Sutherland first published his theory of differential association in 1939.  He was  very
much influenced by Shaw and McKay’s study, Sellin, et al.’s work on the influence of culture
conflict, and his own work on professional theft.  He was unsatisfied with the multiple-factor
non-scientific theories and explanations of crime so he developed a definition using causal
explanations as well as using scientific generalizations.  The generalizations would give a
scientific explanation by finding conditions that are always present when crime is present and
always absent when crime is absent.  The scientific aspect was needed in controlling and
understanding crime and the observed correlates of crime.  To do this he devised three
methods of scientific generalization.

 The first method is what he called “logical abstraction”.  As the name suggests this
entails logically abstracting from concrete correlates of crime to general conditions.  He looked at what people that posses concrete correlates of crime - black, male, coming from a broken
home, being of lower class – all have in common that caused them to commit crime.
 The next method that he used was the differential levels of explanation.  Using causal
analysis one can not try to explain everything at once, but must look at a particular level while
keeping the other levels the same.  An example that Matsueda used is tryng to find reasons for
individual criminality without including the origins of crime in society.

 The final method that he used was that of analytic induction.  This was to be done
using an analytical search for each case to find an explanation.  The four guidelines that he laid
out for this method are: define the search area, formulate a hypothesis and try it with different
cases, if hypothesis does not work than change it or redefine the search area, and finally to
continue searching for cases that negate findings until there is confidence in the hypothesis.
 Sutherland concluded that the differential association theory consists of three
interrelated concepts; normative or culture conflict, differential association, and differential
social organization, that all operated on either a social or an individual level.  Normative
conflict, which operates on a societal level, exists when groups within a society have different
norms and values and one of the groups defines the laws differently from the other group and
chooses not to abide by the same laws.  This situation tends to occur in modern, heterogeneous
societies where the more powerful group determines the laws and the less powerful group
continues to do acts that are now considered unlawful.  Differential association, which
operates on the individual level, is where behavior is learned through interaction with others.
Through this interaction an individual will learn the techniques and skills necessary to commit
crime as well as the motives, rationalization, and attitudes necessary for the crime.  This is
achieved by determining whether the pros outweigh the cons using the factors of frequency,
duration, priority, and intensity.  Differential social organization is defined by the extent in
which a society or group is in favor of crime or how much it is against it.  The perception of
the group will determine whether that group looks at certain actions as criminal or not,
regardless of what the written laws state.

 Sutherland even went to the extent of giving some critiques of his theory.  The first is
opportunity, without it one can not violate the law.  The second is the presence or absence of
alternatives; a person may have no other alternative except to steal to make money to live.
Although he does not discuss crimes such as drug usage or crimes commonly referred to as
“white collar crimes”, I believe his theory deals with these phenomenon as well.  Akers’ social
learning theory further and more completely explains these type of crimes, however it is clear
that he expanded on Sutherland’s concept of differential association as the basis for his theory.
 

 Many of the emperical tests for theories of crime that we have studied have
concentrated on adolescents and reasons for juvenile delinquency.  Although these tests
support the theories tested for crime among adolescents and juveniles, they fail to mention or
test the theories for crime among adults.  I realize that the reason for this is the ease of
attaining a random sample of people through the use of the school systems. Is there any
method that could be used in attaining an unbiased random sample of adults that could be used
as a test for adult criminal activity?