Differential Identification and Attitudes Toward the Law

In this study involving 351 correctional institution inmates, three measures of crimiinal reference group orientation are related to an index of attitudes favoring law violation. A moderate relationship is found between two of the reference group indices ("criminal identification" and "associational preference") and attitudes toward law violation. The third reference group index ("inmate loyalty") shows no association with the dependent variable. The findings are interpreted as supporting Glaser's "differential identification" formulation. rnhe theory of "differential association" as set forth by the late Edwin Sutherland has been the center of considerable controversy since its introduction in 1939.1 While many scholars have argued its strengths and weaknesses few have been moved to direct efforts to test it empirically.2 One constructive consequence of the polemics surrounding the theory, however, has been efforts to compensate * I wish to express my appreciation to Daniel Glaser, Howard Erhliclh, and Robert Terry for reading and suggesting improvements for this paper. 1 Edwin H. Sutherland, Principles of Crimninology (3d ed.; Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott Co., 1939), pp. 4-8. 2A number of good accounts of the history of the theory including an evaluation of the criticisms directed against it are available. Cf. Donald R. Cressey, Delinquency, Crime and Differential Association (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1964); and Daniel Glaser, "The Differential Association Theory of Crime," Human Behavior and Social Processes, (ed.) Arnold Rose (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962), pp. 425-442. While the results of a variety of research efforts might be interpreted as being consistent with the theory of differential association (cf. Glaser, op. cit., pp. 432438) only a limited number of efforts have been focused toward a direct test of the theory. Some examples of this type of research include: James F. Short, Jr., "Differential Association and Delinquency," Social Problemns (January 1957), pp. 233-239; James F. Short, Jr., "Differential Association with Delinquent Friends and Delinquent Behavior," Pacific Sociological Review (Spring 1958), pp. 20-25; Albert J. Reiss, Jr. and Albert Rhodes, "An Empirical Test of Differential Association Theory," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (January 1964), pp. 5-18; Harwin Voss, "Differential Association and Delinquent Behavior," Social Problem,s (Summer 1964), pp. 78-85; and Donald R. Cressey, Other People's Money (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1963). This content downloaded from 207.46.13.180 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:14:36 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms ATTITUDES TOWARD THE LAW 257 for somiie of its limiiitations by reformulation.3 These mo(lifications like the original statement have elicited favorable and unfavorable reactions, but little researclh oriented toward a (lirect test of their content. It is the purpose of this paper to report an attempt to test a reformulation of the tlheory of differential association as set forth by Daniel Glaser in 1956.4 Glaser recasts the theory in the language of social psychology, introducing the concepts of "role-takiilg" and "reference group" in order to make the process by which "crimilinalization" takes place more explicit. He labels this process "differential identification." Identification is defined as "the choice of another from whose perspective we view our own behavior." The essence of the theory is summarized as follows: "A persont ptursues crimxinal behavior to the extentt that he identifies himtself with rea.l or imaginary persons from whose perspective his criminal behavior seemts acceptable."5 This formulationi tends to focus attention on the process by which criminal or noncriminal models are selected, including the individual's rationalization of his choice to himself. Glaser indicates that for a given individual, at any given period of timle, prior idenitification aind( preselnt circumstainces will (lictate the persons with whom he identifies. As Sherif has noted, As he (mnai) passes from one group situation to another from timc to time, he reacts to the dcemancds, pressures and appeals of new group situations in terms of the person he has come to consider himself, and aspires to be. In other words, he reacts in termiis of more or less consistent ties of helongingness in relation to his past and present identity, an(d also status and prestige concerns . the grotups to wlhich an individual relates himself nee(d not always be the groups in which he is actually m10ovinig. His identities needi not always be with groups with which he is registered, is seen to he or announced to be a member . . . in many cases, of course, the individual's reference groups are the same as his membership groups. However, in cases where the individual's membership groups are not his reference groups, it does not follow that the groups in which he actually interacts will inot have an effect on him.0 The possible applicability of differential identification theory for explaining an individual's participation in a juvenile or professional gang is reasonably apparent. It is less apparent for explaining assaultive crime, or crimes where the source of learning is not evident and wlhere the "others" involved in the identification are not readily isolated. TIIE REFERENCE GROUP PROBLEM The process of "identification" as described by Glaser appears to be identical to the process by which individuals acquire reference groups. To say that persons commit crimes when they identify with individuals or groups who approve of this behavior is to say that persons commit crimes when they are oriented to referei,ce groups that condone this belhavior.7 3 Donald R. Cressey, "Application anid VerificationI of the Differential Association Theory," Joutrntal of Criminial Law'. Crimininology, and Police Science (May-June 1952), pp. 44-52; Daniel Glaser, "Criminality Theories and Behavioral Images." American Journal of Sociology, 61 (March 1956), pp. 433-444; and Robert L. Burgess and Ronald L. Akers, "Differential Association-Reinforcement Theory of Criminal Behavior," Social Problemis (Fall 1966), pp. 128-147. 4 Glaser, "Criminality Theories and Behavioral Images," pp. 433-444. 5 Ibid., p. 440. 6 Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn Sherif, Groutps in J-larmonzy and Tension (New York: Harper & Bros., 1953), pp. 160-161. 7 The reference group concept developed from theorizing by sociologists and psychologists who were seeking to explain the fact that an individual's beliavior is often influenced by groups of which he is not a member, as well as by the groups in which he does hold membership. For a person content with his status and affiliation, reference groups may coincide with membership groups, but a person may be negatively oriented to his memb)ership group, and may be more positively oriented to another group, perhaps one he holds in high esteem, or onle in which he wishes to be accepted. Group in this context may refer to a specific other person, or to several specific persons, such as a family ullit, or it may refer to a general category of people, such as the members of a particular occupation, prison inmates, respectable people, sports or entertainment celebrities, etc. Apart from such variation in what are designated as reference groups, there is considerable diversity in the manner in which the concept is employed in the interprctation of behavior, e.g., both Shibutani and Turner distinguish three different uses of the concept. Cf. Tamotsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspectives," A,ncrican Joutrntal of SoThis content downloaded from 207.46.13.180 on Mon, 26 Sep 2016 06:14:36 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms