| Abstract: | It is argued that the attempts of Burgess and Akers and of Adams to formulate Sutherland's differential association theory in the language of operant conditioning theory fail to preserve Sutherland's interesting insights by reducing his theory to the mere claim that criminal behavior is operant conditioning behavior. Questions are then raised about the truth of even this claim. Some attention is also given to the question of the verification of both Sutherland's original theory and the operant Conditioning reformulations of it. |
