Edwin Sutherland and differential association theory occupy a foundational position in American criminology, producing the discipline’s most general and influential sociological account of how criminal behavior is learned through ordinary social interaction and inaugurating the systematic study of white-collar crime as a central criminological concern.
This article examines Sutherland’s intellectual biography and theoretical development, the nine propositions of differential association theory and their logical structure, Sutherland’s introduction of white-collar crime as both an empirical category and a theoretical challenge to existing criminological frameworks, the criticisms and revisions that differential association attracted, the social learning theory extension developed by Ronald Akers, and the theory’s enduring influence on contemporary criminological research and policy within the broader History of Criminology. The argument advanced here is that Sutherland’s contribution was twofold: he provided a properly sociological theory of criminal behavior that required neither biological abnormality nor psychological pathology to explain why individuals violated the law, and he permanently expanded criminology’s empirical horizon by demonstrating that the discipline’s exclusive focus on lower-class street crime had been both theoretically indefensible and politically convenient for those whose crimes went unstudied.
Introduction
Edwin Hardin Sutherland (1883–1950) was the dominant figure of mid-twentieth-century American criminology, shaping the discipline’s theoretical orientation, its methodological standards, and its understanding of its proper empirical domain in ways that are still visible in contemporary research. His career spanned the transformation of American criminology from a peripheral specialty within sociology and social work into a recognized academic discipline with its own professional organization, journals, and graduate training programs. His theoretical contributions—differential association theory and the concept of white-collar crime—were not merely additions to an existing body of knowledge but challenges to the assumptions that had organized criminological inquiry, demanding that the discipline confront its own theoretical inadequacies and its implicit class biases.
Sutherland spent most of his career at Indiana University, where he trained generations of graduate students who would staff criminology and sociology departments across the country. His Principles of Criminology, first published in 1924 and revised through multiple editions until 1955 (and thereafter continued by Donald Cressey), was the dominant criminology textbook of the mid-twentieth century, shaping what successive generations of students learned about crime and its causes. His presidential address to the American Sociological Society in 1939, in which he introduced the concept of white-collar crime, was among the most consequential single speeches in the history of social science—redefining the discipline’s proper empirical domain and challenging the class assumptions that had organized criminological theorizing from its positivist origins.
The intellectual context of Sutherland’s work was one of theoretical competition among multiple frameworks—biological determinism, psychiatric approaches, economic approaches—none of which he found satisfactory. His development of differential association theory was explicitly motivated by the desire to provide a distinctively sociological alternative that could explain criminal behavior across the full social spectrum—from juvenile delinquency in high-crime neighborhoods to corporate fraud in executive suites—without relying on the individual abnormality concepts that medical and psychological approaches required.
Sutherland’s career unfolded during the period in which American sociology was consolidating its identity as a scientific discipline and asserting its jurisdiction over the study of social problems against competing claims from psychology, social work, and law. His defense of a sociological approach to crime was simultaneously a theoretical commitment and a jurisdictional claim: by insisting that crime required sociological rather than psychological or biological explanation, he was simultaneously advancing the best available theory of criminal behavior and arguing for sociology’s disciplinary authority over the subject matter. This dual character of Sutherland’s contributions—as both theoretical and disciplinary achievements—helps explain both their intellectual quality and their institutional influence.
Sutherland’s Intellectual Context and Theoretical Development
The Critique of Multiple-Factor Approaches
Sutherland’s theoretical development was shaped in significant part by his sustained critique of what he called “multiple-factor” approaches to crime causation—the then-dominant practice of cataloguing the various factors that predicted criminal behavior (poverty, broken homes, feeblemindedness, delinquent companions, lack of education) without providing any theoretical account of how these factors were causally related to criminal behavior or why some individuals exposed to multiple risk factors did not commit crimes while others exposed to fewer did. The multiple-factor approach, in Sutherland’s view, was not a theory at all but a description of correlations that left the fundamental causal question unanswered.
His critique drew on the scientific philosophy of his time—particularly the logical empiricist emphasis on theoretical parsimony and on distinguishing genuine causal explanation from mere empirical correlation. A satisfactory theory of criminal behavior, Sutherland argued, had to provide a general account of the mechanism through which criminal behavior was produced—an account that would explain why crime occurred when it did and did not occur when it did not, across all crime types and all social groups. The multiple-factor approach provided no such mechanism; it simply listed the conditions that statistical analysis had found to be associated with crime, leaving both the causal connections among those conditions and their relationship to criminal behavior entirely unspecified.
This theoretical demand—for a parsimonious general theory with a specified causal mechanism—drove Sutherland toward the learning framework that differential association theory would provide. If criminal behavior was not caused by biological abnormality (which would fail to explain why normal individuals committed crimes) or by poverty (which would fail to explain why middle-class and wealthy individuals committed crimes) or by psychological disorder (which would fail to explain why most psychologically disordered individuals did not commit crimes), then the causal mechanism had to be something that varied independently of these conditions and that was present when crime occurred and absent when it did not. The answer Sutherland found was the balance of criminal and anti-criminal associations in an individual’s social environment—a mechanism that could in principle vary across all social groups and that could explain both high rates of crime in disadvantaged neighborhoods and high rates of crime in corporate boardrooms.
The Influence of Symbolic Interactionism and Chicago Pragmatism
Sutherland’s theoretical framework was deeply influenced by the symbolic interactionist tradition associated with George Herbert Mead and the pragmatist sociology that Robert Park and W.I. Thomas had developed at the University of Chicago. Symbolic interactionism proposed that human behavior was shaped not by objective stimuli but by the meanings that actors attributed to those stimuli—meanings that were learned through social interaction and shared within communities of meaning-makers. Applied to criminal behavior, this perspective suggested that criminal acts were not simply responses to objective conditions (poverty, blocked opportunity, biological impulse) but the products of learned definitions of situations—interpretations of one’s circumstances that made criminal action appear appropriate, desirable, or necessary.
This theoretical inheritance shaped differential association theory in specific ways. The theory’s emphasis on the learning of “definitions” favorable and unfavorable to law violation—rather than the learning of specific criminal techniques or the transmission of criminal culture—reflected the symbolic interactionist insight that human action was mediated by interpretation and meaning rather than by direct environmental stimulation. The theory’s insistence that criminal behavior was learned through the same processes through which all behavior was learned—rather than through special processes specific to deviance—reflected the pragmatist rejection of the sharp boundary between the normal and the pathological that both biological and psychological approaches to crime assumed.
W.I. Thomas’s concept of the “definition of the situation”—the idea that actors responded to their subjective interpretation of circumstances rather than to the objective features of those circumstances—was particularly important for Sutherland’s development of the definitions concept. If behavior was shaped by actors’ definitions of their situations, then understanding criminal behavior required understanding how actors came to define certain situations as calling for criminal responses—not the objective poverty or blocked opportunity that strain theories emphasized but the learned interpretive frameworks through which those conditions were experienced and given meaning. Sutherland’s insistence that definitions favorable to law violation were learned from other people—rather than being developed independently by individuals in response to structural conditions—completed the theoretical move from a stimulus-response model of behavior to a social learning model in which the social transmission of meaning was the central causal mechanism.
The Nine Propositions of Differential Association
The Logical Structure of the Theory
Sutherland’s differential association theory was presented in its most developed form in the third edition of Principles of Criminology (1939) as nine propositions that together specified the conditions under which criminal behavior would and would not occur. The propositions built on each other to provide a complete account of criminal behavior as a form of learned social conduct: (1) criminal behavior is learned; (2) it is learned through interaction with others; (3) the principal learning occurs within intimate personal groups; (4) the learning includes techniques of committing crimes and the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes; (5) the specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of legal codes as favorable or unfavorable; (6) a person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation; (7) differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity; (8) the process of learning criminal behavior involves all the mechanisms used in any other learning; and (9) while criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those needs and values since non-criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
The sixth proposition—that criminal behavior results from an excess of definitions favorable to law violation over definitions unfavorable—was the theory’s theoretical core, from which the other propositions followed as specifications of the conditions under which this excess was produced and its magnitude varied. The fourth dimension of differential association—the variation in associations by frequency, duration, priority, and intensity—specified why exposure to pro-criminal definitions of equivalent numerical frequency might produce different behavioral effects depending on the characteristics of the social relationships within which those definitions were encountered: close, long-term, early, and emotionally significant associations had greater influence on the balance of definitions than peripheral, brief, late, and emotionally neutral ones.
Operationalization Problems and Theoretical Revisions
The most persistent criticism of differential association theory was the difficulty of operationalizing its central concept—the excess of definitions favorable to law violation over definitions unfavorable—in a way that would permit empirical testing. How were definitions to be counted? How were their frequency, duration, priority, and intensity to be measured? How was the balance of favorable and unfavorable definitions to be assessed independently of the behavior it was supposed to explain? Without answers to these questions, differential association theory could not be tested against specific predictions, and critics argued that it was therefore unfalsifiable—a theoretical framework that could be invoked to explain any criminal behavior after the fact but could not generate specific predictions that might distinguish it from alternative theories.
Sutherland himself did not develop an operationalization of the theory that satisfied these demands, and Donald Cressey—who edited later editions of Principles of Criminology and wrote extensively on differential association—acknowledged that the operationalization problem remained unsolved. Various researchers attempted to measure exposure to delinquent peers, family attitudes toward law violation, and community crime rates as proxies for the balance of definitions, and most found that these measures were indeed associated with self-reported delinquency in the predicted direction. But these operational measures never captured the full richness of the theoretical concept, and the theory as Sutherland formulated it remained more of a framework for interpretation than a set of specific testable hypotheses.
Table 1. Differential Association Theory: Propositions, Theoretical Claims, and Empirical Implications
| Proposition | Theoretical Claim | Empirical Implication |
|---|---|---|
| 1–3 | Criminal behavior is learned in intimate groups | Crime should cluster in social networks; peer effects should be strong |
| 4–5 | Learning includes techniques and definitions | Criminal careers should show skill development; neutralization techniques should precede offending |
| 6 | Excess of pro-criminal definitions produces crime | Exposure to pro-criminal attitudes should predict offending, controlling for opportunity |
| 7 | Associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, intensity | Early, close, sustained criminal associations should have largest effects |
| 8 | Learning mechanisms are universal | No special processes needed for criminal learning; social learning applies |
| 9 | General needs do not explain crime | Identical needs can be met criminally or non-criminally depending on definitions |
White-Collar Crime: A Conceptual Revolution
The 1939 Presidential Address and Its Challenge
Sutherland’s 1939 presidential address to the American Sociological Society, “White Collar Criminality,” was among the most consequential single speeches in the history of American social science. By proposing that crime was not confined to lower-class street offenders but was systematically practiced by wealthy and respectable businesspeople in the course of their occupational activities—and that this “white-collar crime” caused greater economic harm than all the crimes that traditionally occupied criminological attention—Sutherland challenged the fundamental assumptions about crime’s social distribution that had organized criminological theory since the discipline’s positivist origins.
The challenge was simultaneously empirical and theoretical. Empirically, Sutherland demonstrated through his subsequent research—published in White Collar Crime (1949) and documenting the illegal behavior of seventy major American corporations across several decades—that systematic law violation was not a property of socially marginal individuals with biological or psychological abnormalities but was instead institutionalized within some of the most prestigious and respectable organizations in American capitalism. Theoretically, this empirical finding was devastating for theories that explained crime through poverty, broken homes, feeblemindedness, or any other condition that was concentrated among the lower class and could not explain the criminal behavior of wealthy and educated executives.
Sutherland’s definition of white-collar crime as crime committed by persons of high social status in the course of their occupational activities was deliberately broad and somewhat imprecise, a characteristic that critics quickly identified as a limitation. The definition conflated crimes committed by individuals in occupational roles (embezzlement, professional fraud) with crimes committed by organizations through collective decision-making (corporate price-fixing, illegal dumping, regulatory violations), obscuring important differences between these offense types in the causal processes that produced them and the legal frameworks that might address them. Subsequent scholars have developed more precise typologies—distinguishing occupational crime from organizational crime, employee crime from employer crime, and crime for personal gain from crime for organizational benefit—that address Sutherland’s definitional imprecision while preserving his fundamental insight that crime was practiced across the social spectrum and that criminology’s exclusive focus on lower-class offenders reflected political choice rather than scientific necessity.
The Legacy of White-Collar Crime Research
Sutherland’s introduction of white-collar crime as a criminological category had consequences that extended well beyond his specific empirical findings about corporate lawbreaking. It permanently expanded criminology’s empirical horizon by establishing that the discipline’s proper domain was not street crime and lower-class deviance but the full range of legally prohibited conduct regardless of the social status of those who engaged in it. It initiated a research program on corporate crime, occupational crime, and organizational deviance that has grown substantially in subsequent decades, producing major contributions by Marshall Clinard and Peter Yeager on corporate crime, Gary Green on occupational crime, David Weisburd and colleagues on white-collar offenders, and Edwin Sutherland’s own students who extended the analysis to financial fraud, tax evasion, and regulatory violations.
Sutherland’s work also raised questions about the relationship between criminal law and social harm that anticipated the critical criminological tradition of the 1970s. If corporate and white-collar crime caused greater aggregate harm than street crime but was systematically underprosecuted and undertreated as a criminal justice priority, then the criminal law’s selective focus on lower-class deviance reflected not the distribution of serious harmful behavior but the political power of those whose harmful behavior went unreachable by the criminal justice system. This insight—that criminal law was politically determined and that its scope reflected power relationships rather than objective harm—would be developed by conflict criminologists and critical criminologists in subsequent decades as a fundamental challenge to the assumption that criminal law neutrally defined the appropriate domain of criminological inquiry.
The methodological legacy of White Collar Crime has been as important as its theoretical legacy. Sutherland’s strategy of using official records—court decisions, regulatory actions, administrative findings—to document corporate law violations established a template for empirical research on white-collar crime that subsequent researchers have extended using securities filings, regulatory enforcement databases, civil litigation records, and financial statement analysis. Marshall Clinard and Peter Yeager’s Corporate Crime (1980), which documented regulatory violations by 582 of the largest American corporations over a two-year period, employed a directly analogous methodology to Sutherland’s and found similarly striking levels of systematic legal violation among the most prestigious American business organizations. The methodological creativity required to study crime among populations that are rarely arrested, rarely charged, and even more rarely convicted—crime that leaves traces in administrative and civil records rather than in criminal justice databases—represents one of the most productive challenges that Sutherland’s research agenda bequeathed to subsequent generations of criminologists.
Social Learning Theory: The Akers Extension
Reconceptualizing the Learning Mechanism
Ronald Akers’s reconceptualization of differential association theory within the framework of behavioral psychology’s social learning theory represented the most influential theoretical extension of Sutherland’s framework and one of the most important theoretical contributions in twentieth-century criminology. Akers proposed that the limitations of differential association theory—particularly its inability to specify the learning mechanisms through which definitions favorable to law violation produced criminal behavior—could be addressed by integrating Sutherland’s sociological framework with B.F. Skinner’s principles of operant conditioning and Albert Bandura’s social learning theory.
The key concepts that Akers added to the differential association framework were differential reinforcement—the balance of rewards and punishments, actual and anticipated, that followed from criminal and law-abiding behavior respectively—and imitation—the modeling of behavior observed in others, particularly influential social models. These additions allowed Akers to specify a learning mechanism—the conditioning of behavior through reinforcement contingencies—that differential association theory had left implicit, producing a more complete causal account of how exposure to pro-criminal definitions translated into criminal behavior.
Akers’s social learning theory also addressed a theoretical gap in Sutherland’s original formulation by explaining how definitions favorable to law violation came to influence behavior even in the absence of direct social interaction with criminal models. Through Bandura’s social modeling mechanisms, individuals could learn criminal techniques and definitions from media, entertainment, and other indirect sources—not only through intimate personal groups as Sutherland’s third proposition specified. This expansion of the learning environment from intimate personal groups to any source of behavioral modeling and reinforcement was theoretically significant because it allowed social learning theory to account for a wider range of criminal behavior, including crimes committed by individuals without extensive criminal social networks, than Sutherland’s original formulation could encompass.
The integration of operant conditioning principles into the social learning framework also provided a mechanism for understanding desistance as well as initiation of criminal behavior. If criminal behavior was maintained by its reinforcement contingencies—the rewards it generated and the punishments it avoided—then changes in those contingencies through the natural aging of criminal careers, through criminal justice intervention, or through changes in legitimate opportunity should produce changes in criminal behavior. This dynamic view of criminal behavior as continuously shaped by ongoing reinforcement contingencies was more consistent with the life-course evidence on criminal career trajectories than Sutherland’s original formulation, which focused on the initial learning of criminal definitions and had less to say about why criminal careers ended.
Akers subsequently extended social learning theory into a broader framework—Social Structure and Social Learning (SSSL)—that connected the individual-level social learning processes to the structural variables (inequality, social disorganization, anomie) that macro-level criminological theories addressed. The SSSL model proposed that structural conditions affected individual criminal behavior by shaping the social learning environment—specifically, the criminal associations, definitions, and reinforcement contingencies that individuals encountered in differently structured social environments. This integration of micro and macro levels of analysis addressed one of the persistent weaknesses of learning theories, which had been better at explaining individual variation in criminal behavior than at explaining why crime rates varied across communities, historical periods, and social groups.
Empirical Status and Contemporary Applications
Akers’s social learning theory has generated the largest body of empirical tests of any single criminological theory, with hundreds of studies across diverse populations, crime types, and countries finding consistent support for the theory’s core predictions. The variables that social learning theory identifies as most important predictors of criminal behavior—the criminal behavior and attitudes of one’s close associates, the definitions one has learned about law violation, and the perceived rewards and punishments of criminal behavior—consistently emerge as among the strongest predictors of self-reported offending in survey research.
The theory’s particular strength is its ability to account for variation in offending within social groups and across developmental periods in ways that purely structural theories cannot. Social learning theory explains not only why individuals in high-crime neighborhoods are more likely to commit crimes than those in low-crime neighborhoods—they are exposed to more criminal models, more pro-criminal definitions, and more reinforcement for criminal behavior—but also why some individuals in high-crime neighborhoods do not commit crimes and why some individuals in low-crime neighborhoods do: individual variation in the balance of social learning experiences, independently of neighborhood conditions, produces individual variation in criminal behavior. This individuating capacity—the ability to account for within-group variation while also explaining between-group differences—is among social learning theory’s most valuable theoretical contributions.
Criticisms, Limitations, and the Theory’s Empirical Legacy
The Tautology Problem and the Peer Effects Debate
Differential association theory attracted a sustained critique from sociologists and psychologists who argued that its central empirical prediction—that criminal behavior was associated with exposure to criminal associates—was susceptible to a tautological interpretation. If individuals with criminal friends were more likely to commit crimes themselves, this association could reflect either the causal process that differential association theory specified (friends transmit pro-criminal definitions that produce criminal behavior) or a selection process through which individuals who were already predisposed to commit crimes chose criminal friends. The theory did not, in its original formulation, provide a way to distinguish these interpretations, and the observational data that most tests used could not rule out the selection alternative.
This peer selection versus peer influence debate was one of the most productive theoretical controversies in empirical criminology, motivating methodological innovations—longitudinal designs, natural experiments, sibling comparisons—capable of distinguishing the two processes. The accumulated evidence from these more rigorous designs found that both processes were real: individuals with pre-existing criminal propensities disproportionately sought out and were accepted by criminal peer groups (selection), and exposure to criminal peers independently increased subsequent criminal behavior beyond what pre-existing propensity predicted (influence). This resolution supported a qualified version of differential association theory—peer effects on criminal behavior were genuine causal effects, not merely artifacts of selection—while also acknowledging that the theory had overstated the importance of peer influence by neglecting the selection processes that produced criminal peer associations in the first place.
Cultural Transmission and the Criminology of Community
Sutherland’s concept of cultural transmission—the idea that criminal traditions were transmitted across generations within communities as well as among peers within cohorts—provided a framework for connecting individual-level learning processes to community-level patterns of crime concentration. High-crime neighborhoods were not merely places where individuals with criminal propensities happened to congregate; they were social environments where criminal techniques, definitions, and traditions were actively transmitted from experienced to novice participants through the normal social processes of community life. This community-level dimension of differential association theory bridged the individual-level learning framework and the ecological tradition of the Chicago School, connecting Sutherland’s account of how individuals became criminal to Shaw and McKay’s account of why crime was concentrated in specific neighborhoods.
Robert Matsueda’s rigorous empirical assessment of differential association theory’s current status in 1988 found that the theory’s core predictions—that differential association with criminal others and the learning of pro-criminal definitions predicted delinquency independently of structural background conditions—received consistent empirical support across the available evidence. The theory was weakest in specifying the mechanisms through which associations produced definitions and definitions produced behavior, and strongest in its identification of the primary social contexts within which criminal learning occurred. This assessment established the agenda for subsequent theoretical development: preserving the theory’s sociological insights about the primacy of social learning while specifying the learning mechanisms more precisely, which was precisely what Akers’s social learning theory attempted.
Sutherland’s intellectual legacy ultimately rests on two foundations that subsequent criminological development has confirmed rather than displaced. The first is the principle that criminal behavior, like all social behavior, is learned through social interaction and shaped by the social environment in which that learning occurs—a principle so thoroughly incorporated into contemporary criminological theory that it is often invisible as a theoretical choice rather than an obvious empirical fact. The second is the demonstration that criminology’s restriction to lower-class street crime was a political artifact rather than a scientific necessity, and that a discipline committed to understanding crime in all its forms must attend to the crimes of the powerful as seriously as to the crimes of the powerless—a commitment that has proven more difficult to sustain than Sutherland’s challenge implied, but that remains a standard against which criminological practice can be measured.
Conclusion
Edwin Sutherland’s contributions to criminology—differential association theory and the concept of white-collar crime—were not merely theoretical advances but fundamental reorientations of the discipline’s self-understanding. Differential association theory provided the first properly sociological account of criminal behavior as a form of learned social conduct, requiring neither biological abnormality nor psychological pathology and applying equally to crime across all social classes and all crime types. The concept of white-collar crime permanently expanded the discipline’s empirical domain and challenged the class assumptions that had organized criminological theorizing since its positivist origins, establishing that criminal behavior was not a property of the socially marginal but a practice distributed across the social spectrum in ways that reflected the distribution of criminal opportunity and the selective operation of the criminal justice system.
The limitations of Sutherland’s contributions—the operationalization difficulties of differential association theory, the imprecision of the definitions concept, the underspecification of the white-collar crime category—have been productive rather than debilitating, motivating the theoretical extensions (social learning theory) and empirical research programs (white-collar crime research) that have substantially advanced the discipline. Sutherland’s characteristic approach—combining theoretical ambition with empirical grounding, insisting on theoretical parsimony, and refusing to accept the class biases of existing frameworks as natural features of the social world—remains a model for criminological theorizing that the discipline has not yet exhausted. His 1939 challenge to criminology to study the crimes of the powerful as rigorously as the crimes of the powerless has been imperfectly fulfilled in the decades since, but it remains a standard that the discipline’s continuing confrontation with white-collar crime, corporate harm, and state crime regularly invokes.
The practical implications of differential association theory and its social learning extensions have been developed most fully in cognitive-behavioral treatment programs that target the criminal thinking patterns, pro-criminal attitudes, and criminal social affiliations that the theory identifies as proximate causes of offending. Programs like Reasoning and Rehabilitation, Moral Reconation Therapy, and Thinking for a Change—which systematic reviews have found to be among the most effective available for reducing recidivism among adult and juvenile offenders—operationalize social learning theory’s core insight that criminal behavior reflects learned patterns of thought and social reinforcement that can be modified through systematic intervention. This translation of Sutherland’s theoretical framework into evidence-based practice represents one of the most direct and consequential connections between criminological theory and criminal justice policy in the discipline’s history.
References
- Akers, R. L. (1968). Problems in the sociology of deviance: Social definitions and behavior. Social Forces, 46(4), 455–465. https://doi.org/10.2307/2575135
- Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (2nd ed.). Wadsworth.
- Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press.
- Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 636–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094592
- Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
- Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/799134
- Clinard, M. B., & Yeager, P. C. (1980). Corporate crime. Free Press.
- Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement. Free Press.
- Gaylord, M. S., & Galliher, J. F. (1988). The criminology of Edwin Sutherland. Transaction.
- Kubrin, C. E., Stucky, T. D., & Krohn, M. D. (2009). Researching theories of crime and deviance. Oxford University Press.
- Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2019). Criminological theory: Context and consequences (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
- Matsueda, R. L. (1988). The current state of differential association theory. Crime & Delinquency, 34(3), 277–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128788034003005
- Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Jr., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., Fearn, N. E., & Gau, J. M. (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820903379610
- Schrager, L. S., & Short, J. F. (1978). Toward a sociology of organizational crime. Social Problems, 25(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/800462
- Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan.
- Stitt, B. G., & Giacopassi, D. J. (1992). Trends in the integration of criminological theory. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 3(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511259200082141
- Sutherland, E. H. (1937). The professional thief. University of Chicago Press.
- Sutherland, E. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2307/2083937
- Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. Dryden Press.
- Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1955). Principles of criminology (5th ed.). Lippincott.
- Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664–670. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088191
- Weisburd, D., Waring, E., & Chayet, E. F. (2001). White-collar crime and criminal careers. Cambridge University Press.