Online and Terrestrial Identity Theft: A Comparison of Victims and Examination of Reporting Decisions Across Modalities

Abstract

The current study examines whether identity theft that occurs online differs from terrestrial identity theft, and the correlates of reporting across modalities. Findings from two samples (online n = 1,087; terrestrial n = 371) from the 2016, 2018, and 2021 waves of the National Crime Victimization Survey’s Identity Theft Supplement indicate that terrestrial identity theft led to greater levels of distress and financial losses than online identity theft, and was more often reported to police. Multivariate findings indicate that distress levels and knowledge of the person who committed the offense were positively associated with odds of reporting online identity theft, but not terrestrial identity theft. The article highlights the importance of acknowledging the modality of identity theft, and offers suggestions for policy.

Keywords

crime reporting cybercrime fraud identity theft reporting victim decision making victimization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ali

Surendran

Thomas

(2017). The effects of cyber threats on customer’s behaviour in e-banking services. International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 7(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.17706/ijeeee.2017.7.1.70-78

Bejan

(2022). Cybersecurity and cybercrime: Challenges of an invisible space. Perspectives of Law and Public Administration, 11(1), 5–10.

Betz-Hamilton

(2023). Reporting behaviors of familiar identity theft victims: An empirical test of Black’s theory of law. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(4), 1055–1065. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-04-2022-0085

Burnes

DeLiema

Langton

(2020). Risk and protective factors of identity theft victimization in the United States. Preventive Medicine Reports, 17, 101058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101058

Butkovic

Mrdovic

Uludag

Tanovic

(2019). Geographic profiling for serial cybercrime investigation. Digital Investigation, 28, 176–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2018.12.001

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(1), 588–608.

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(5), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094935

Cross

(2020). ‘Oh we can’t actually do anything about that’: The problematic nature of jurisdiction for online fraud victims. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(3), 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819835910

Federal Trade Commission. (n.d.). Identity theft. https://consumer.ftc.gov/features/identity-theft

10.

Fissel

E. R.

Lee

J. R.

(2023). The cybercrime illusion: Examining the impact of cybercrime misbeliefs on perceptions of cybercrime seriousness. Journal of Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/26338076231174639

11.

Golladay

K. A.

(2017). Reporting behaviors of identity theft victims: An empirical test of Black’s theory of law. Journal of Financial Crime, 24(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-01-2016-0010

12.

Golladay

Holtfreter

(2017). The consequences of identity theft victimization: An examination of emotional and physical health outcomes. Victims & Offenders, 12(5), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2016.1177766

13.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Gottfredson

D. M.

(1987). Decision making in criminal justice: Toward the rational exercise of discretion (Vol. 3). Springer Science & Business Media.

14.

Graf

Yanagida

Runions

Spiel

(2022). Why did you do that? Differential types of aggression in offline and in cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107107

15.

Graham

Kulig

T. C.

Cullen

F. T.

(2020). Willingness to report crime to the police: Traditional crime, cybercrime, and procedural justice. Policing: An International Journal, 43(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2019-0115

16.

Harrell

(2023). Victims of identity theft, 2021: Summary. US Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/vit21.pdf

17.

Holt

T. J.

Turner

M. G.

(2012). Examining risks and protective factors of on-line identity theft. Deviant Behavior, 33(4), 308–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2011.584050

18.

Lee

J. S.

Lovrich

N. P.

(2023). Do commonly recommended preventive actions deter identity theft victimization? Findings from NCVS identity theft surveys. Journal of Crime and Justice, 46(2), 172–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2022.2103015

19.

Irvin-Erickson

(2024). Identity fraud victimization: A critical review of the literature of the past two decades. Crime Science, 13(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-024-00202-0

20.

Little

R. J.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202.

21.

Maher

C. A.

(2024). Examining the association between citizenship and ethnicity on identity theft risk: Findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey. American Journal of Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-024-09759-7

22.

Milne

G. R.

(2003). How well do consumers protect themselves from identity theft? Journal of Consumer Affairs, 37(2), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2003.tb00459.x

23.

National Crime Victimization Survey: Identity Theft Supplement, [United States]. (2018a). Identification No. 36829.

24.

National Crime Victimization Survey: Identity Theft Supplement, [United States]. (2018b). Identification No. 37923.

25.

National Crime Victimization Survey: Identity Theft Supplement, [United States]. (2021). Identification No. 38501.

26.

Nobles

M. R.

Reyns

B. W.

Fox

K. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.723030

27.

Novisky

M. A.

Peralta

R. L.

(2015). When women tell: Intimate partner violence and the factors related to police notification. Violence Against Women, 21(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214564078

28.

Pridemore

W. A.

Makel

M. C.

Plucker

J. A.

(2018). Replication in criminology and the social sciences. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091849

29.

Randa

Reyns

B. W.

(2020). The physical and emotional toll of identity theft victimization: A situational and demographic analysis of the National Crime Victimization Survey. Deviant Behavior, 41(10), 1290–1304. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1612980

30.

Reynolds

(2022). Identity theft victims’ understandings of incidents and their reporting decisions [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Guelph.

31.

Reyns

B. W.

(2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811425539

32.

Reyns

B. W.

Fisher

B. S.

Bossler

A. M.

Holt

T. J.

(2019). Opportunity and self-control: Do they predict multiple forms of online victimization? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9447-5

33.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

(2016). The thief with a thousand faces and the victim with none: Identifying determinants for online identity theft victimization with routine activity theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(10), 1119–1139.

34.

Spencer

Stith

Durtschi

Toews

(2020). Factors related to college students’ decisions to report sexual assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(21–22), 4666–4685. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517717490

35.

van de Weijer

Leukfeldt

Van der Zee

(2020). Reporting cybercrime victimization: Determinants, motives, and previous experiences. Policing: An International Journal, 43(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2019-0122

36.

Wall

(2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. Polity.

37.

Williams

M. L.

(2016). Guardians upon high: An application of routine activities theory to online identity theft in Europe at the country and individual level. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv011

38.

Ybarra

Mitchell

Espelage

(2012). Comparisons of bully and unwanted sexual experiences online and offline among a national sample of youth. In Ö. Özdemr (Ed.), Complementary Pediatrics (pp. 203–216). InTech.