Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Workplace theft: An analysis of student-employee offenders and job attributes

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper identifies characteristics and behaviors of college students who steal from their places of employment. As such, the present study focuses on the job-related lifestyle behaviors and characteristics of students that influence their opportunities and likelihood of stealing from their place of employment. The data come from self-administered surveys conducted with 1,531 college students in the fall of 1996. Results reveal job characteristics that increase opportunity and past criminal behavior are the most influential predictors of individuals who engage in workplace theft. Policy implications are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bacas, H. (1987). To stop a thief.Nation’s Business, June, 16–23.

  • Banta, W. F., & Tenant, F. (1989).Complete handbook for combating substance abuse in the workplace: Medical facts, legal issues, and practical solutions. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brod, E. (1994). A new form of warfare: Employees “get even” in the age of layoffs.USA Today Magazine, 123(November), 58–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, P., & Arnold, D. (1989).Reid report examiners manual. Chicago: Reid Psychological Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1997).Labor force status of persons 16 to 24 years old by school enrollment, educational attainment, sex, race, and Hispanic origin, October, 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. (1993). Ways to curtail employee theft.Nation’s Business, 81, April, 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clinard, M. B., & Quinney R. (1973).Criminal behavior systems. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Cantor, D. (1980). The determinants of larceny: An empirical and theoretical study.Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 17, 140–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Cantor, D. (1981). Residential burglary in the United States: Life-styles and demographic factors associated with the probability of victimization.Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 18, 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory.American Sociological Review, 46, 505–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, G. (1992, March 25). The daunting task of preventing theft at theater box offices.The New York Times, C17.

  • Collins, J. J., Cox, B. G., & Langan, P. A. (1987). Job activities and personal crime victimization: Implications for theory.Social Science Research, 16, 345–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, P. J. (1987). Robbery violence.Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 78, 357–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabney, D. (1995). Neutralization and deviance in the workplace: Theft of supplies and medicines by hospital nurses.Deviant Behavior, 16, 313–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K. (1989). Gender and varieties of white-collar crime.Criminology, 27, 769–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditton, J., & Brown, R. (1981). Why don’t they revolt? “Invisible income” as a neglected dimension of Runciman’s relative deprivation thesis.British Journal of Sociology, 32, 521–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engs, R. C. (1977). Drinking patterns and drinking problems of college students.Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 38, 2144–2156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulhaber, T. A. (1997). Employee fraud.The Business Forum Online. [On-line], April 23, 2000. Available: http://www.businessforum.com/fraud.html.

  • Gallup Report. (1985).Alcohol use and abuse in America. Princeton, NJ: Gallup.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilman, H. (1982). The hidden epidemic: Nurses and narcotics.Boston Magazine, October, 110–115.

  • Green, G. S. (1997).Occupational crime (2nd ed.). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, R. (1984). Employee theft in the restaurant trade: Forms of ripping off by waiters at work.Deviant Behavior, 5, 47–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofacre, S. (1979).Employee theft in hospitals: An exploratory study of victimization and occupational crime. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollinger, R. C., & Clark, J. P. (1983).Theft by employees. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollinger, R. C., Slora, K. B., & Terris, W. (1992). Deviance in the fast-food restaurant: Correlates of employee theft, altruism, and counterproductivity.Deviant Behavior, 13, 155–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J. W., Slora, D. B., & Boye, M. W. (1990). Theft reduction through personnel selection: A control group design in the supermarket industry.Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 275–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kantor, S. (1983). How to foil employee crime.Nation’s Business, July, 38–39.

  • Kennedy, L. E., & Baron, S. W. (1993). Routine activities and a subculture of violence: A study of violence on the street.Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 88–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, L. W., & Forde, D. R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada.Criminology, 28, 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lary, B. K. (1988). Thievery on the inside.Security Management, 32, 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasley, J. R. (1989). Drinking routines/lifestyles and predatory victimization: A causal analysis.Justice Quarterly, 6, 529–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lipman, M., & McGraw, W. R. (1988). Employee theft: A $40 billion industry.Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 498, 51–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J. P. (1987). Routine activities and victimization at work.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J. P., & Cantor, D. (1992). Ecological and behavioral influences on property victimization at home: Implications for opportunity theory.Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29, 335–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mars, G. (1974). Dock pilferage: A case study of occupational theft. In P. Rock & M. Mclntosh (Eds.),Deviance and social control (pp. 209–228). London: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mars, G., & Nicod, M. (1984).The world of waiters. London: George Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxfield, M. G. (1987). Household composition, routine activity, and victimization: A comparative analysis.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie.American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messner, S. R., & Tardiff, K. (1985). The social ecology of urban homicide: An application of the “routine activities” approach.Criminology, 23, 241–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miethe, T. D., & McCorkle, R. (1998).Crime profiles. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miethe, T. D., & McDowell, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization.Social Forces, 71, 741–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriarty, L., & Williams, J. (1996). Testing routine activities theory and social disorganization theory: An analysis of property crime victimization.American Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E. (1997). The determinants of victimization in general and in three domains: The importance of testing routine activities/lifestyle theory in sex and domain specific context.American Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 41–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1997). The risk of victimization in the workplace for men and women: An analysis using routine activities/lifestyle theory.Humanity & Society, 21, 17–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998a). Victimization risks at leisure: A gender-specific analysis.Violence & Victims, 73(3), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998b). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures.Criminology, 36, 829–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury R. (1998c). Specifying the role of alcohol in predatory victimization.Deviant Behavior, 19, 173–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999a). Assessing the likelihood of driving drunk: Context, lifestyle, and gender.Journal of Crime & Justice, 22(2), 57–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999b). A routine activities theory explanation for women’s stalking victimization.Violence Against Women, 5, 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (in press). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants.Sociological Focus.

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Total fall enrollment in degree-granting institutions.The digest of education statistics, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education

    Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Drug Abuse. (1995).Trends in drug use among college students. Washington, DC: National Institute of Drug Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicklin, J. L. (1991, April 10). Many colleges learn the hard way that they are vulnerable to embezzlement by employees and need strict procedures.The Chronicle of Higher Education, A25-A27.

  • Palmiotto, M. J. (1983). Labor, government and court reaction to detection of deception services in the private sector.Journal of Security Administration, 6, 31–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernanen, K. (1991).Alcohol and human violence. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Randle, W. (1995). When employees lie, cheat or steal.Working Woman, January, 55–56, 77.

  • Roth, J. A. (1994).Psychoactive substances and violence. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggiero, M., Greenberger, E., & Steinberg, L. D. (1982). Occupational deviance among adolescent workers.Youth & Society, 13, 423–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sacco, V. F., & Kennedy, L. W. (1996).The criminal event. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1995). Correlates of employee theft: A multidimensional justice perspective.International Journal of Conflict Management, 6, 404–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieh, E. (1987). Garment workers: Perceptions of inequity and employee theft.British Journal of Criminology, 27, 174–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terris, W., & Jones, J. (1980). Attitudinal and personality correlates of theft among supermarket employees.Journal of Security Administration, 3(2), 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terris, W., & Jones, J. (1982). Psychological factors related to employees’ theft in the convenience store industry.Psychological Reports, 51, 1219–1238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (1998). Lifestyles of the wheelers and dealers: Drug dealing among American college students.Journal of Crime & Justice, 21(2), 37–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toby, J. (1995). The schools. In J. Petersilia, J. Wilson & J. Z. Wilson (Eds.),Crime (pp. 141–170). San Francisco: ICS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Traub, S. H. (1996). Battling employee crime: A review of corporate strategies and programs.Crime & Delinquency, 42, 244–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, J. (1989). Employee theft as social control.Deviant Behavior, 10, 319–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willis, R. (1986). White-collar crime.Management Review, 75(January), 22–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimbush, J. C., & Dalton, D. R. (1997). Base rate for employee theft: Convergence of multiple methods.Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 756–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology & Anthropology, University of Central Florida, 32816-1360, Orlando, FL

    Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine

  2. University of Louisville, USA

    Richard Tewksbury

Authors
  1. Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Tewksbury
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mustaine, E.E., Tewksbury, R. Workplace theft: An analysis of student-employee offenders and job attributes. Am J Crim Just 27, 111–127 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898973

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02898973

Keywords

Search

Navigation