Limited research has identified distinct Internet user subgroups based on self-reported cybercrime offending. Additionally, few explore the influence of low self-control and deviant online peer associations on the likelihood of being assigned into different cybercrime offending classes. The current study conducted a latent class analysis to identify unobserved subgroups based on the self-reported cybercrime behaviors of 1,137 Internet users, identifying three latent classes: (1) No Cybercrime, (2) High Cybercrime, and (3) Illegal Downloader. Analyses revealed that low self-control and deviant online peer associations significantly increased the likelihood of membership in the “High Cybercrime” class relative to the other two classes. These findings emphasize the role of individual traits and social influences in understanding Internet users’ behaviors and identifying high-risk individuals.
AkaikeH. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716–723.
2.
AkersR. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Northeastern University Press.
3.
AkersR. L.JensenG. F. (2006). The empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past, present, and future. Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory, 15, 37–76.
4.
BachmannM. (2010). The Risk Propensity and Rationality of Computer Hackers. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 4(2), 643–656.
5.
BosslerA. M.BurrussG. W. (2011). The general theory of crime and computer hacking: Low self-control hackers? In HoltT. J.SchoolB. H. (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology-driven crime: Social dynamics and implications (pp. 38–67). ISI Global.
6.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 227–236.
7.
BrennerS. (2007). Cybercrime: Re-thinking crime control strategies. In JewkesY. (Ed.), Crime Online (pp. 12–28). Willan Publishing.
8.
BrennerS. W. (2013). Cybercrime: Re-thinking crime control strategies. In JewkesY. (Ed.), Crime online (pp. 12–28). Willan.
9.
BrewerR.de Vel-PalumboM.HutchingsA.HoltT.GoldsmithA.MaimonD. (2019). Cybercrime prevention: Theory and applications. Springer.
10.
BuzzellT.FossD.MiddletonZ. (2006). Explaining use of online pornography: A test of self-control theory and opportunities for deviance. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 13(2), 96–116.
11.
ChoS.LeeJ.R. (2020) “Joint growth trajectories of bullying perpetration and victimization among Korean adolescents: Estimating a second-order growth mixture model-factor-ofcurves with low self-control and opportunity correlates.”Crime & Delinquency, 66(9), 1296–1337.
12.
ColemanG. (2010). The hacker conference: A ritual condensation and celebration of a lifeworld. Anthropological Quarterly, 83(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1353/anq.0.0112
13.
CollinsL. M.LanzaS. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis. Wiley.
14.
DeardenT. E.PartiK. (2021). Cybercrime, differential association, and self-control: Knowledge transmission through online social learning. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(6), 935–955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09655-4
15.
Décary-HétuD.DupontB. (2012). The social network of hackers. Global Crime, 13(3), 160–175.
16.
DiStefanoC.KamphausR. W. (2006). Investigating subtypes of child development: A comparison of cluster analysis and latent class cluster analysis in typology creation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(5), 778–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405284033
17.
FisselE. R.LeeJ. R. (2023). The cybercrime illusion: Examining the impact of cybercrime misbeliefs on perceptions of cybercrime seriousness. Journal of Criminology, 56(2-3), 150–169.
18.
FoxB.EscueM. (2022). Evaluating and comparing profiles of burglaries developed using three statistical classification techniques: Cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and latent class analysis. Psychology, Crime and Law, 28(1), 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2021.1880582
HawdonJ.PartiK.DeardenT. (2022). Changes in online illegal drug buying during COVID-19: Assessing effects due to a changing market or changes in strain using a longitudinal sample design. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(4), 712–734.
23.
HigginsG. E. (2006). Gender differences in software piracy: The mediating roles of self-control theory and social learning theory. Journal of Economic Crime Management, 4(1), 1–30.
24.
HigginsG. E.FellB. D.WilsonA. L. (2006). Digital piracy: Assessing the contributions of an integrated self-control theory and social learning theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice Studies, 19, 3–22. doi:10.1080/14786010600615934
25.
HigginsG. E.MarcumC. D. (2011). Digital piracy: An integrated theoretical approach. Carolina Academic Press.
26.
HigginsG. E.MarcumC. D.FreiburgerT. L.RickettsM. L. (2012). Examining the role of peer influence and self-control on downloading behavior. Deviant Behavior, 33(5), 412–423.
27.
HindujaS.IngramJ.R. (2008). Self-Control and Ethical Beliefs on the Social Learning of Intellectual Property Theft. Western Criminology Review9(2), 52–72.
28.
HindujaS.PatchingJ. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 1–29.
29.
HoltT. J. (2007). Subcultural evolution? Examining the influence of on-and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant behavior, 28(2), 171–198.
30.
HoltT. J. (2009). Lone hacks or group cracks: Examining the social organization of computer hackers. Crimes of the Internet, 336–355.
31.
HoltT. J. (2010), ‘Becoming a Computer Hacker: Examining the Enculturation and Development of Computer Deviants,’ In CromwellP. (Ed.), In Their Own Words: Criminals on Crime: An Anthology (5th ed., pp. 109–23). Oxford University Press.
32.
HoltT. J. (2023). Understanding the state of criminological scholarship on cybercrimes. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, Article 107493.
33.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.Seigfried-SpellarK. C. (2022). Cybercrime and digital forensics: An introduction. Routledge.
34.
HoltT.BosslerA. (2015). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses. Routledge.
35.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.MayD. C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 378–395.
36.
HoltT.J.BosslerA.M.Seigfried-SpellarK.C. (2015) Cybercrime and Digital Forensics: An Introduction. London: Routledge Press.
37.
HoltT. J.BurrussG. W.BosslerA. M. (2010). Social learning and cyber-deviance: Examining the importance of a full social learning model in the virtual world. Journal of Crime and Justice, 33(2), 31–61.
38.
HoltT.J.CopesH. (2010). Transferring Subcultural Knowledge Online: Practices and Beliefs of Persistent Digital Pirates. Deviant Behavior, 31, 625–654.
39.
HoltT. J.KilgerM. (2012). Examining Willingness to Attack Critical Infrastructure Online and Offline. Crime and Delinquency, 58(5), 798–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712452963
40.
HoltT. J.KilgerM. (2008, April21–22). Techcrafters and Makecrafters: A comparison of two populations of hackers [Conference session]. 2008 WOMBAT Workshop on Information Security Threats Data Collection and Sharing, Amsterdam, Netherlands. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/WISTDE.2008.9
41.
HoltT. J.LeeJ. R. (2018). Policing cybercrime through law enforcement and industry mechanisms. In Attrill-SmithA., et al (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of cyberpsychology (pp. 645–662). Oxford Academic.
42.
HoltT. J.SmirnovaO.ChuaY. T. (2016). Exploring and estimating the revenues and profits of participants in stolen data markets. Deviant Behavior, 37(4), 353–367.
JordanT.TaylorP. (1998). A sociology of hackers. The Sociological Review, 46(4), 757–780.
46.
KamarE.HowellC. J.MaimonD.BerenblumT. (2023). The moderating role of thoughtfully reflective decision-making on the relationship between information security messages and smishing victimization: An experiment. Justice Quarterly, 40(6), 837–858.
47.
LeeG.AkersR. L.BorgM. J. (2004). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5, 17–34.
48.
LeeJ. R. (2022). Cyberpolicing. In PontellH. M. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1–29). Oxford University Press.
49.
LeeJ. R. (2023). Understanding markers of trust within the online stolen data market: An examination of vendors’ signaling behaviors relative to product price point. Criminology & Public Policy, 22(4), 665–693.
50.
LeeJ. R.HoltT. J. (2020). Assessing the factors associated with the detection of juvenile hacking behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 525889.
51.
LeukfeldtE. R.HoltT. J. (2022). Cybercrime on the menu? Examining cafeteria-style offending among financially motivated cybercriminals. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, Article 106979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106979
52.
LeukfeldtE. R.KleemansE. R.StolW. P. (2017). A typology of cybercriminal networks: From low-tech all-rounders to high-tech specialists. Crime, Law and Social Change, 67(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-016-9662-2
MagidsonJ.VermuntJ. K. (2001). Latent class factor and cluster models, bi-plots and related graphical displays. Sociological Methodology, 31, 223–264.
55.
MarcumC. D.HigginsG. E.RickettsM. L.WolfeS. E. (2014). Hacking in high school: Cybercrime perpetration by juveniles. Deviant Behavior, 35(7), 581–591.
56.
MatsuedaR. L. (2001). Differential association theory. Encyclopedia of criminology and deviant behavior, 1, 125–130.
57.
MarionN. E. (2010). The Council of Europe’s cyber crime treaty: An exercise in symbolic legislation. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 4, 699–712.
58.
McGuireM. (2020). It ain’t what it is, it’s the way that they do it? Why we still don’t understand cybercrime. In The human factor of cybercrime (pp. 3–28). Routledge.
59.
McNealeyR. L.LeeJ. R. (2023). The illicit stolen data market. In HummerD.ByrneJ. M. (eds) Handbook on crime and technology (pp. 214–230). Edward Elgar Publishing.
60.
MoonB.McCluskeyJ. D.McCluskeyC. P. (2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 767–772.
61.
MorrisR. G.HigginsG. E. (2010). Criminological theory in the digital age: The case of social learning theory and digital piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 470–480.
62.
MuthénB.MuthénL. K. (2000). Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 24, 882–891.
NgoF. T.PaternosterR. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773–793.
65.
ParkerD. (1976). Crime by Computer. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
66.
PayneB. K. (2020). Defining cybercrime. The Palgrave handbook of international cybercrime and cyberdeviance, 3–25.
67.
PhillipsK.DavidsonJ. C.FarrR. R.BurkhardtC.CaneppeleS.AikenM. P. (2022). Conceptualizing cybercrime: Definitions, typologies and taxonomies. Forensic Sciences, 2(2), 379–398.
68.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T.SellersC. S.WinfreeL. T.MadensenT. D.DaigleL. E.FearnN. E.GauJ. M. (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27(6 ), 765–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820903379610
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1149–1169.
71.
Schwarz G. (1978) Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6, 461–464.
72.
SkinnerW. F.FreamA. M. (1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college students. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(4), 495–518.
SteinmetzK. F. (2015). Craft(y)ness: An ethnographic study of hacking. British Journal of Criminology, 55(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azu061
79.
SutherlandE. H. (1972). The theory of differential association. In Readings in criminology and penology (pp. 365–371). Columbia University Press.
WallD. S. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. Polity.
82.
WarrM. (2002). Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge University Press.
83.
WellerB. E.BowenN. K.FaubertS. J. (2020). Latent Class Analysis: A Guide to Best Practice. Journal of Black Psychology, 46(4), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798420930932
84.
WillitsD.NowackiJ. (2016). The use of specialized cybercrime policing units: an organizational analysis. Criminal Justice Studies, 29(2), 105–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2016.1170282
85.
WolfeS. E.HigginsG. E. (2009). Explaining deviant peer associations: An examination of low self-control, ethical predispositions, definitions, and digital piracy. Western Criminology Review, 10(1), 43–55.
86.
YarM.SteinmetzK.F. (2019). Cybercrime and Society (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd.
