A Reformulation of Sutherland's Differential Association Theory and a Strategy for Empirical Verification

Abstract

Relatively few of the many theories developed by sociologists have been stated in other than verbal symbols. Although the supposed advantages of more rigorous formalizations have been discussed at length, many sociologists maintain that the assertion by mathematical model-builders that their approach will actually advance thinking in substantive areas of sociology still remains to be demonstrated. The present paper is an attempt to show some of the ways in which this approach can yield new insights into old theories. First, Sutherland's widely used formulation in criminology is translated into set theory statements. Then, the value of this translation is shown by developing a set of underlying postulates from which the nine major propositions of the theory can be formally derived. Finally, additional propo sitions are shown to follow as logical consequences of the re formulated theory in such a way that a strategy for its empirical verification is obtained.

RESIDENTIAL SUCCESSION AND DELINQUENCY A Test of Shaw and McKay's Theory of Cultural Transmission

“…A plausible explanation for this seemingly anomalous finding is suggested in a reformulation of Sutherland's theory of differential association made by De Fleur and Quinney (1966). In their formulation, persons d o not become criminals simply because of an excess of exposure to criminal norms, but only "when there is exposure to criminal norms in excess of ex- posure to corresponding anticriminal norms during symbolic interaction in primary groups" (De Fleur and Quinney, 1966: 7).…”

Hezbollah as a Group Phenomenon: Differential Association Theory

“…Nevertheless, he pursued and went on to reject the main worldview of a criminal mind. Sutherland did not like the fact that there was no scientific premise behind the existing accepted theory of criminology (De Fleur & Quinney, 1966). In fact, at the time he conducted his research, Michael and Adler (1933) had published a criticism of the current definition of criminology, stating that criminology uses unscientific methods and, therefore, should be replaced by a panel of scientists from other disciplines.…”

THE INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE Some Things Hagan Didn't Tell Us

“…Hagan says nothing about (1) the argument that an abstract theory is only validated or invalidated by tests of operational hypotheses deduced from the abstract theory (Glaser, 1962), (2) the merits of set theory for testing Sutherland's theory (De Fleur and Quinney, 1966), and (3) the number of sophisticated indirect tests of Sutherland's theory (e.g., Short, Jr. 1960;Reiss, Jr. and Rhodes, 1964;Voss, 1964). He is content here with discussion of variants of the standard criticism that the Sutherland statement cannot be tested.…”