Criminology

General theory, gender-specific theory, and white-collar crime

Kristy Holtfreter School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University,

Phoenix, Arizona, USA

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of gender in white-collar crime. Directions for future research testing general and gender-specific theories are provided. Design/methodology/approach – Prior research is reviewed and critiques of general and gender-specific explanations for offending in the workplace context are advanced. Findings – Gender-specific explanations in other offending contexts (e.g. violent crime) appear to be less applicable to the understanding of white-collar crime, a finding that lends support to general theory. Practical implications – This paper provides an outline for future research testing criminological theory in organizational settings. Originality/value – This paper represents a unique attempt to apply general and gender-specific theories to a variety of financial crimes in the context of organizations.

Keywords Gender, White-collar crime, Fraud, General theory, Organizations

Paper type Literature review

Introduction It is estimated that fraud costs the typical organization approximately 5 per cent each year; when applied to the 2013 Gross World Product, this translates to a projected global fraud loss of $3.7 trillion (Association For Certified Fraud Examiners, 2014). There is a long history of theoretical and empirical interest in asset misappropriation, financial misstatements, corruption and other forms of workplace offending that are often collectively referred to as “white-collar crime”. In the 2000s, a series of high profile scandals in corporate America renewed public interest in the topic and also contributed to increased research attention (Holtfreter et al., 2008a, 2008b). Understanding the factors that contribute to white-collar offending remains important for researchers as well as policy-makers and the organizational actors on the front lines of fraud prevention. The gender gap in crime – the overrepresentation of males in virtually all official arrest statistics – has narrowed in recent decades and is considerably smaller for white-collar crimes. Attention to gender in research on white-collar crime has been a relatively recent and welcomed development in the literature. Whether the same theories originally designed to explain criminal behavior of males also explain female white-collar offending remains an empirical question that has gone largely unanswered. In sum, a gender gap in theories of white-collar crime still persists.

Sutherland (1949, p. 9) originally defined white-collar crime as “crime by a person of high social status and respectability in the course of his occupation” (emphasis added). This gender-specific definition was articulated in an historical period in which males made up the majority of the workforce, so it is not altogether surprising

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm

JFC 22,4

422

Journal of Financial Crime Vol. 22 No. 4, 2015 pp. 422-431 © Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1359-0790 DOI 10.1108/JFC-12-2014-0062

that initial empirical studies of crime in the workplace – and the theories developed to explain these emerging forms of crime – focused exclusively on males. Subsequent changes in the make up of the American labor force, convergence in the gender gap in crime (i.e. an increasing percentage of women reflected in official arrest statistics) and the larger feminist movement all contributed to an increasing recognition of the importance of female involvement in white-collar crime (Holtfreter, 2014 for a review). Coinciding with these developments, feminist criminologists began to question the notion that theories originally developed by males and tested on male samples could also provide an adequate explanation of female offending. Many of these critiques, and the empirical work based on them, indeed suggested that context matters, particularly for understanding female involvement street crime. Whether males and females differ so drastically in the context of white-collar crime remains an open empirical question.

Scholars have long since abandoned Sutherland’s operational definition of white-collar crime, not due to its gendered restriction, but primarily its emphasis on class, which conflated definition with explanation. It is important to note, however, that the original “high status” restriction inherently carried with it a gendered restriction in that women in organizations rarely achieved the occupational positions and opportunity required to commit “high status” offenses. Despite considerable debate surrounding operational definitions of white-collar crime, the distinction made by Clinard and Quinney (1967) separating white-collar crime into two sub-types of occupational crime, benefiting the individual, and corporate crime, benefiting the larger organization, has generally been accepted. This offense-based distinction does not restrict samples based on offender characteristics, such as class or gender, permitting scholars to consider individual-level variation in the offending. Coinciding with the consensus on defining white-collar crime, the gender gap in offending has narrowed considerably, particularly for offenses committed in the workplace, such as fraud and embezzlement. These developments have renewed attention to the role of gender in white-collar crime. While women now make up a larger percentage of the workforce, their representation in white-collar crime, particularly what is considered large-scale corporate offending, remains low (Brady et al., 2011).

Despite the aforementioned theoretical advancements and the demographic changes in the composition of the workforce, theoretical understanding of white-collar crime remains somewhat limited. Scholars following in Sutherland’s footsteps have made great strides toward addressing his initial oversights by including both males and females in their analyses (Daly, 1989; Holtfreter, 2005, 2008, 2013; Klenowski et al., 2011; Wheeler et al., 1982; Weisburd et al., 1990, 1995). Sutherland’s broader goal was the advancement of a general theory – his differential association theory – that explained both “crime in the streets” as well as “crime in the suites”. In this tradition, many early and recent theoretical applications to white-collar crime have been informed by general theory. Along these lines, the current study reviews several prominent general theoretical perspectives: differential association/social learning, general strain and procedural justice. Empirical research testing these perspectives is also examined, followed by a critique that is informed by feminist criminological theorizing. The review concludes with an outline for future research that takes into account the gendered nature of white-collar crime.

423

General theory, gender-

specific theory

General theory Differential association and social learning An expansion of the differential association framework originally posited by Sutherland (1939), the primary argument of Ronald Akers’s social learning is that individuals learn either prosocial norms or antisocial norms (i.e. deviant, delinquent and criminal behavior) through key learning mechanisms and processes. Differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement and imitation are the four major propositions of social learning theory. Prior research has demonstrated social learning theory’s capacity to significantly account for learned deviant behaviors that are consistent with the white-collar crime (Michaels and Miethe, 1989). Based on their meta-analysis of 133 research studies, Pratt et al. (2010a, 2010b) found consistent empirical support for this perspective.

Differential association Differential association is “the process whereby one is exposed to normative definitions favorable or unfavorable to illegal or law-abiding behavior” (Akers, 2011, p. 132). Whether individuals engage in white-collar crime is largely based on their socialization within certain peer groups (i.e. differential association). In a street crime setting, interactions with deviant peers promote criminal activity. Their perceptions (i.e. definitions) of activity are influenced by their relationships with various peer groups (e.g. gangs and other deviant networks). Definitions can be positive (i.e. pro-deviant behavior), negative (i.e. anti-deviant behavior) or neutralizing (i.e.justification(s) for participating in criminal activity). Differential reinforcement is also a key mechanism in that “the balance of anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are consequences of behavior” (Akers, 2011, p. 133). Applied to white-collar crime, then, the perspective suggests that individuals engage in workplace offending because the benefits (e.g. “financial gain”) will typically exceed the known consequences (e.g. “getting caught”).

Building on Sutherland’s work, Cressey (1953) interviewed incarcerated male embezzlers. Cressey’s study documented that the offenders rationalized stealing from their employers. The most frequent rationalization identified by the offenders Cressey studied was the claim that the offender was simply “borrowing” the money, with every intention to repay his trusted employer. Nearly three decades later, Zietz (1981) conducted a partial replication of Cressey’s study, using a sample of women incarcerated in the state of California. Similar to Cressey, Zietz also found that the “borrowing” rationalization was common. However, males and females differ in their motivations for the crime. While Cressey’s sample cited the presence of a personal non-shareable financial problem, such as gambling debts or other vices, as the motivating force behind their offense, Zietz’s sample most frequently cited financial needs related to close others (e.g. to pay medical expenses for a sick spouse or child). Taken together, these two groundbreaking studies lend support to the “definition” concept central to Sutherland’s differential association theory, but simultaneously highlight motivational differences between males and females.

Thus far, differential association and social learning theories have received mixed support in the empirical literature. Sutherland’s proposition regarding definitions “favorable or unfavorable to crime” has been supported in some research documenting that norms and values held by authority figures in organizations are used to justify

JFC 22,4

424

decisions to offend (Piquero et al., 2005). Some studies have found that males are more likely than females to commit white-collar crime in groups, a finding that alludes to support for differential association theory among males (Daly, 1989; Holtfreter, 2005, 2008; Steffensmeier et al., 2013). However, no research to date has specifically tested whether differential association or social learning theories explain gender differences in white-collar offending, particularly with regard to motivation as demonstrated by both Cressey (1953) and Zietz (1981). And, as discussed further below, some of the strongest critiques of general theoretical perspectives have emerged through the work of feminist scholars.

Strain theory Originally, strain theorists set out to explain aggregate crime patterns (Cloward and Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1955; Merton, 1938). At the individual level, strain theory suggests that people commit crime when they are blocked from legitimately achieving cultural goals (e.g. monetary success). In this vein, Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory posits that a variety of pressures, or strains, increase the likelihood of engaging in crime. According to Agnew (2006, p. 101), strain includes the inability to achieve positively valued goals, the loss of positively valued stimuli and the presentation of negatively valued stimuli. Individuals use both negative and positive means of coping with strain; one negative response is crime. Agnew (2006) suggests that individual-level sources of strain include personality traits, such as poor problem-solving, as well as low levels of direct social control (e.g. monitoring). Consistent with Wang and Holtfreter’s (2012) research on corporate crime, employees in organizational settings are exposed to strain from multiple levels (e.g. unit and organizational pressures and goals). Research testing the influence of strain on crime in organizations should attempt to incorporate multi-level sources of strain and opportunity.

Similar to other general theories, strain theory has been applied to both street crimes and white-collar crimes, and there has been considerable support for the theory in a variety of crime contexts (Agnew, 2006). Indeed, like differential association and social learning theories, part of the appeal of strain theory is its generality. Because the opportunity structure of organizations and the industries in which they are located varies, it would be expected that both organizational- and industry-level factors would exert unique strains on individuals (Wang and Holtfreter, 2012).

Although there have been few tests of strain theory at the individual level in a white-collar crime context, scholars have called for increased application of this perspective, noting that individuals in the corporate world face a multitude of personal and workplace stressors (Agnew et al., 2009). These include the blockage of monetary goals as well as the inability to achieve those goals through legitimate means. In the larger body of criminological literature, increased attention has focused on the extent to which strain is gendered (Agnew, 2006; Broidy and Agnew, 1997). More specifically, it has been argued that there are gender differences in the types of strain experienced, as well as in the reactions to particular strains. Males, for example, may be more likely to respond to strain with negative emotions in the form of anger and aggression, while females respond with depression and anxiety (Agnew, 2006). To be sure, these propositions require testing in a white-collar crime context. The recent and continued developing attention to gender in tests of general strain theory is not inconsistent with recommendations made by feminist criminologists (Holtfreter and Cupp, 2007).

425

General theory, gender-

specific theory

Procedural justice Organizational justice, the overarching paradigm that encompasses procedural justice, includes the fairness of outcomes as well as the fairness of the procedures used to determine those outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001). The concept of procedural justice was originally developed in studies of the legal system as a perspective to explain fairness of court procedures and sentences (Thibault and Walker, 1975). Subsequent research on procedural justice has continued to focus on the importance of individuals’ perceptions of decisions, both within and outside the organizational context. While the bulk of this research has been applied in other settings (e.g. citizen and suspect perceptions of the police; offender compliance with the directives of correctional authorities), it is also highly relevant to white-collar crime (Tyler, 2009). Indeed, research has revealed that employees who feel they are treated fairly and justly are less likely to steal from their employers (Greenberg, 1983). In this manner, justice perceptions are akin to the rationalizations identified within differential association theory.

To date, there has been limited application of procedural justice and legitimacy to the study of white-collar crime. This may be due, at least in part, to the difficulties associated with obtaining white-collar crime data. With few exceptions, white-collar crime scholars continue to rely almost exclusively on data obtained from samples of convicted offenders. As a result, the primary dependent variable of interest in procedural justice – compliance or adherence to the rules – is not available. Scholars may get around these constraints by using novel methods (e.g. vignette-based studies examining compliance intentions). In sum, this general theoretical perspective provides promise for explaining white-collar crime in organizational settings. More broadly, research on gender in organizational context suggests that women tend to exhibit more ethical behaviors in the workplace, a hypothesis that requires empirical investigation in white-collar crime scholarship (Hoffman, 1998).

Gender-specific theory General theory, by design, is supposed to be gender neutral. Proponents of mainstream general theory argue that it can be applied to all crimes at all times, regardless of gender. Feminist criminologists have long questioned that general theories originally articulated by males and tested on male-only samples can be applied to female offending (Morash, 1999; Steffensmeier and Allan 1996). Central to this critique is the idea that general theory does not adequately take into account the context of female offending. In the broader literature on gender and crime, feminist scholars have addressed the importance of context through the “pathways to crime” approach (Daly, 1992). This approach is as much a research methodology as it is a theoretical perspective and has been praised for its attention to gendered context and, more recently, its influence on criminal justice policy (Wattanaporn and Holtfreter, 2014). Supporters of this approach also promote its reliance on mixed-methods (i.e. incorporation of both quantitative and qualitative techniques) as a means of gaining a more detailed understanding of the context and circumstances that influence offending.

Along these lines, a “pure” pathways approach in the study of any type(s) of crime approximates Daly’s, (1992) original work, consisting of writing biographies of offenders and, subsequently, coding them for the identification of themes. Reisig et al. (2006) improved on Daly’s initial study by including not just a single source of potentially biased data to construct biographies (i.e. Daly’s reliance solely on

JFC 22,4

426

pre-sentence investigations), but also information from women themselves in the form of qualitative interviews and supplementary data obtained from their probation and parole officers. Supporting Daly, Reisig et al. also found that women followed distinct pathways to crime, many of which are influenced by gendered circumstances not common to males (e.g. running away from home following sexual or physical abuse; domestic violence victimization as adults). Reisig et al. also identified an “economically motivated pathway”, including women who committed offenses consistent with established definitions of white-collar crime (e.g. forgery, fraud and embezzlement). Unlike the women who followed gendered pathways into crime, the “economically motivated” women generally lacked substance abuse problems, a history of victimization and had limited if any offense histories. Similar to the men originally studied by Cressey (1953), many of Reisig et al.’s economically motivated women were living beyond their means, rationalized their offenses as “borrowing” from their employers and had little fear of getting caught. Similar to Zietz’s (1981) results, some women also reported caring for family members as a driving force behind violating their employer’s trust.

Building on the pathways approach, Steffensmeier et al. (2013) conducted a detailed, comprehensive study of women’s involvement in late twentieth-century corporate frauds. They addressed the lack of available data problem that plagues much white-collar crime research by developing their own database consisting of 83 corporate frauds and 436 offenders. Consistent with previous research, they found that women occupied lower legitimate roles (i.e. position in the organizational hierarchy) as well as in crime (e.g. played minor parts and profited less from offending). This groundbreaking research supports the idea that gendered process in illegitimate activities parallel those in the legitimate workplace.

While the backgrounds of male and female white-collar offenders may indeed be similar, research in the field of organizational theory suggests that workplace context is an important albeit understudied component in white-collar crime. The gendered structure of the workplace restricts women from achieving the kind of leadership positions (i.e. CEO) that provide opportunity to commit what might be considered “high level” corporate crimes (Davies, 2003). Studies including position in the organizational hierarchy have found that the majority of serious offenses, as defined by dollar amount lost to the organization, are committed by males in higher-level positions (Holtfreter, 2005). Women, on the other hand, are frequently represented in cases of asset misappropriation, which often involve much smaller losses. In sum, males and females may be more alike than unique in terms of the factors and circumstances that predict their involvement in white-collar crime, but likely differ with regard to motivation and opportunity. This is not to say, however, that future empirical tests of general theory should not take gender into account; rather, tests can certainly be improved by a variety of methodological and analytic strategies originally articulated in feminist critiques. These are articulated in more detail in the section that follows.

Discussion This review focused on three general theories that have been applied in a variety of crime contexts: differential association/social learning, general strain and procedural justice. These theories have been well received in contexts ranging from juvenile offending to public perceptions of the police. Although the theories vary with regard to

427

General theory, gender-

specific theory

key independent variables and the weights placed on these factors, they share a common thread in that they speak to the importance of opportunity in the understanding of individual-level behavior. According to differential association and social learning perspectives, crime is learned in the same way as legitimate behavior: by association with peers. In a workplace setting, such associations provide opportunities for offending. Within the context of general strain theory, opportunity operates similarly in that the inability to achieve desired goals via legitimate means creates strain on individuals. Crime is thus one of many illegitimate means of alleviating strain. Finally, research on procedural justice and legitimacy highlights the role of opportunity as a key factor in promoting compliance with organizational rules and perceived legitimacy of authority figures. Simply providing an opportunity for employee voices to be heard may thus go a long way toward promoting compliance and, hence, reducing workplace offending. Feminist criminologists and organizational theorists argue that opportunity itself is constrained by gender, an assertion that must receive careful theoretical and empirical consideration in future research.

The theoretical perspectives examined here all focus on the individual level. A variety of studies, however, underscore that white-collar crime is likely a complex, multi-level phenomenon (Brady et al., 2011; Holtfreter, 2005, 2008, 2013; Steffensmeier et al., 2013; Wang and Holtfreter, 2012). As alluded to in the discussion of opportunity, future research in organizational settings should consider sources of social learning, strain and legitimacy perceptions both within (e.g. rules, evaluation and promotion strategies) and outside the organization (e.g. industry-level regulations and norms). The extent to which these perceptions may vary by gender and position in the organizational hierarchy would also shed light on the subject.

It should be noted that this review focused on just three general theoretical perspectives. Other theories that have received support when applied to white-collar crime include self-control (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990) and routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson, 1979). These theories have received support individually, but especially when they are linked (Holtfreter et al., 2008a, 2008b; Pratt et al., 2010a, 2010b). Along those lines, the integrated model has increasingly been used to explain victimization. Several studies have linked self-control to fraud offending (Holtfreter, 2014; Holtfreter et al., 2010a, 2010b). The theory’s applicability to large-scale corporate frauds has been questioned on the assumption that high self-control is required to attain the organizational positions necessary for fraudulent opportunities. Future research incorporating gender should also consider self-control as an explanation for white-collar crime. Such investigations might also consider routine activity theory as a guiding strategy for the prevention of crime in the workplace (Walker and Holtfreter, 2015).

Some of the methodological approaches favored by feminist criminologists, such as the construction of offender biographies and subsequent qualitative analyses or mixed methods approaches that include both quantitative and qualitative data, are not always feasible or realistic, given the temporal and financial limitations associated with most research projects. Other strategies are readily available and involve little to no burden on a research project. At a minimum, researchers testing general theory in a sample that includes both males and females would be well advised to consider a simple analytic strategy that moves beyond the dominant strategy that feminists criminologists refer to as “adding gender and stir” (Holtfreter and Cupp, 2007). When gender is used as a control variable, the analysis assumes that the effects of principal independent variables

JFC 22,4

428

suggested by general theory operate in a uniform way across sex. Feminist criminologists have addressed the limits of the mainstream approach by estimating separate explanatory models for males and females (Belknap and Holsinger, 2006). To advance understanding of the gendered context of white-collar crime, future tests of general theory should follow this strategy.

White-collar crime research that is informed by gender is not just theoretically important, but is also critical for the development and advancement of crime prevention strategies. Aggregate-level data (e.g. arrest statistics on white-collar crime) will continue to reveal patterns in the gender gap in crime, but this source is only part of the picture. Qualitative data can supplement this information by providing a rich understanding of organizational processes, and male and female perceptions of these processes, that may further inform preventative efforts. The role of opportunity in white-collar crime cannot be understated (Benson et al., 2009). Along those lines, the available research suggests that strategies designed to target opportunities for offending will have a considerable impact in the workplace (Holtfreter, 2014).

References Agnew, R. (1992), “Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency”, Criminology,

Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 47-87. Agnew, R. (2006), “General strain theory: current status and directions for future research”, in

Cullen, F.T., Wright, J.P. and Blevins, K.R. (Eds), Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory, Advances in Criminological Theory, Roxbury, Los Angeles, CA, Vol. 15, pp. 101-123.

Agnew, R., Piquero, N.L. and Cullen, F.T. (2009), “General strain theory and white-collar crime”, in Simpson, S.S. and Weisburd, D. (Eds), The Criminology of White-Collar Crime, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 35-60.

Akers, R.L. (2011), “A social learning theory of crime”, in Cullen, F.T. and Agnew, R. (Eds), Criminological Theory: Past to Present, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 130-142.

Association for Certified Fraud Examiners (2014), Report to the Nations On Occupational Fraud and Abuse, ACFE, Austin, TX.

Belknap, J. and Holsinger, K. (2006), “The gendered nature of risk factors for delinquency”, Feminist Criminology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 48-71.

Benson, M.L., Madensen, T.D. and Eck, J.E. (2009), “White-collar crime from an opportunity perspective”, in Simpson, S.S. and Weisburd, D. (Eds), The Criminology of White-Collar Crime, Springer, New York, NY, 175-193.

Brady, D., Isaacs, K., Reeves, M., Burroway, R. and Reynolds, M. (2011), “Sector, size, stability, and scandal: explaining the presence of female executives in Fortune 500 firms”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 84-104.

Broidy, L. and Agnew, R. (1997), “Gender and crime: a general strain theory perspective”, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 275-306.

Clinard, M.R. and Quinney, R. (1967), Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Cloward, R.A. and Ohlin, L.E. (1960), Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs, Free Press, New York, NY.

Cohen, A.K. (1955), Delinquent Boys: The Culture of the Gang, Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979), “Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity

approach”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 588-608.

429

General theory, gender-

specific theory

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.

Cressey, D.R. (1953), Other People’s Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Embezzlement, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.

Daly, K. (1989), “Gender and varieties of white-collar crime”, Criminology, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 769-793. Daly, K. (1992), “Women’s pathways to felony court: feminist theories of lawbreaking and problems of

representation”, Southern California Review of Law and Women’s Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 11-52.

Davies, P. (2003), “Is economic crime a man’s game?”, Feminist Theory, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 283-303. Gottfredson, M.L. and Hirschi, T. (1990), A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press,

Palo Alto. Greenberg, J. (1983), “Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderators

of theft reactions to underpayment inequity”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 81-103.

Hoffman, J. (1998), “Are women really more ethical than men? Maybe it depends on the situation”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 60-74.

Holtfreter, K. (2005), “Is occupational fraud ‘typical’ white-collar crime? A comparison of individual and organizational characteristics”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 353-365.

Holtfreter, K. (2008), “The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim decision-making”, Crime, Law, and Social Change, Vol. 50 Nos 4/5, pp. 307-330.

Holtfreter, K. (2013), “Gender and ‘other people’s money”: an analysis of white-collar offender sentencing”, Women and Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 326-344.

Holtfreter, K. (2014), “White-collar and corporate crime”, in Gartner, R. and McCarthy, B. (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Sex, Gender, and Crime, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 490-505.

Holtfreter, K. and Cupp, R. (2007), “Gender and risk assessment: the empirical status of the LSI-R for women”, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 363-382.

Holtfreter, K., Beaver, M., Reisig, M.D. and Pratt, T.C. (2010a), “Low self-control and fraud offending”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 295-307.

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D., Piquero, N.L. and Piquero, A.R. (2010b), “Low self-control and fraud: offending, victimization, and their overlap”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 188-203.

Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D. and Pratt, T.C. (2008), “Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization”, Criminology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 189-220.

Holtfreter, K., VanSlyke, S., Bratton, J. and Gertz, M. (2008), “Public perceptions of white-collar crime and punishment”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 50-60.

Klenowski, P.M., Copes, H. and Mullins, C.W. (2011), “Gender, identity, and accounts: how white-collar offenders do gender when making sense of their crimes”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 46-69.

Merton, R.K. (1938), “Social structure and anomie”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp. 672-682.

Michaels, J.W. and Miethe, T.D. (1989), “Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating”, Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 870-885.

Morash, M. (1999), “A consideration of gender in relation to social learning and social structure: a general theory of crime and deviance”, Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 451-482.

JFC 22,4

430

Piquero, N.L., Tibbetts, S.G. and Blankenship, M. (2005), “Examining the role of differential association and techniques of neutralization in explaining corporate crime”, Deviant Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 159-188.

Pratt, T.C., Cullen, F.T., Sellers, C.S., Winfree, L.T., Madensen, T.D., Daigle, L.E., Fearn, N.E. and Gau, J.M. (2010), “The empirical status of social learning theory: a meta-analysis”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 765-802.

Pratt, T.C., Holtfreter, K. and Reisig, M.D. (2010), “Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: extending the generality of routine activity theory”, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 267-296.

Reisig, M.D., Holtfreter, K. and Morash, M. (2006), “Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime”, Justice Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 384-405.

Steffensmeier, D., Schwartz, J. and Roche, M. (2013), “Gender and twenty-first century corporate crime: female involvement and the gender gap in Enron-era corporate frauds”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 78 No. 3, pp. 448-476.

Steffensmeier, D. and Allan, E. (1996), “Gender and crime: toward a gendered theory of female offending”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 459-487.

Sutherland, E.H. (1939), Principles of Criminology, J. B. Lippincott, Philadelphia. Sutherland, E.H. (1949), White-Collar Crime, Dryden Press, New York, NY. Thibault, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Hillsdale, NJ. Tyler, T.R. (2009), “Self-regulatory approaches to white-collar crime: the importance of legitimacy

and procedural justice”, in Simpson, S.S. and Weisburd, D. (Eds), The Criminology of White-Collar Crime, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 195-216.

Walker, N. and Holtfreter, K. (2015), “Applying criminological theory to academic fraud”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 22 No. 1.

Wang, X. and Holtfreter, K. (2012), “The effects of corporation and industry-level strain and opportunity on corporate crime”, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 151-185.

Wattanaporn, K.A. and Holtfreter, K. (2014), “The contribution of feminist pathways research to gender-responsive policy and practice”, Feminist Criminology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 191-207.

Weisburd, D., Waring, E. and Chayet, E. (1990), “White-collar crime and criminal careers: some preliminary findings”, Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 342-355.

Weisburd, D., Waring, E. and Chayet, E. (1995), “Specific deterrence in a sample of white-collar offenders”, Criminology, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 587-598.

Wheeler, S., Weisburd, D. and Bode, N. (1982), “Sentencing the white-collar offender: rhetoric and reality”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 47 No. 5, pp. 641-659.

Zietz, D. (1981), Women Who Embezzle or Defraud: A Study of Convicted Felons, Praeger, New York, NY.

Corresponding author Kristy Holtfreter can be contacted at: [email protected]

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected]

431

General theory, gender-

specific theory

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.