ABSTRACT
The theory suffers from serious weaknesses. One is that most hypotheses have a low informative content. For example, postulate 1 states that criminal behavior is learned. It is left open as to how it is learned. There seem to be contradictions. It is claimed, e.g., that learning of crime includes techniques of committing crimes. But in the “principle of differential association” it is held that an excess of “definitions” favorable to the violation of the criminal code lead to crime – techniques are not part of this hypothesis.
The comparison with rational choice theory focuses on the principle of differential association. We assume that “definitions” refer to positive or negative evaluations of crime someone is exposed to. Rational choice theory (RCT) implies that simply being faced with a “definition” is only relevant for committing crimes if it is associated with costs of benefits of crime. But this is to be expected only under certain conditions. If, for example, the source of the “definition” is a good friend, the person might expect to gain status if he or she commits crimes. Thus, “definitions” alone are irrelevant according to RCT.
