Edwin Sutherland's Theory Of Differential Association

Edwin Sutherland’s theory of differential association states that “criminal behavior is linked to a person's association with a criminal environment” (Albrecht, 2014). Sutherland believed that criminal behavior was learned. The criminal behavior was not related to class, but environment (Albrecht, 2014). The idea that people aren’t predisposed to crime is simultaneously comforting and troubling. This is because the theory emphatically states that all people are equally capable of committing crime given the right influences (Albrecht, 2014).
Sutherland believed that if people were surrounded by more criminal influences or definitions than law abiding ones then they would eventually become a criminal as well (Albrecht, 2014). By spending time with criminals, people learn how to commit crime and the various “motives, drives,
Differential Association is not only the basis of the fraud triangle but also another theory known as “tone at the top” (Dent & Campbell, 2016). This theory holds that if the people at the top of an organization such as managers and directors are ethical, honest, and held accountable for their actions then so will everyone else (Dent & Campbell, 2016). Conversely, if the mangers are unethical, dishonest, and unaccountable then the rest of the organization will act the same way (Dent & Campbell, 2016).
I believe that differential association and its corollary tone at the top are very strong theories in the study of white collar crime. The fact that differential association has endured for 93 years since first proposed in 1924 is a testament to its accuracy. The theory is so well regarded that in 2014 the Institute of Internal Auditors found that “the tone at the top is…the single most important factor in determining the organization’s resistance to bribery and corruption” (Dent & Campbell,