Matsueda (1982), tested control theory against differential association, concluding that differential association was supported over control theory. However, since this breakthrough study came out almost ten years ago, there have been dramatic efforts to distinguish Sutherland's differential association theory from Hirschi social control theory. Contradicting control theory is the actual definitions as well as the model for crime causation itself. Hirschi's social control takes the social bond * peer delinquency * delinquency. Whereas, Sutherland's study was conclusive of the social bond * peer delinquency * definitions * delinquency. To come to the conclusion that one's social background does not give a clear and concise definition that one is to be delinquent. We must look at each person's background and upbringing. Sutherland conflicts with Hirschi's theory that definitions favorable to law violation are caused primarily by weak social bonds. (Criminology, 4 Nov. 1999) The theory of differential association in a simple form would be that delinquent friends influence delinquency only indirectly through their influence on the individual's definitions of delinquency. But as studies continue and samples and registered, I can see that this debate over differential association and control theory is not one that will be resolved, for that is what a theory is, it can be tested and questioned, it is not law.
The main hypothesis that was tested in my first study was on the relationship between social control theory in comparison with differential association. The research was thorough and yet not exactly conclusive in whether or not any type of comparison could be made. While there are some significant studies suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the two, there are many also many studies to suggest the different.
Another sample done through assessing differential association is through sampling those who are already a product of their crime - incarcerated.