Criminologists have long been interested in understanding why people commit crime. Perhaps an even more interesting question is what accounts for the offending of individuals who occupy white-collar positions. Most explanations of white-collar offending have relied on extant criminological theories that have been developed to account for street or juvenile offending. One theoretical explanation that was specifically developed to explain white-collar crime is the fear of falling hypothesis or the notion that the motivation for crime is the fear of losing what one has worked so hard to obtain. This study presents the results of an original data-collection effort designed to test this hypothesis. Data collected among business-experienced adults indicate that the fear of falling is inversely related to intentions to price-fix but positively related to internal and legal constraints against price-fixing. Taken together, these results suggest that the fear of falling may serve as a reminder of the attainments that could be lost, should the illegality be committed.
BachmanR.PaternosterR.WardS. (1992). The rationality of sexual offending: Testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law & Society Review, 26, 343-372.
2.
BensonM. L. (1985). Denying the guilty mind: Accounting for involvement in white-collar crime. Criminology, 23, 583-607.
3.
BensonM. L.MooreE. (1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29, 251-272.
4.
BraithwaiteJ.FisseB. (1990). On the plausibility of corporate crime theory. In LauferW. S.AdlerF. (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 2, pp. 15-38). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
5.
ColemanJ. W. (1987). Toward an integrated theory of white-collar crime. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 406-439.
6.
CornishD. B.ClarkeR. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer.
7.
CresseyD. (1953). Other people’s money. New York, NY: Free Press.
8.
ErmannM. D.RabeG. A. (1997). Organizational processes (not rational choices) produce most corporate crimes. In LofquistW. S.CohenM. A.RabeG. A. (Eds.), Debating corporate crime (pp. 53-67). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
9.
FinneyH. C.LesieurH. R. (1982). A contingency theory of organizational crime research. In BacharachS. B. (Ed.), The sociology of organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 255-299). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
GeisG.SalingerL. (1998). Antitrust and organizational deviance. In BambergerP. A.SonnenstuhlW. J. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations: Deviance in and of organizations (Vol. 15, pp. 71-110). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
12.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
GrasmickH. G.BursikR. J.Jr. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law & Society Review, 24, 837-861.
14.
GreenD. (1989). Measures of illegal behavior in individual-level deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 26, 253-275.
15.
HirschiT.GottfredsonM. R. (1987). Causes of white-collar crime. Criminology, 25, 949-974.
16.
HochstetlerA.KerleyK. R.MasonK. (2002). Structural predictors of embezzlement: A preliminary analysis. Journal of Crime & Justice, 25, 1-22.
17.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometric, 47, 263-291.
18.
KatzJ. (1988). The seductions of crime. New York, NY: Basic Books.
19.
KimM.HunterJ. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research. Part 2. Communications Research, 20, 331-364.
20.
LangtonL.PiqueroN. L.HollingerR. (2006). An empirical test of the relationship between low self-control and employee theft. Deviant Behavior, 27, 537-565.
21.
LasleyJ. R. (1988). Toward a control theory of white-collar offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 347-362.
NaginD.PaternosterR. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27, 467-496.
24.
NaginD.PogarskyG. (2003). An experimental investigation of deterrence: Cheating, self-serving bias and impulsivity. Criminology, 41, 167-194.
25.
PaternosterR.SimpsonS. (1993). A rational choice theory of corporate crime. In ClarkeR. V.FelsonM. (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice: Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 5, pp. 37-58). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
26.
PaternosterR.SimpsonS. S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law & Society Review, 30, 549-583.
27.
PiliavinI.ThorntonC.GartnerR.MatsuedaR. L. (1986). Crime, deterrence, and rational choice. American Sociological Review, 51, 101-119.
28.
PiqueroA. R.TibbettsS. G. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offending decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481-510.
29.
PiqueroN. L.ExumM. L.SimpsonS. S. (2005). Integrating the desire for control and rational choice in a corporate crime context. Justice Quarterly, 22, 252-280.
30.
PiqueroN. L.PiqueroA. R. (2006). Control balance and exploitative corporate crime. Criminology, 44, 397-430.
31.
PiqueroN. L.SchoepferA.LangtonL. (2010). Completely out of control or the desire to be in complete control? An examination of how low self-control and the desire-for-control relate to corporate offending. Crime and Delinquency, 56, 627-647
32.
PiqueroN. L.TibbettsS. G.BlankenshipM. B. (2005). Examining the role of differential association and techniques of neutralization in explaining corporate crime. Deviant Behavior, 26, 159-188.
33.
PogarskyG. (2004). Projected offending and contemporaneous rule-violation: Implications for heterotypic continuity. Criminology, 42, 111-136.
34.
RossiP. H.AndersonA. B. (1982). The factorial survey approach: An introduction. In RossiP. H.NockS. L. (Eds.), Measuring social judgments (pp. 15-67). Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
35.
SchmittN. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8, 350-353.
36.
ShoverN.HochstetlerA. (2006). Choosing white-collar crime. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
37.
SimpsonS. S. (2002). Corporate crime, law, and social control. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
38.
SimpsonS. S. (2003). The criminological enterprise and corporate crime. Criminologist, 28, 1-5.
39.
SimpsonS. S.PaternosterR.PiqueroN. L. (1998). Exploring the micro-macro link in corporate crime research. In BambergerP.SonnenstuhlW. J. (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations (pp. 35-68). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
40.
SimpsonS. S.PiqueroN. L. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law & Society Review, 36, 509-547.
41.
SutherlandE. H. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological Review, 5, 1-11.
42.
SutherlandE. H. (1983). White collar crime: The uncut version. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
TibbettsS. G.HerzD. C. (1996). Gender differences in factors of social control and rational choice. Deviant Behavior, 17, 183-208.
44.
TittleC. R.WardD. A.GrasmickH. G. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 333-366.
45.
VaughanD. (1996). The challenger launch decision. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
WeisburdD.WaringE.PiqueroN. L. (2008). Getting beyond the moral dram of crime: What we learn from studying white-collar criminal careers. In MinkesJ.MinkesL. (Eds), Corporate and white-collar crime (pp. 179-201). London, England: SAGE.
47.
WeisburdD.WheelerS.WaringE.BodeN. (1991). Crimes of the middle classes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
WheelerS. (1992). The problem of white-collar motivation. In SchlegelK.WeisburdD. (Eds.), White-collar crime reconsidered (pp. 108-123). Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
