Talk:Differential association

Sutherland's work

As a Lecturer at a UK university, I disagree with pretty much all of <Revision as of 21:58, 1 November 2006 (edit) (undo) 66.255.187.246 Although it this person is clearly trying to make the material easier to understand, they aren't familiar with Sutherland's work, hence actually making it more confused and more inaccurate. I can't figure out how to revert these edits though. I hope someone can help. 86.53.49.230 10:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone reads this, the year that this theory was first published needs to be placed on the main page. I have checked two books, and I am finding multiple answers. Also, why is it that Sutherland's partner, Donald R. Cressey, is not given credit for this theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.117.59 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

clarification

The following statement: 'This theory focuses on how individuals learn how to become criminals, but does not concern itself with why they become criminals' needs further clarification/explaining.

Why and how questions are closely related. For example, if a 'criminal' learns his/her behaviour by way of social interaction i.e. a theory explaining how the 'criminal' learned his/her behaviour, outlook, and position in life -- doesn't this also explain why the 'criminal' became one in the first place i.e. by way of social social interaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Terrible Article

This is a terrible article, one of the worst I've ever seen on WP. It's poorly written and contains a number of dubious assertions. I would caution students not to use it as a source--you may well fail.Pokey5945 (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Explanation first paragraph

Explanation begins with a non-sequitur that reads like a research note or article intro (...are proposed and empirically tested), but never explains these tests, methods, rationale, or anything at all other than asserting a random string of statements that bear no clear relation to anything else in the article (...well corroborated by data...) what data? (theory explains 51% of variance) with what diagnostic? Is this an R-squared? I attempted to revise the paragraph, keeping basic information and removing the uncited and unexplained research results, but it was hopeless. It's terrible, confusing, and now deleted. please rewrite if this concerns you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:37E0:5FF0:7CE6:81FD:7175:7E22 (talk) 11:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)