Theorist Paper: Donald Cressey

Michael Capote

CCJ 5606

Dr. Cecil Greek

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice

Florida State University

Hecht House 634 West Call Street

Tallahassee, FL 32306-1127

850-644-4050 (Phone)

850-644-9614 (Fax)

Draft #1: March 17, 2004

Introduction

Donald Cressey was a central figure in twentieth-century criminology. He was a

sociologist, educator, editor, and author. He spoke Norwegian and French, and read

German, French, and Scandinavian languages (Who's Who in America,1986). Cressey

was undoubtedly one of Sutherland’s brightest students at Indiana University during the

1940s. While working on his PhD in Criminology, he decided his dissertation would

concentrate on embezzlers. His contributions to the sociology of crime & delinquency

came from his teaching, scholarship, & involvement in criminal justice policy

(International Authors and Writers Who's Who,1982). Accordingly, he was best known

for his landmark study on embezzlement as well as for carrying Edwin Sutherland's

Principles of Criminology (Sutherland, 1966) textbook through many revised editions.

Cressey himself authored 13 books and nearly 300 articles on criminology matters by the

time of his death in 1987. Given the importance and impact of his life’s work it is

valuable to place it within its larger social, historical and political context—this in an

effort to understand why it had such an influence on society and academia.

Developments from within the field of Sociology indisputably had a significant impact on

the work of Donald Cressey (Ohlin, 1988). First and foremost was the influence of

Edwin H. Sutherland. Dr. Sutherland, a criminologist at Indiana University, was

particularly interested in the type of fraud committed by elite business executives, either

against stock holders or the public. Sutherland, who coined the term ‘white-collar crime’

(Sutherland, 1966) in 1939, is to the world of white collar criminality what Freud is to

psychology. He was to Cressey a mentor, friend, and co-author (Wilson, 1970).

These influences coupled with times when the “social science view” of crime was

thought by many to assert that crime was the result of poverty, racial discrimination, and

other privations. The consensus was that the only morally defensible and substantively

efficacious strategy for reducing crime was to attack its “root causes” with programs that

ended poverty, reduced discrimination, and meliorated privation (Wilson, 1975). This

was certainly, at least in part, the view of President Johnson’s Commission on Crime and

Administration of Justice’s report, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (President’s

Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, 1967) and that of the

former attorney General Ramsey Clark as expressed in his book titled Crime in America,

(Clark, 1970) where both seemed to draw heavily on social science theories and findings.

In fact, when the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of

Justice, which Cressey was part of, wrote conceptually about the problem of crime in

America, it sought simultaneously to express a professional consensus about desirable

methods for justice administration and to declare an agenda for the system's evolutionary

reform toward that. These twin aims were based upon three subtle, unarticulated, tactical

assumptions (President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice, 1967):

A consensus exists among professionals about what ought to be done to pursue a

more effective justice system;

Questions of public values, some of which confront long-time debates about the

purposes of the criminal sanction, can be resolved in the context of technical

recommendations made by leading professionals in the field;

The federal government can and should play a leading role in directing the

strategies and pace of justice reform toward the professional, technical consensus.

However, the issue at hand was that in the mid-1960s, social scientists concerned with

crime shared a common perspective, but not one that emphasized the material condition

of society. This shared perspective led to a policy stalemate and an ethical dilemma. In

short, when social scientists were asked for advice by national policy-making bodies,

they could not respond with suggestions derived from and supported by their scholarly

work.

As a result such advice as was largely derived from their general political views as

modified by their political (in Cressey’s case Democratic) and organizational interaction

with those policy groups and their staffs. After this, it was not long before there was

considerable rise in governmental demand for applied social research. This phenomenon

is well documented in Simpson’s (1994) Science of Coercion, in which Simpson

describes the process by which government came to play such an important role in the

development of Communication’s research from 1945-1960.

There are many factors that influenced the popularity and application of Donald Cressey's

revised theories. They include political, social, and historical conditions that proved

conducive to the adoption of the ideas put forward by Sutherland and revised by Cressey

as well as those elaborated by him alone. His unique career experiences ranging from US

Army Air Forces sergeant and prison sociologist to consultant for the President’s

Commission, coupled with his numerous awards and citations from Criminology

Associations world wide, irrefutably distinguish him in the field (Biography Resource

Center, 2004).

Now nearly half a century after his initial work was published, his studies, albeit outdated

by considerable social change, still prove to be valid in most cases of occupational fraud

and offenders.

Cressey’s Works

As his many writings make abundantly clear, Cressey was a giant of twentieth century

criminology, whose contributions spanned the entire spectrum of criminological

concerns. While many of his writings dealt with basic theoretical and substantive

concerns of the field, he also had much to say about the uses of criminology,

rehabilitation of offenders, and justice and fairness in American society. In fact there is a

central theme running throughout Cressey’s views on criminology and justice. Upon

studying his work it is clearly that he believed it is both possible and desirable to use

criminological knowledge in an effort to create a decent and just society.

Cressey’s View of Criminology as a field of Study

Cressey saw criminology as “the body of knowledge concerning crime as a social

phenomenon. It is a product of systematic studies of the processes of making laws,

breaking laws, and reacting to the breaking of laws” (Cressey, 1979, p. 457). Elsewhere

he described the ideal criminology as an “ivory tower, science-oriented, research

enterprise…and the ideal criminologists as persons who work…in pursuit of truth, not in

pursuit of criminals” (Cressey, 1978, p. 175).

Cressey’s concern for science was much more than a methodological position. He argued

passionately for a criminology organized around a core of “theoretical knowledge”. For

him, the most significant activity of criminology, as a “science”, was its search for

theory. Cressey urged that criminologists should “not abandon science”, and suggested

instead that they “might well be advised to take up low paying posts in ivory towers,

monasteries, and similar think-tanks. There they should sharpen their scientific research

tools and put them to work on studies designed to secure comprehension of the conditions

under which criminal laws are enacted, enforced, and broken” (Cressey, 1978).

Additionally, he saw real success in the development of sociological perspectives

regarding crime and criminology. To this end, he had a particular affection for and

loyalty to the work of Sutherland, whose sociological theory he described as “comparable

in logic, though not of course in scope, to Darwin’s principle of natural selection.”

(Cressey, 1979) He described Sutherland’s theory of differential association as a

sociological fountainhead from which emanated many other interpretations of crime.

These developments were emphatically sociological, and such scholars were “social

scientists first and criminologists second.” (Cressey, 1978) His belief was that if proper

theory could be developed, we might some day come to the “logical conclusion that

sociology ought to become a wholly owned subsidiary of criminology.” (Cressey, 1979)

Cressey’s Hypothesis

Cressey however, took his own studies in a different direction from Sutherland’s

research. He was intrigued by embezzlers, whom he called “trust violators”. He was

especially interested in the circumstances that led them to be overcome by temptation.

Upon completion of his research, he developed what still remains as the classic model for

the occupational offender. His research was published in "Other People’s Money: As

Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement.” His hypothesis was:

“Trusted persons become trust violators when they conceive of themselves as

having a financial problem which is non-shareable, are aware this problem can be

secretly resolved by violation of the position of financial trust, and are able to

apply to their own conduct in that situation verbalizations which enable them to

adjust their conceptions of themselves as trusted persons with their conceptions of

themselves as users of the entrusted funds or property”

Over the years, the hypothesis became know as the “fraud triangle”. One leg of the

triangle represents a perceived non-shareable financial need. The second leg is for the

perceived opportunity, and the final is for rationalization. The role of the non-shareable

problem is important. Cressey said, “when the trust violators were asked to explain why

they refrained from violation of other positions of trust they might have held previous

times, or why they had not violated the subject position at an earlier time, those who had

an opinion expressed the equivalent of one or more of the following quotations: (a)

‘There was no need for it like

there was this time’ (b) ‘The idea

never entered my head’ (c) “I

thought it was dishonest then, but

this time it did not seem dishonest

at first’ (Geis, 1982)

“In all cases of trust violation

encountered, the violator considered that a financial problem which confronted him could

not be shared with persons who, from a more objective point of view, probably could

have aided in the solution of the problem” (Siegel, 1989)

What, of course, is considered “non-shareable” is wholly in the eyes of the potential

occupational offender, Cressey said. “Thus a man could lose considerable money at the

race track daily but the loss, even if it construed a problem for the individual, might not

constitute a shareable problem for him. Another man might define the problem as one

which must be kept secret and private, that is, as one which is non-shareable. Similarly, a

failing bank or business might be considered by one person as presenting problems which

must be shared with business associates and members of the community, while another

person might conceive these problems as non-shareable” (Cressey, 1973)

Cressey divided these “non-shareable” problems into six basic subtypes:

Violation of

Ascribed

Obligations

“When persons incur debts or in some other way become financially

obligated as a result of violation of the obligations ascribed to the role

of trusted person, they frequently consider that these debts must be kept

secret, and that meeting them becomes a non-shareable financial

problem. In many instances, the insurance of such debts is also

considered incompatible with the duties and obligations of other roles

which the person might be enacting, such as those of a husband or

father, but the concern here is with such debts only as they represent

conflict with the person’s role as a trusted person” (Cressey, 1973)

Problems

Resulting

From

Personal

Failure

“While some pressing financial problems may be considered as having

resulted from ‘economic conditions’…others are considered to have

been created by the misguided or poorly planned activities of the

individual trusted person. Because he fears a loss o status, the

individual is afraid to admit to anyone who could alleviate the situation

the fact that he has a problems which is a consequence of his ‘own bad

judgment’ or ‘own fault’ or ‘own stupidity’” (Cressey, 1973)

Business

Reversals

Cressey saw these differently from personal failures, since many people

consider their financial reverses as coming from conditions beyond

their control: inflation, high interest rates, raising capital, and

borrowing money.

Physical

Isolation

Cressey described this category as situations where the person in

financial straits is isolated from the people who can help him.

Status

Gaining

“the structuring of status ambitions as being non-shareable is not

uncommon in our culture, and it again must be emphasized that the

structuring of a situation as non-shareable is not alone the cause of trust

violation. More specifically, in this type of case a problem appears

when the individual realizes that he does not have the financial means

necessary for continued association with persons on a desired status

level, and this problem becomes non-shareable when he feels that he

can neither renounce his aspirations for membership in the desired

group nor obtain prestige symbols necessary to such membership:

(Cressey, 1973)

Employer-

Employee

Relations

According to Cressey, the most common was an employed person who

resents his status within the organization in which he is trusted. The

resentment can come from perceived economic inequities, such as pay,

or from the feeling of being overworked or under appreciated.

Next Cressey, delved into the inner workings of the offenders’ minds – how were they

able to convince themselves that stealing was okay? He found they were able to excuse

their actions to themselves by viewing their crimes as (a) non-criminal (b) justified, or (c)

part of a situation which the offender does not control. These methods he generalized as

“rationalizations.” In his studies he discovered “In cases of trust violation encountered,

significant rationalizations were always present before the criminal act took place, or at

least at the time it took place, an, in fact after the act had taken place the rationalization

often was abandoned.” (Cressey, 1973)

For further analysis, Cressey divided the subjects into three groups: independent

businessmen, long-term violators, and absconders. He discovered that each group had its

own types of rationalizations.

Independent

Businessmen

This group used one of two common excuses:

(1) they were ‘borrowing” the money which they converted

(2) the funds entrusted to them were really theirs

Long-Term

Violators

Although the “they were ‘borrowing” the money which they converted”

rationalization was the most popular in this group also, other

rationalizations included:

(1) they were embezzling to keep their families from shame,

disgrace, or poverty

(2) that theirs was a case of “necessity”; that their employers were

cheating them financially

(3) that their employers were dishonest towards others and

deserved to be fleeced.

Absconders “While among persons who abscond with entrusted funds, as among

other violators, almost any problem situation may be defined as non-

shareable, the problems which are non-shareable for absconders are

almost always of that nature, at least in part because the person is

physically isolated from other persons with whom he can share his

problems. Individuals who abscond with the funds or goods entrusted

to them are usually unmarried or separated from their spouses, live in

hotels or rooming houses, have few primary group associations of any

sort, and own little property.” (Cressey, 1973)

Cressey concluded that “…trust violation takes place when the position of trust is viewed

by the trusted person according to culturally provided knowledge about and

rationalizations for using the entrusted funds for solving a non-shareable problem, and

that the absence of any of these events will preclude violation. The three events make up

the conditions under which trust violation occurs and the term ‘cause’ may be applied to

their conjecture since trust violation is dependent on that conjecture. Whenever the

conjecture of events occurs, trust violation results, and if the conjecture does not take

place there is no trust violation” (Cressey, 1973)

Cressey and Applied Criminology

Two of Cressey’s most significant ventures into applied criminology were his well-

known essay on “changing criminals” (Cressey, 1955), in which he explained that the

treatment and intervention implications of the theory of differential association and his

paper with Rita Volkman (1963), in which he contended that the principles for changing

criminals derived from that theory were central to the success of the Synanon drug

treatment program in California. In his essay, he argued against the belief that

criminality is located “inside the heads” of the offenders and that “head shrinking” of

such persons is in order. Consistent with the argument contained in the theory of

differential association, he contended that “if the behavior of an individual is an intrinsic

part of groups to which he belongs, attempts to change the behavior must be directed at

groups” (Cressey, 1955) The principles for changing criminals involve these six

propositions:

1. If criminals are to be changed, they must be assimilated into groups which

emphasize values conducive to law-abiding behavior, and concurrently, alienated

from groups emphasizing values conducive to criminality.

2. The more relevant the common purpose of the group to the reformation of

criminals, the greater will be its influence on the criminal members’ attitudes and

values.

3. The more cohesive the group, the greater the members’ readiness to influence

others and the more relevant the problem of conformity to group norms.

4. Both reformers and those to be reformed must achieve status within the group by

exhibition of “pro-reform” or anti-criminal values and behavior patterns.

5. The most effective mechanism for exerting group pressure on members will be

found in groups so organized that criminals are induced to join with non-criminals

for the purposes of changing other criminals.

6. When an entire group is the target of change, as in a prison or among delinquent

gangs, strong pressure for change can be achieved by convincing the members of

the need for change, this making the group itself the source of pressure for change

One of the lesser-known statements by Cressey in applied criminology appeared in a

published paper he delivered in 1958, entitled “Professional Correctional Work and

Professional Work in Correction”. In that paper, Cressey addressed the failure of social

work and correctional education programs to provide neophyte treatment agents with

sound and useful knowledge about how to proceed in the “people-changing” task with

offenders in correctional settings (Cressey, 1958). His observations on the shortcomings

of correctional intervention efforts were in the same genre, representing a relatively early

and vigorous critique of treatment programs that were predicated on imagery of offenders

that portrayed them as psychologically “sick” persons who are in need of counseling and

therapy.

Cressey’s Concerns for the Future of Criminology

In his more recent work, Cressey expressed great concern about some dark clouds that he

saw rolling over criminology. He became much concerned that the scientific revolution

within criminology was faltering. Some of the sources of this loss of drive were

undeniably sociological and resulted from weaknesses that Cressey saw in certain

formulations that alleged to be theories of criminology. For example while, in general,

he felt highly about the work of Albert K. Cohen, he also expressed the opinion that the

opportunity theory of delinquency, elaborated later by Cloward and Ohlin, contained

“vagueness” that created “criminological chaos” (Cressey, 1979). Similarly, he

expressed concerns that such perspectives as “so-called labeling theory” and control

theory had strayed from the fruitful paths laid down earlier by Sutherland. In his words,

he was persuaded that

“…theory has not advanced very far beyond the work of Sutherland and his

elaborators. Strain theory and the labeling perspective have called our attention to

new variables, but not to new principles. More importantly, and negatively, these

perspectives have, like control theory, helped shift criminological attention away

from concern for understanding crime toward concern for trying to do something

about it.” (Cressey, 1979)

More disturbing to Cressey (1978), however, was the willingness of criminologists to

become involved in the fight against crime, even to the point of participating in

essentially totalitarian enterprises:

“The tragedy is in the tendency of modern criminologist to drop the search for

causes and to join the politicians. Rather than trying to develop better ideas about

why crimes flourish, for example, these criminologists…seem satisfied with a

technological criminology whose main concern is for showing policymakers how

to repress criminals and criminal justice workers more efficiently.”

At his most pessimistic, the humanist in Cressey cried out at the “knowing-nothing

criminology that assumes, sadly but correctly, that official terror will reduce the crime

rates even if the terrorists have never heard of sociology or social psychology” (Cressey,

1979)

Cressey saw special dangers in the work of criminologists such as James Q. Wilson.

These writers argue that the long-range and scientific study of crime is useless and

misguided and that derivative ideas, such as belief in rehabilitation as a goal, are failures.

Wilson was seen as one of the key figures in generating the belief that “the rehabilitative

ideal – as it pertains to society – has failed, and that powerful persons should therefore

routinely continue to punish blacks, poor people, and a few others, rather than trying to

seek out and modify the social systems generation high crime rates” (Cressey, 1978)

While he himself admitted that he offered some erroneous predictions in 1967 about the

directions that criminology might follow in the future (Cressey, 1978), Cressey certainly

was on the mark regarding the reign of repression and terror spawned from the theories of

the likes of Wilson and Hirschi.

Ultimately, we can hope that Cressey was right about the role of knowledge, science, and

theory. It seems unlikely that criminology as an intellectual enterprise can stray for long

from the fundamental quest for understanding about how laws come to be made, how and

why those laws are violated, and what forces shape the reactions of the justice system to

those violations.

Criticisms and Enhancements on Cressey’s Work

Through the years differential association theory has stimulated theoretical refinements

and revisions, empirical research, and applications to programs and policy. The first two

decades saw several attempts to revise the theory to explain the origin and persistence of

delinquent sub-cultures (Cohen, 1955), to incorporate principles of symbolic interaction

and the role theory (Cressey, 1954; Glaser, 1956; Weinberg, 1966), and to incorporate

social learning principles (Jeffery, 1965; Burgess and Akers, 1966; Akers, 1973). A few

years later, the trend of theoretical innovation was displaced by two distinct trends. The

first focused on testing the theory: devising methods for implementing the theory’s

concepts, deriving hypothesis from its propositions, and subjecting those hypotheses to

empirical verification. The second entailed rejecting the theory’s principles in favor of

social control or integrated theories. It was Kornhauser’s (1963) theoretical critique of

differential association theory, and Hirschi’s (1969) study supporting his social control

theory that began this trend.

Theoretical and Empirical Developments

Differential association theory has generated two major developments – one empirical,

the other theoretical. Empirical research has tackled the difficult problem of

implementing the theory’s concepts, deriving hypotheses, and testing propositions.

Theoretical developments have explored several crucial problems raised by the theory,

such as identifying the precise mechanisms by which crime is learned and specifying a

theory of the origins of delinquent sub-cultures.

Perhaps the most serious criticism of differential association argues that the theory cannot

be tested empirically. Cressey (1960) has argued that even though the theory may be un-

testable, it remains an important principle for organizing our knowledge about the

correlates of crime. In fact one of Cressey’s most enduring contributions was his essay

(Cressey, 1955) on the application of the theory of differential association to people-

changing efforts in corrections. That essay reiterated his trenchant criticisms of “the

clinical principle”. Others claim that the theory is of little value if it cannot be tested

(Gibbs, 1987, Glueck, 1966; Hirschi, 1969). Some versions of this criticism are on shaky

ground because they fail to recognize that theories – being sets of interrelated

propositions explaining a given phenomenon – are rarely testable as a whole. What are

testable are specific hypotheses, propositions, or empirical implications of the theory

(Glaser, 1960, 1962). Another version of the argues that the critical variable in the

individual-level explanation – an excess of definitions favorable to crime – cannot be

observed or measured. Sutherland (1973, p.36) noted that implicit in the abstract theory

of differential association is the possibility of deriving a mathematical formula expressing

a person’s ratio of weighted definitions favorable and unfavorable to a specific crime.

Even he admitted however, to the difficulty of formulating such an expression

(Sutherland, 1966, p.7).

Early empirical studies of juvenile delinquency implemented differential association

theory using the concept of associations with delinquent peers, and the frequency,

duration, priority, and intensity of such associations. Most of these studies found general

support for the theory: Juveniles who reported more delinquent friends tended to commit

more delinquent acts (Short, 1960; Glaser, 1960; Hirschi, 1969). In essence, this strategy

assumes that most delinquent behaviors are learned from one’s peers that delinquent

peers are likely to transmit delinquency and non-delinquent peers non-delinquency, and

therefore the concept of delinquent peers is highly correlated with the concept of

associations with definitions favorable and unfavorable to delinquency. The problem

with this strategy is that it fails to directly measure learned definitions of law violation.

After all, it is possible that some definitions favoring law violation are learned from

delinquents. Furthermore, the strategy cannot rule out a hypothesis based on the

opposite, such as Glueck and Glueck's (1950, p. 164) “birds of a feather flock together.”

Several researchers used a more direct strategy of implementing the theory by identifying

the content of definitions favorable to crime and delinquency. As a result, Cressey

showed how verbalizations and rationalizations made up an important component of such

definitions, and then illustrated them with his studies of embezzlement and compulsive

crimes (Cressey, 1952). Sykes and Matza (1957) then developed their concept of

techniques of neutralization to illustrate pro-delinquent definitions used by juveniles.

Researchers have taken advantage of these refinements and developed survey instruments

to measure a person’s learned definitions of law violation (Jensen, 1972; Hepburn, 1976;

Matsueda and Heimer, 1987).

More recently, researchers have used advances in structural equation modeling to address

three specific issues: response errors in measures of definitions of crime, dynamic

processes inherent in the theory, and offense specific models. Orcutt (1987) found that

consistent with differential association theory, marijuana smoking is explained by

definitions favorable to marijuana use and number of friends who smoke marijuana.

Moreover, he found an interaction effect between the two variables, concluding that, as

Cressey (1955) suggested, predictions from differential association theory are

increasingly uncertain as the ratio of definitions favorable and unfavorable to crime

approaches unity.

Tittle and his colleagues modeled the dynamic nature of the theory and examined

whether or not the differential association process is offense specific (Tittle, Burke,

Jackson, 1986). They also examined the efficacy of several distinct operational

measures, including associations with criminals, criminal attitudes, criminal normative

expectations, fear of legal sanctions, and deviant motives. Using a variety of measures of

the differential association process, they found that a measure of motivation to deviate

was a strong predictor that the differential association process worked similarly for a

variety of offenses, and that for some offenses, an offense-specific process appeared

evident.

Theory Revisions

A number of criminologists have attempted to revise the theory of differential association

so it would be more agreeable to empirical test. Following the spirit of Sutherland’s

method, these theorists drew from principles of more general social psychological

theories – namely, symbolic interaction and social learning. Thus Cressey (1952) applied

the interactionist concepts of role-taking and motivation to link learned definitions of law

violation to social roles, the building blocks of social structure. Glaser (1956) applied the

interactionist concept of the self, arriving at his hypothesis of differential identification.

He subsequently incorporated the concepts of commitment and role-taking and

generalized his explanation to differential anticipation (Glaser, 1960). Other researchers

have built upon these principles, investigating personality (Weinberg, 1966) and

containment (Voss, 1969). This line of theorizing has great theoretical potential, but still

requires additional development. Thus a more explicit conceptualization of the important

element of role-taking and cognitive processes is needed before operational measures can

be located, and hypotheses derived and tested.

The second line of revision incorporates principles of conditioning and social learning

theory to specify the precise methods by which crime is learned. Early versions

incorporated Skinner’s principles of classical operant conditioning (Burgess and Akers,

1966), while later versions added Bandura’s (1969) social learning principles (Akers,

1973). According to Aker’s social learning theory, crime is initially learned through

direct imitation or modeling; the subsequent likelihood of sustaining criminal behavior is

determined by differential reinforcement, the relative rewards and punishments following

the act. Reinforcement can be direct or vicarious, whereby simply observing another’s

criminal behavior being reinforced will reinforce the observer’s own criminal behavior.

Definitions of crime are learned through this process and affect behavior directly, as well

as indirectly, by serving as cues (discriminative stimuli) for law violation. Akers and his

colleagues have not only specified a social learning theory; they have also developed

operational indicators of imitation, differential reinforcement, and definitions of

deviance. Moreover, they find that social learning theory explains substantial variation in

substance abuse (Akers, 1979) and smoking (Krohn, 1985).

The third set of revisions attempted to answer two important theoretical questions implied

by differential association theory (Cohen, 1955). The first concerned the origins of

crime: “Where did normative conflict or definitions favorable to crime come from?” The

second concerned the specific nature of differential social organization: “What are the

social structural elements that influence rates of crime?” Both questions encouraged

research on the origins and persistence of sub-cultural delinquency as a phenomenon of

lower-class adolescent males. For Cohen (1955), working-class sub-cultural delinquency

results when lower-class adolescents, who lack the requisite social and academic skills

due to cultural and structural barriers, fail to live up to middle-class standards.

Critiquing the Theory

In 1978, a trend among researchers of crime was not to attempt to test or revise

differential association theory, but rather an attempt to reject it outright in favor of either

social control theory or a version of integrated theories. Much of the stimulus for this

trend originated directly or indirectly from the work of Kornhauser. Directly,

Kornhauser’s work presents a seemingly devastating critique of differential association

from the standpoint of a social disorganization-social control perspective. Indirectly

Kornhauser’s (1963) work served as a theoretical framework for Hirschi’s (1969) key

empirical study, which found support for his social control theory over differential

association, and stimulated subsequent interest in the control perspective.

Kornhauser’s (1978) essay is an analytical dissection of traditional theories of

delinquency along the lines of core concepts of sociology: social structure, social order,

socialization, and behavior (Matsueda, 1982). In her work, she categorizes the major

theories of crime into cultural deviance, strain, and disorganization perspectives; then

argues that disorganization theories are analytically and empirically superior.

Unfortunately, by forcing differential association theory into an oversimplified depiction

of cultural deviance theories, she misconstrues Sutherland’s enterprise and reduced his

theory to a caricature. Kornhauser defines the parameters of cultural deviance

perspective by claiming they all subscribe to the following six assumptions.

1. Human beings have absolutely no human nature, but instead are completely

plastic (p.36).

2. There is no consensus in modern societies: Laws cannot reflect consensus,

only sub-cultural values of powerful groups (p. 44)

3. Paradoxically, perfect consensus is the only source of social order: Modern

societies, lacking consensus, have degenerated into a war of sub-cultures

(p.44)

4. Deviance (crime) is completely relative; even the most heinous offenses are

lawful in some other time or place (p.38)

5. Conventional (lawful)culture and deviant sub-cultures are equally strong in

influencing behavior, socialization is always perfect (p.194)

6. Behavior Is always a perfect expression of sub-cultural values, and therefore,

behaviors are never deviant – only sub-cultures are (p.25)

Each of these assumptions exaggerates Sutherland’s writings and are then used by

Kornhauser (1978, pp189-200) to derive several propositions about differential

association that appear devastating but that are in fact wholly alien to the theory. In

many instances Kornhauser’s reasoning may be considered logical, but because her work

is based on a faulty premise – which forces differential association onto her cultural

deviance model – her reasoning leads her astray.

Filled with misconceptions and oversimplifications, the root of Kornhauser’s critique of

differential association does not involve the confusion of culture and social structure, the

failure to treat culture as a variable, or the assumption of perfect socialization. Rather it

contends that disorganization and control theories simply assume that the pro-criminal

beliefs, motives, and interests of criminals do not vary appreciably and do not have any

casual impact on criminal behavior. All that varies are commitments and beliefs in

conventional behavior. Thus by assumption, only those definitions of behavior derived

from middle-class morality are important; all other interpretations are discounted.

The Albrecht Study

Cressey’s work also inspired Dr. Steve Albrecht of Brigham Young University and two

of his colleagues, Howe and Romney. These men conducted an analysis of 212 frauds in

the early 1980’s under a grant from the Institute of Internal Auditors Research

Foundation, leading to their book entitled Determining Fraud: The Internal Auditor’s

Perspective. The study’s methodology involved obtaining demographics and background

information on the frauds through extensive use of questionnaires. The participants in the

survey were internal auditors of companies who had experienced frauds.

The study covered several areas, one of the most interesting of which concentrated on the

motivations of the perpetrators of occupational frauds and abuses. They classified these

motivators as one of nine different types.

1. Living beyond their means

2. An overwhelming desire for personal gain

3. High personal debt

4. A close association with customers

5. Feeling pay was not commensurate with responsibility

6. A wheeler-dealer attitude

7. Strong challenge to beat the system

8. Excessive gambling habits

9. Undue family pressure

Like Cressey’s study, this study also suggested that there are three factors involved in

occupational frauds.

Conclusion

Sixty-five years ago, Sutherland first outlined a series of abstract principles which he

later developed with Cressey. These, derived from broader principles of social

psychology and sociology, made sense of the many concrete conditions associated with

crime. Although differential association theory was intended to be a “tentative

hypothesis,” (Cressey, 1954) subject to confirmations and eventual revision, the men

viewed the methodology of searching for universal explanations as the essence of good

science.

During his time, Donald Cressey was one of the most central figures in twentieth-century

of sociological criminology (McCarthy 1996). Unfortunately, as Matsueda (1987) points

out in a review of the ‘current state of differential association theory’ by the 1980s

Sutherland and Cressey’s theory had fallen from grace. As with most theories differential

association had become outdated. However, in the late 1980s less than a decade from its

decline, it had a revival.

Cressey’s work influenced the creation of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners,

which was established in 1988, and based in Austin, Texas. Although he never saw the

association it was his desire and understanding for a need to have a ‘corporate cop’ that

gave this 29,000-member professional organization birth. Today, Certified Fraud

Examiners come from various professions, including auditors, accountants, fraud

investigators, loss prevention specialists, attorneys, educators, and criminologists. CFEs

gather evidence, take statements, write reports, and assist in investigating fraud in its

varied forms – implementing the practical methods first developed by Sutherland and

later enhanced by Cressey himself.

Since the renewed interest in the theory, it has been used in various ways. According to a

Social Science Citation Index search, over 150 articles have been published in which his

work is cited since 1992. Additionally, the number of works cited in 1992 (five) has

risen to twenty-seven by the year 2004. That is an increased use of nearly 600%.

Searches for key words ‘Donald Cressey’ and ‘Differential Association’ on the world

wide web although varied from search engine to search engine return approximately 4000

hits combined. Further analysis results in not only determining that there are a multitude

of sources on the internet regarding this topic but that it is currently being researched

quite heavily. According to Overture.com’s search inventory tool (2004) over 1000

individuals searches were performed for this information in a single calendar month.

More contemporary research has turned to differential association to explain deviant

behaviors of gang drug users. These 1998 attempts although unsuccessful could have

been predicted had the original stipulations for the theory been applied. Originally,

according to Sutherland and Cressey (1978) the theory was formulated specifically for

explaining variation in deviance at the individual level not the group level.

Another area to which differential association is being applied involves computer crimes.

Skinner and Fream (1997) demonstrate that measures of differential association and

sources of imitation are significantly related to computer crime. According to them,

social learning theory provides an ideal explanation of computer crime. "Social learning

theory is organized around four major concepts:

1. differential association

2. differential reinforcement/punishment

3. definitions

4. imitation

Differential association refers to the process by which individuals, operating in different

social contexts, become exposed to, and ultimately learns, normative definitions

favorable and unfavorable to criminal and legal behavior (Akers 1996)".

Regardless of how it has been used, an increased number of studies have begun focusing

on differential association. As such, the theory itself is making a come back into the field

of criminology, as well as several other disciplines (sociology, accounting,

administration). Their work has been the inspiration of much debate and significant

further study. In fact, through the years it has been altered and modified by different

scholars, but in the end it has served as a solid foundation for crime theory – and as a

legacy for these men.

References

Akers, Ronald L. (1973). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. 1st ed.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Akers, Ronald L.. (1996). Is differential association/social learning cultural deviance

theory? Criminology.

Albini, Joseph L .  (Jul 1988). Donald Cressey's Contributions to the Study of Organized

Crime: An Evaluation   Crime And Delinquency   34  (3),  (17 pp.).  New York

Albrecht, W. Steve .  (Dec 1991). Fraud in Governmental Entities: The Perpetrators and

the Types of Fraud   Government Finance Review   7  (6),  (4 pp.).  Chicago 

Anonymous .  (Oct 2003). The fraud triangle at work. Hr magazine   48  (10),  p. 41 

Alexandria 

Bandura, Albert. (1969). Principles of Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Reinhart

& Winston.

Bandura, Albert. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive

Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Biography Resource Center. (2004). Contemporary Authors Online . Farmington Hills,

Mich.: The Gale Group

Burgess, Robert L. and Ronald L. Akers. (1966), A Differential Association-

Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior. Social Problems. 14:128-147

Clark, Ramsey. (1970). Crime in America. 4. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Cloward, R.A., Ohlin, L.E.. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. New York: Free Press

Cohen, Albert K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang. New York: Free

Press

Colomy, Paul .  (Jul 1988). Donald R. Cressey: A Personal and Intellectual

Remembrance. Crime And Delinquency.  34  (3),  (21 pp.).  New York 

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1952). Application and Verification of the Differential Association

Theory. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science. 43:43-52.

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1954). The Differential Association Theory and Compulsive

Crimes. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology. 45:29-40.

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1955). Changing Criminals: The Application of the Theory of

Differential Association. American Journal of Sociology. 61:116-120.

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1958). The nature and Effectiveness of Correctional Techniques.

Law and Contemporary Problems. 23:754-777

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1958). Contradictory Directives in Complex Organizations: The

Case of the Prison. Administrative Science Quarterly. 4:1-19

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1958). Professional Correctional Work and Professional Work in

Correction. NPAA Journal. 5:1-15

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1960). Epidemiology and Individual Conduct: A Case from

Criminology. Pacific Sociological Review. 3:47-58.

Cressey, Donald R.. (1969). Theft of the Nation; the structure and operations of

organized crime in America. New York: Harper & Row

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1971). Crime and criminal justice. Chicago: Quadrangle.

Cressey, Donald R. .  (1971). Delinquency, crime, and social process. New York: Harper

& Row

Cressey, Donald R.. (1973). Other People's Money; a study in the social psychology of

embezzlement. Montclair: Patterson Smith

Cressey, Donald R.. (1978). Criminological Theory, Social Science, and the Repression

of Crime. Criminology. 16:171-191

Cressey, Donald R.. (1979). Fifty Years of Criminology: From Sociological Theory to

Political Control. Pacific Sociological Review. 22:457-480

Cressey, Donald R. .  (Summer 1983). Managerial Values and Corporate Codes of

Ethics. California Management Review. (pre-1986)  25  (000004),  (25 pp.).  Berkeley 

Cressey, Donald R. .  (Apr 1987). Should Auditors Wear Security Badges? Security

Management.  31  (4),  (3 pp.).  Arlington 

Cressey, Donald R., Galtung, Johan. (1961). The prison; studies in institutional

organization and change. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Cressey, Donald R , Rosett, Arthur I..(1976). Justice by consent : plea bargains in the

American courthouse. Philadelphia : Lippincott

Cressey, Donald R , Sutherland, Edwin Hardin. (1978). Criminology. Philadelphia :

Lippincott

Cullen, Francis T. (1984). Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory. Totowa, NJ:

Rowman & Allanheld.

Dick Strom .  (Sep 2000). The fraud triangle. Bodyshop Business.  19  (9),  (6 pp.). 

Akron 

Don Ray .  (Jun 2001). How to detect employee fraud. Ward's Dealer Business.  35  (10), 

p. 55  (1 pp.).  Overland Park 

Geis, Gilbert. (1982). On White Collar Crime. Lexington: Lexington Books.

Gibbs, Jack P. (1987). The State of Criminology Theory. Criminology. 25:821-840.

Glaser, Daniel. (1956). Criminality Theories and Behavioral Images. American Journal

of Sociology. 61:433-444

Glaser, Daniel. (1960). Differential Association and Criminological Prediction. Social

Problems. 8:6-14

Glaser, Daniel. (1962). The Differential Association Theory of Crime. Human Behavior

and Social Processes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin

Glueck, Sheldon. (1956). Theory and Fact in Criminology. British Journal of

Delinquency. 7:92-109

Glueck, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck. (1950). Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Hepburn. John R. (1976). Testing Alternative models of Delinquency Causation.

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 67:450-460.

Hirschi, Travis. (1969). Cause of Delinquency. Berkely: Free Press.

Irwin, John .  (Jul 1988). Donald Cressey and the Sociology of the Prison. Crime And

Delinquency.  34  (3),  (10 pp.).  New York 

International Authors and Writers Who's Who. (1982). International Authors and Writers

Who's Who. 9th edition. Melrose

Jeffrey, C.R. (1965). Criminal Behavior and Learning Theory. Journal of Criminal Law,

Criminology, and Police Science. 56:294-300.

Jensen, Gary F. (1972). Parents, Peers, and Delinquent Action: A Test of the Differential

Association Perspective. American Journal of Sociology. 78:562-575

Kornhauser, Ruth R. (1963). Theoretical Issues in the Sociological Study of Juvenile

Delinquency. Unpublished manuscript, Center for the Study of Law and Society,

Berkely.

Kornhauser, Ruth R. (1978). Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Krohn, Marvin D. (1985). Social Learning Theory and Adolescent Cigarette Smoking: A

Longitudinal Study. Social Problems. 455-473

Matsueda, Ross L. (1982). Testing Control Theory and Differential Association: A

Casual Modeling Approach. American Sociological Review. 47:489-504.

Matsueda, Ross L. and Karen Heimer (1987). Race, Family Structure, and Delinquency:

A test of Differential Association and Social Control Theories. American Sociological

Review. 52:826-840.

McCarthy, Bill.(1996). The attitudes and actions of others. British journal of criminology.

Ohlin, Lloyd .  (Jul 1988). In Memoriam: Donald R. Cressey (1919-1987). Crime And

Delinquency.  34  (3),  (4 pp.).  New York 

Orcutt, James D. (1987). Differential Association and Marijuana Use: A Closer Look ar

Sutherland. Criminology. 25:341-358.

Overture. (2004). http://www.overture.com. Overture Services, Inc.

Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administrative Justice. (1967). The

Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing

Office

Polk, Kenneth ,  Gibbons, Don C .  (Jul 1988). The Uses of Criminology, the

Rehabilitative Ideal, and Justice. Crime And Delinquency.  34  (3),  (14 pp.).  New York 

Sheley, Joseph F. (1985). America’s Crime Problem: An introduction to Criminology.

Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing

Short, James F., Jr. (1957). Differential Association and Delinquency. Social Problems.

4:233-239.

Siegel, Larry J.. (1989). Criminology. New York: West Publishing Company

Simpson, C. (1994). Science of coercion. New York: Oxford University Press

William F. Skinner, Anne M. Fream(1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer

crime among college student. Journal of research in crime and delinquency. Sage

Publication

Sutherland, E.H., Cressey R.D.. (1966). Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia :

Lippincott

Sutherland, E.H., Cressey R.D.. (1973). Crime and Conflict. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press

Sykes, Gresham and David Matza. (1957). Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of

Delinquency. American Sociological Review. 22:664-670.

Thievery on the Inside  (May 1988). Security Management.  32  (5),  (5 pp.).  Arlington 

Thomas A Buckhoff .  (Nov 2001). Employee fraud: Perpetrators and their

motivations. The Cpa Journal.  71  (11),  p. 72-73  (2 pp.).  New York 

Tittle, Charles R., Mary Jean Burke, and Elton F. Jackson. (1986). Modeling

Sutherland’s Theory of Differential Association.: Toward an Empirical Clarification.

Social Forces. 65:405-432.

Volkman, Rita, Cressey, D..(1963). The Rehabilitation of Drug Addicts. American

Journal of Sociology. 69:129-142

Voss, Harwin L. (1964). Differential Association and Reported Delinquent Behavior: A

Replication. Social Problems. 12:78-85

Voss, Harwin L. (1969). Differential Association and Containment Theory: A

Theoretical Convergence. Social Forces. 47:381-391

Who's Who in America. (1986). Who's Who in America. 44th edition. Marquis

Wilson, James Q. (1975). Thinking about Crime. New York: Busic Books