Examining White Collar Offenders: Theories, Risk Assessment And Treatment
This paper examined risk factors, current risk assessment practices and treatment programmes available for white-collar offenders (WCOs). A review of the literature was carried out, which focussed on criminological theories explaining offending behaviour of WCOs. Generally, current criminological theories have identified several risk factors pertaining to the individual WCO but have neglected the role of antisocial personality traits. Also, WCO populations are often assumed to be homogenous, which may have resulted in a “one-size-fits-all” approach which does not discriminate between WCOs who have different criminal and developmental trajectories. Concurrently, current risk assessment tools based on the “Central Eight” (Andrews & Bonta, 2010) may underestimate the risk of recidivism for WCOs. Treatment programmes for WCOs are also often neglected as WCOs are assumed to be low risk. Suggestions for new risk assessment tools and treatment programmes targeted at the criminogenic needs of WCOs based on recent findings were offered.
Introduction
White-collar crime (WCC) has been most famously defined by Sutherland as “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (Sutherland, 1949, pp. 9). Sutherland’s definition has proven to be controversial; some researchers support Sutherland’s definition, which is more focused on the status of the offender (Geis, 1992; Simon, 2006), while others preferred a definition focused more on the offense itself (Edelhertz, 1983). In any case, Payne (2011) explains that a clear definition satisfactory to most researchers has yet to emerge. Wheeler and colleagues (1982) found it appropriate to use a broad definition to cover the range of WCC committed by white-collar offenders (WCOs). They defined WCC as “economic offenses committed through the use of some combination of fraud, deception, or collusion” (Wheeler et al. , 1982, p. 642).
This paper seeks to examine theories related to the individual risk factors for WCOs in detail, as well as current risk assessment tools and treatment programmes for WCOs. As such, a broad definition of WCC as outlined by Wheeler and colleagues (1982) is appropriate in order to cover a range of possible offenses. However, it is worth noting that a key weakness in the field of WCC is the large variety of offenses which can be classified as WCC. WCC can be divided into two types, corporate crime and occupational crime (Clinard & Quinney, 1973), which is crime committed by corporations and crime committed against corporations by individuals respectively. The variety of crimes that can be considered as WCC such as credit card fraud, antitrust violations, tax violations, embezzlements and anticompetitive behaviour of firms will thus likely involve different motivations, risk factors and offender characteristics due to the varied nature of the offenses. For instance, WCOs who partake in their firms’ anticompetitive behaviour may have different motivations compared to WCOs who commit tax violations. As such, the generalizability of findings from WCC studies to WCOs might be limited, depending on the type of offense or offender characteristics.
Theories of White Collar Offending and Risk Factors
There have been various criminological theories that researchers use to understand and explain WCC. Among them, general strain theory (Agnew, 1985), self-control theory (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), neutralization theory (Sykes & Matza, 1957) and differential association theory (Sutherland, 1949) focus more on the role of the WCO rather than on macro or societal factors that contribute to white collar offending. This paper shall briefly examine the validity of the above theories to white-collar offending as well as examine risk factors that past studies on WCOs may have overlooked. General Strain TheoryGeneral Strain Theory (GST; Agnew, 1985) posits that crime was an adaptation or reaction to stress and frustration felt by the individual.
According to GST, strain could arise from: (1) the failure to achieve positively valued goals, (2) the removal or expected removal of positively valued stimuli and (3) confronting or the expectation to confront negative stimuli. A build-up of strain was thought to increase the likelihood that an individual would experience negative emotions such as anger or frustration. Thus, offending behaviour was posited to be a means to alleviate such emotions when other coping strategies were not effective (Agnew, 1992). Payne (2001) elaborated that white-collar offending could be explained using the three types of strain according to GST. For instance, strain from the failure to achieve valued goals could be due to unfair financial compensation or recognition for a worker’s efforts. Strain originating from the expected removal of positive stimuli might explain why some workers who hold high positions in their organizations offend. Research from Wheeler, Weisburd and Bode (1988) supports this.
The authors suggested that “the fear of failing”, of losing what workers have achieved in their careers, may account for why high-status workers offend. Furthermore, a study by Langton and Piquero (2007) revealed that the presence of strain was associated with financial motivations to offend in WCOs. Workers who reported financial problems were more likely to engage in low-level white-collar crimes like embezzlement. Thus far, the general literature about GST suggests that it can account for white-collar offending. Offending that originates from experiencing strain and which is the means to alleviate negative emotions, could point to offenders’ poor emotional regulation, which could be classified as an antisocial personality trait under the “Big Four” (Andrews et al. , 2006). However, Langton and Piquero (2007) suggest that GST may not adequately explain for middle-level white collar offenses such as bribery, mail fraud and false claims. They explained that offenders who committed mail fraud and false claims tend to have criminal histories compared to other types of WCOs, which suggests that such offenders might possess different personal characteristics compared to the stereotypical WCO.
Self-control Theory
Self-control theory (SCT; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) asserts that all types of crime are caused by the prevalence of low self-control in the individual. Individuals with low self-control were described by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) to be impulsive, with little consideration for long-term consequences and being unable to delay gratification. Pertaining to WCOs, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) assert that such offenders offend when given the opportunity to do so. Generally, the applicability of SCT to WCC has been inconclusive. Some studies have shown support for SCT’s applicability to WCC; low self-control of managers was suggested to be associated with corporate crime (Mon, 2002), while “fraud” (crimes such as burglary, theft, forgery) and “force” (crimes involving force such as robberies) offenders who committed more offenses were more likely to have lower self-control (Longshore & Turner, 1998).
On the other hand, SCT’s applicability to WCC has also been questioned. One study found that self-control was unrelated to occupational offending in cases of theft or patient abuse for nursing home workers (Van Wyk et al. , 2000). This suggests that SCT might not be able to adequately account for the different varieties of WCC. Furthermore, some researchers have argued that it is illogical to assume WCC can be caused by low self-control, considering that most white-collar workers are likely to have possessed high self-control in order to achieve their status in the workplace (Spahr & Alison, 2004). Until more research is done, SCT is a weak theory at best to explain WCC.
Neutralization Theory
Neutralization theory (Sykes & Matza, 1957) posits that offenders rationalise their behaviour before committing an offense. In other words, they give reasons or excuses to justify their offending. Benson (1985) has also suggested that offenders also offer justifications after the offending act, termed as accounts, in order to minimise the criminal label.
Research has shown that WCOs also engage in neutralizations and accounts. In embezzlement cases, offenders often convince themselves that their victims deserved to be victimised (Green, 1993). A study on therapists’ Medicaid fraud offending suggests that offenders give reasons such as “everyone else does it” and also deny responsibility for their misconduct (Evans & Porche, 2005).
Overall, the literature suggests that neutralization theory is appropriate to explain WCC, considering that WCOs’ use of neutralizations and accounts can be classified as antisocial cognitions under the “Big Four” (Andrews et al. , 2006) risk factors.
Differential Association Theory
Sutherland’s differential association theory (1949) asserts that offenders commit crime through learning from their peers the skills and motives for offending. Differential association theory then, seems to be linked to two of the “Big Four” risk factors (Andrews et al. , 2006) - antisocial associates and antisocial cognition. Research from Piquero and colleagues (2005) support the applicability of differential association theory to WCC; MBA students’ decisions to market and produce a hypothetical drug that was about to be recalled was associated with the corporate climate and co-workers’ attitudes about it (Piquero, Tibbetts & Blankenship, 2005). Other researchers suggest that academic training could influence attitudes that are supportive of WCC. Yu and Zhang (2006) found that MBA students “were more likely to be tolerant of business practices with ethical issues” (p. 185) compared to non-business students.
However, differential association theory has been criticized on the grounds of the source of learning; in other words, who did the first WCO learn the skills and motives from (Martin, Mutchnick & Austin, 1990). Moreover, the influence of co-workers’ attitudes on white-collar offending may be overstated. Spahr and Alison’s (2004) study on fraud offenders suggested that most offenders worked alone rather than colluded with co-workers. As such, even though literature on differential association theory points to it being a promising theory to explain WCC, more research needs to be done to establish its validity.
Other risk factors
The above theories that focus on the role of the WCO have generally identified a few risk factors linked to the “Big Four” risk factors as proposed by Andrews and colleagues (2006). Neutralization theory and differential association theory posit that WCOs may possess antisocial cognitions and antisocial associates while GST and SCT point to the possibility of WCOs having antisocial personality traits such as poor emotional regulation and low self-control.
However, in general, most criminological research on WCC has neglected the influence of personality traits on white-collar offending (Listwan et al. , 2010). Perri (2011) suggests that WCOs can exhibit behaviour associated with personality traits such as antisocial personality disposition, narcissism and psychopathy. There are several studies which support Perri’s (2011) argument; Barnard (2008) suggested that some WCOs actively seek out corporations and individuals to victimise and are often pathological liars. The personality trait of narcissism has been identified as a risk factor for fraud (Price & Norris, 2009; Bucy et al. , 2008). Ray (2007) also suggested that psychopathy is a possible risk factor for fraud; in particular, traits such as being manipulative, exploitative and egocentric can motivate a WCO to commit fraud. In a related line of research, Listwan and colleagues (2010) found that WCOs who were highly neurotic were more likely to reoffend.
The findings from these studies suggest that a greater focus should be placed on the personality traits of WCOs with respect to risk assessment and treatment as it might have implications for recidivism. Another criticism is that past studies have assumed the WCO population to be homogeneous in nature. Wheeler and colleagues (1988) suggest that the typical WCO was more likely to (1) have a college education, (2) be a white male, (3) be older, (4) be employed, (5) have fewer offenses and (6) start offending at a later age compared to a non-white collar offender. These findings have painted a picture of the WCO as an educated and successful individual, which is in contrast with most street criminals. However, research by van Onna and colleagues (2014) suggests that WCOs can have different developmental trajectories, which imply heterogeneity in the WCO population. They found that WCOs can be classified as either (1) stereotypical white-collar offenders (SWOs), (2) adult onset offenders (AO offenders), (3) adult persisters (APs) or stereotypical criminals (SCs). While SWOs fit the description of the WCO as described by Wheeler and colleagues (1988), APs and SCs in particular offend at a higher frequency and have an earlier onset of offending behaviour. These findings have important implications for WCO risk assessment and treatment as different categories of WCOs may have different levels of risks.
Risk Assessment for WCOs
Current risk assessment tools use the “Central Eight” risk factors (Andrews et al. , 2006; Andrews & Bonta, 2010) to aid practitioners in assessing the risk of offenders and what type of treatment to be implemented for them. However, the applicability of current risk assessment tools, which utilise the “Central Eight”, to WCOs can be criticised. For instance, many risk assessment tools include criminal history as a predictor of recidivism. However, research has found that WCOs have a later onset of offending and havejj fewer offenses compared to a typical offender (Weisburd et al. , 1990; Wheeler et al. , 1988). Likewise, for the risk factor of educational attainment, WCOs are generally more highly educated compared to the typical offender (Wheeler et al. , 1988). Assessing the risk of recidivism for WCOs using such risk factors would then likely underestimate the risk, which may lead practitioners to assume that all white-collar offenders are low in risk when it might not necessarily be the case.
As such, there is a need for specialised risk assessment tools for WCOs to be developed, as current risk assessment tools may be inadequate. In an unpublished dissertation, Harbinson (2017) investigated the validity of the federal Post Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA; Lowenkamp et al. , 2013) as a suitable risk assessment tool for WCOs. Harbinson’s findings suggest that the PCRA might be a suitable risk assessment tool for WCOs as it was able to (1) classify WCOs into different risk levels which was associated with WCOs’ likelihood of revocation and (2) generate an overall risk score which predicted revocation for WCOs. Also, Harbinson (2017) found that some specific items in the PCRA such as financial stressors and unstable homes, while not typically emphasised in the RNR research, were predictive of revocation for WCOs. His findings support previous research that suggest that WCOs often have financial motivations for offending (Langton & Piquero, 2007).
In sum, current assessment tools which are formulated with accordance to the “Central Eight” (Andrews et al. , 2006; Andrews & Bonta, 2010) are inadequate for assessing the risk of recidivism for WCOs. Harbinson’s (2017) findings are a promising start for practitioners to consider using more specialised risk assessment tools such as the PCRA which can better predict the risk of recidivism for WCOs based on specific risk factors relevant to WCOs. Also, as outlined earlier, there is a need for risk assessment tools to take into account antisocial personality traits such as psychopathy and narcissism, which may increase the risk of recidivism for WCOs.
Rehabilitation of WCOs
It is often assumed that WCOs do not recidivate at a high rate to warrant correctional intervention. Harbinson (2017) asserts that one common assumption is that imprisonment alone is likely to deter future offending for WCOs due to WCOs’ strong social support. This might explain the relative lack of rehabilitation or treatment programmes for WCOs who are imprisoned; Payne (2003) elaborates that WCOs might receive individual-level counselling, but treatment programmes are often targeted at drug and violent crime offenders.
However, research has revealed that the recidivism rates of WCOs are higher than previously thought (Weisburd et al. , 2001). Weisburd and colleagues (2001, p. 28) found that 31. 3% of WCOs in their review were arrested at least once during a ten year period following their conviction. Such findings suggest that rehabilitation programmes are necessary to target the criminogenic needs of WCOs.
As illustrated earlier, WCOs may be classified as low risk offenders due to their relatively higher education status, age and employment status. Nonetheless, they could still have risk factors for recidivism such as antisocial cognitions in terms of neutralizations. Stadler and Benson (2012) suggest that cognitive treatment interventions that are aimed at correcting such errors in thinking (Yochelson & Samenow, 1976) for WCOs can be implemented. Also, treatment programmes which target the antisocial personality traits of WCOs should be implemented. Ragatz, Fremouw and Baker (2012) suggest that WCOs were found to be higher in anxiety compared to other offenders. As high anxiety is associated with a higher rate of recidivism (Listwan et al. , 2010), treatment programmes which aim to teach WCOs how to manage their anxiety, through cognitive restructuring or relaxation techniques, can be investigated (Ragatz, Femouw & Baker, 2012). As outlined earlier, other personality traits such as psychopathy and narcissism might also increase the risk of recidivism for WCOs. Treatment programmes that target such personality traits should then also be explored.
Conclusion
This paper has outlined current literature about theories that attempt to explain offending behaviour in WCOs, as well as discussed risk factors that may predict recidivism in the WCO. In general, current theories about offending behaviour in WCOs have identified a few risk factors such as antisocial cognitions, but research has revealed that personality traits of WCOs such as psychopathy, narcissism and neuroticism may also account for offending behaviour. Thus, such factors should be considered during risk assessment and while considering treatment programmes for WCOs. Current treatment programmes for WCOs have largely been neglected as WCOs have been assumed to be low risk in general. However, as explained in this paper, such an assumption could be erroneous; research into the design of treatment programmes suitable to target the criminogenic needs of WCOs such as antisocial cognitions may be necessary.
Lastly, heterogeneity in the WCO population in terms of developmental trajectories implies that research needs to be carried out to specifically target the various types of WCC as well as the personal characteristics of WCOs during risk assessment and treatment, instead of the current “one-size-fits-all” approach.
