minorities to the same extent … many in the second generation are likely to experience upward mobility into the American socioeconomic mainstream … [others] may experience lateral or, at best, short-distance mobility … Children of low-wage labor migration are likelier to experience downward mobility into the urban minority underclass than children of human capital migration from the same ethnic group … There is no reason to believe that assimilation is inevitable or that it will be the master trend for all these diverse groups (pp. 50, 273–275).

Classical Overview of Deviance and Power

The primary classical perspectives on deviance—such as anomie by Merton (1938), subculture by Cohen (1955), differential association by Sutherland and Cressey (1966), conflict by Quinney (1977), and their derivatives—contain three basic assumptions. First, they all assume the pre-existence of a deviant category or definition; second, the individual deviant is viewed by the rest of society as violating an established norm or value; and third, particular actors within society (e.g., social control agents) will react to the perceived violator by negatively sanctioning the deviant behavior. While the latter two assumptions are theoretically and empirically informed, assuming the pre-existence of a deviant category is highly problematic. It pronounces “deviance” as a fixed category with unchanging parameters throughout history and across different cultures.

Definitions of appropriate and inappropriate social conduct are subject to a variety of dynamic elements and shifting historical conditions, some examples of which have been examined theoretically by Gusfield (1963) and Erikson (1966); to assume otherwise—that definitions of appropriate social behavior somehow pre-exist and are lodged permanently within society—is to fundamentally misapprehend the parameters of deviance and power. In the earlier part of this century the Chicago School of Sociology firmly opened the door for this analysis of the relevance of the power to define via W. I. Thomas's observation that if people define situations as real, then they are real in their consequences. Moreover, research from the Chicago School noted the transition zone where more recent immigrant groups would find themselves more likely to be defined as deviant as they struggled to become more fully integrated into mainstream society. The research noted explicitly the conflict of power for immigrants and revealed implicitly the roles of the market economy, which often restricted access to the mainstream, and the clash of social classes.

At a more explicit level, social class entered as a variable into the sociological study of deviance via Merton's (1938) anomie theory. He argued that the social class distribution of crime was a key problem. Merton (1938) explained this distribution by examining the social stresses that might lead to different forms of individual deviant behavior. Burglary, for example, might be motivated by a desire for material success and an inability to achieve those institutionalized goals through legitimate means of occupational roles. The fact that this condition was statistically more frequent among the unemployed and marginally employed accounted for the observed (or assumed) relationships between burglary and social class. Merton (1938) explicated the power of societal norms in influencing individuals to seek high status which he referred to as one of the institutionalized goals of society.

The relationship between deviance and social class was also critical for subsequent researchers, such as Sutherland and Cressey (1966). The emerging theory of differential association, however, began with a different view of the social class distribution of deviance. This theory suggested that deviance is common among all social classes and that the process of differential association creates a bias against those members of society with little power. Subsequent studies of white-collar crime demonstrated, for example, that becoming a price fixer involved the same basic learning and social support processes that led to becoming a burglar. What is interesting, from the power and deviance approach, is that this study raised serious questions about the political issues of definition. Why is it the case that offenses committed by higher status members of society typically are lightly sanctioned (e.g., corporate offenses often are adjudicated under civil rather than criminal law), while offenses committed by lower class individuals receive not only a harsher (criminal) sanction but in many instances a sanction vastly disproportionate to the relative harm of the offense?

This concern with explaining society's reaction to deviance rather than the motivation of the actor was addressed more thoroughly by the labeling theory of the 1960s (Becker, 1963).

Many sociologists suggested that the critical factor needing attention was the reaction to deviance. This reorientation, in turn, resulted in the rebirth of the sociology of law. The labeling theorists remained partially tied to the traditional concern with motivation, despite their revolution in perspective. In particular, most of them sought to demonstrate how sanctioning and the associated stigma serve to reinforce and stabilize the deviant behavior of the individual (Goffman, 1963). Labeling theorists tended to take as their central mission the exorcism of explanations of deviance in terms of individual characteristics. It was believed by these theorists that deviance is a property conferred on rather than inherent in the actor. However, in fighting this war with their predecessors and focusing on the consequences of stigma, labeling theorists often overlooked the sources of the deviant labels being imposed by powerful agencies, the ways in which such labels changed, and especially the explicit processes of power underlying the development and imposition of labels.

Many of the factors that may contribute to changes in the definition of acts or actors have been touched upon by a variety of labeling theorists. Among these theories are those that discuss the methods used by the deviants, and the status of the definers (labelers) and the defined. The focus of the labeling approach, however, has been somewhat misdirected. As an illustration, it may be instructive to compare these developments with contemporary developments in the sociological field called stratification. The research in stratification has taken the direction of emphasizing individual motivational issues at the expense of political and structural questions. The field became consumed with the process of status attainment by individuals, tracing out the career trajectories of individuals in the occupational structure, and with the rather precise estimation of the role of actual performance versus unearned progress in an individual's career development—but failed to account for impediments to the attainment of status, for example, as a result of inequities in power.

Some ideologies present a system of thought that offers what could be considered a pragmatist's view of deviance and social control. Rather than attempting to explain, define, or alter how deviance is viewed, these explanations simply accept that deviance exists and must be controlled. Related to this idea is the concept of pluralism. Pluralism appeared to many as a working feature of the political system that allowed for at least minimal fulfillment of the needs of all groups in society. While it is accepted that there are competing power elites, it is believed that by the nature of their competing interests no group can wield an inordinate amount of control or power over another. Based on these perspectives, there can be some similarities in interpretations of political reality between those in power and those subjected to that power. Politics, as the ongoing discussion of means and ends, seemed to subside since what was meaningful for the rulers appeared meaningful for the ruled as well. These pluralistic perspectives fell by the wayside during the political protests of the late 1960s.

The history of the sociology of deviance is also replete with debates concerning the relative importance of legal and extra-legal factors in society's reaction to deviancy. The notion that societal reaction is the most fundamental process of deviance is an established observation. The literature to date reveals that society nearly always “reacts” to deviancy, so continued efforts to estimate the relative impact of legal and extra-legal factors are no longer particularly fruitful. The attendant body of knowledge currently consists of a number of competing and divergent arguments, and while each has some merit and potential in explaining the process of the reaction to deviant behavior, they appear, as Sumner (1994) demonstrates, incapable of being reconciled with one another, and moreover fail to address the role of power by which behavior comes to be defined as deviant. A power and deviance approach specifies and then seeks to elaborate the conditions under which amorphous behavior becomes “defined” as deviant, or behavior that was once characterized as deviant becomes “redefined” as some kind of nondeviant conduct or attribute, as in the case, for example, when the medical or psychiatric communities redefine a deviant behavior as a physiological malady or cognitive abnormality (i.e., “sickness”).

Abstract

This chapter begins a more specific exploration of the literature associated with forensic fraud. Applying a sociological approach, and the theory of Differential Association (Sutherland and Cressey, 1966), we are admonished to accept up front that there is a "relationship between social and cultural conditions and crime" (Kennedy and Kennedy, 1972; p. 45). Specifically, we must accept that individuals develop criminal patterns in some part because they are socialized to do so by their interactions with other members of their primary group (Fitch, 2011; Matsueda, 2006; and Sutherland and Cressey, 1966). An extension of Differential Association, Social Learning Theory holds that "peer associations, attitudes, reinforcement, and modeling are predictors of delinquency and crime in general" (Chappell and Piquero, 2004; p. 89). These well-regarded criminological theories offer a useful perspective for understanding the context of fraud committed by forensic scientists, and are also necessary for explaining the cultural attitudes that shape them.

Differential Association Theory

One theory that can account for crime among all social groups was developed in the 1940s by sociologist Edwin H Sutherland. Sutherland's theory, differential association theory, maintains that criminal behavior is learned, and it is learned the same way any other behavior is learned: through interpersonal communication and social interaction in small, intimate groups. What is learned through this socialization process is not only the techniques for committing specific types of crimes but also the attitudes and motivations that justify and encourage criminal offending. However, simple exposure to criminal techniques, attitudes, and motives is not enough to cause an individual to commit crime. Rather, crime results when an individual receives an excess of situational definitions favorable to law violation over definitions unfavorable to law violation. The process of social interaction by which these definitions are acquired Sutherland called “differential association.”

The term “differential association” underlines Sutherland's point that individuals receive both kinds of definitions, but not all interactions through which the definitions are received are equal; some carry greater weight and, therefore, have more influence on a person. According to Sutherland, associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Associations that occur often (frequency) and are long-lasting (duration) have a greater impact than those that are infrequent and brief. Associations that occur early in a person's life have a greater impact than those that occur later in life (priority), and associations with people one respects or admires have a greater impact than those with people for whom one has little regard (intensity).

Differential association theory is generally considered one of the most influential theories of criminal behavior of the 20th century. It accounts for various types of criminal activity by the members of various social groups, even those who are financially successful. However, critics of differential association theory argue that it is essentially untestable, since there is no way to validly measure associations, much less determine frequency, duration, priority, and intensity, while controlling for other intervening variables. Nevertheless, the idea that criminal behavior is learned in much the same way other behavior is learned remains a central principle of sociological theories of crime, and many contemporary theorists have revised and expanded Sutherland's original theory. Ronald Akers, for example, has developed social learning theory, in which he elaborates how people learn to be criminals. He identifies different types of definitions, such as those that justify or excuse crime, in addition to those favorable or unfavorable to crime. He also maintains that individuals learn to be criminal not only by learning these definitions but also by imitating others' behavior and by receiving positive reinforcements rather than punishments when they offend. The more “rewards” or positive reinforcements an individual receives from engaging in crime, the more likely he or she will persist in offending.

Differential Association Theory

One theory that can account for crime among all social groups was developed in the 1940s by sociologist Edwin H Sutherland. Sutherland’s theory, differential association theory, maintains that criminal behavior is learned, and it is learned the same way any other behavior is learned: through interpersonal communication and social interaction in small, intimate groups. What is learned through this socialization process is not only the techniques for committing specific types of crimes, but also the attitudes and motivations that justify and encourage criminal offending. However, simple exposure to criminal techniques, attitudes, and motives is not enough to cause an individual to commit crime. Rather, crime results when an individual receives an excess of situational definitions favorable to law violation over definitions unfavorable to law violation. The process of social interaction by which these definitions are acquired Sutherland called ‘differential association’.

The term ‘differential association’ underlines Sutherland’s point that individuals receive both kinds of definitions, but not all interactions through which the definitions are received are equal; some carry greater weight and, therefore, have more influence on a person. According to Sutherland, associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Associations that occur often (frequency) and are long-lasting (duration) have a greater impact than those that are infrequent and brief. Associations that occur early in a person’s life have a greater impact than those that occur later in life (priority), and associations with people one respects or admires have a greater impact than those with people for whom one has little regard (intensity).

Differential association theory is generally considered one of the most influential theories of criminal behavior of the twentieth century. It accounts for various types of criminal activity by members of various social groups, even those who are financially successful. However, critics of differential association theory argue that it is essentially untestable, since there is no way to validly measure associations, much less determine frequency, duration, priority, and intensity, while controlling for other intervening variables. Nevertheless, the idea that criminal behavior is learned in much the same way other behavior is learned remains a central principle of sociological theories of crime, and many contemporary theorists have revised and expanded Sutherland’s original theory. Ronald Akers, for example, has developed social learning theory, in which he elaborates how people learn to be criminals. He identifies different types of definitions, such as those that justify or excuse crime, in addition to those favorable or unfavorable to crime. He also maintains that individuals learn to be criminal not only by learning these definitions, but also by imitating others’ behavior and by receiving positive reinforcements rather than punishments when they offend. The more ‘rewards’ or positive reinforcements an individual receives from engaging in crime, the more likely he or she will persist in offending.