While online offending has been found to be a specialized phenomenon, most literature on criminality indicates that offending behavior over the life course is of a general nature, which is consistent with Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Utilizing data collected from a large sample of 502 undergraduate college students, this study examined the extent to which college students commit off-line offending as compared with online offending. Results from a series of bivariate and multivariate analyses indicated support for conceptualizing online offending as part of a more general offending repertoire rather than as a specialty. Detailed findings, study limitations, and implications for both criminal career research and the specialization debate are also discussed.
AgrestiA.AgrestiB. F. (1978). Statistical analysis of qualitative variation. Sociological Methodology, 9, 204–237.
2.
BarakA. (2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77–92.
3.
BendixenM.EndresenI. M.OlweusD. (2003). Variety and frequency scales of antisocial involvement: Which one is better?Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8, 135–150.
4.
BlumsteinA.CohenJ.RothJ. A.VisherC. A. (1986). Criminal careers and career criminals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 227–236.
6.
BroadhurstR. (2006). Developments in the global law enforcement of cybercrime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 29, 408–433.
7.
BuzzellT. (2005). Demographic characteristics of persons using pornography in three technological contexts. Sexuality & Culture, 9, 28–48.
8.
CohenJ. (1986). Research on criminal careers: Individual frequency rates and offense seriousness. In BlumsteinA.CohenJ.RothJ.VisherC. (Eds.), Criminal careers and career criminals. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
9.
DeLisiM.PiqueroA. (2011). New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000–2011: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 289–301.
10.
DonnerC. M.MarcumC. D.JenningsW. G.HigginsG. E.BanfieldJ. (2014). Low self-control and cybercrime: Exploring the utility of the general theory of crime beyond digital piracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 165–172.
11.
FlowersA.ZeadallyS.MurrayA. (2013). Cybersecurity and U.S. legislative efforts to address cybercrime. Journal of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, 10, 29–55.
12.
GottfredsonM.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
GrasmickH. G.TittleC. R.BursikR. J.ArneklevB. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5–29.
14.
GreeneW. H. (1997). Ecometric analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
15.
HigginsG. E. (2005). Can low self-control help understand the software piracy problem?Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 1–24.
16.
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, 1–22.
17.
HigginsG. E. (2007). Digital piracy: An examination of low self-control and motivation using short-term longitudinal data. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 523–529.
18.
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.
19.
HigginsG. E.FellB. D.WilsonA. L. (2007). Low self-control and social learning in understanding students’ intentions to pirate movies in the United States. Social Science Computer Review, 25, 339–357.
20.
HigginsG. E.WilsonA. L.FellB. D. (2005). An application of deterrence theory to software piracy. Journal of Criminal Justice & Popular Culture, 12, 166–184.
21.
HigginsG. E.WolfeS. E.MarcumC. D. (2008). Digital piracy: An examination of three measurements of self-control. Deviant Behavior, 29, 440–460.
22.
HigginsG. E.WolfeS.RickettsM. (2009). Digital piracy: A latent class analysis. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 24–40.
23.
HindujaS. (2007). Neutralization theory and online software piracy: An empirical analysis. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 187–204.
24.
HirschiT.GottfredsonM. R. (1995). Control theory and the life-course perspective. Studies on Crime & Crime Prevention, 4, 131–142.
25.
HollingerR. C. (1993). Crime by computer: Correlates of software piracy and unauthorized account access. Security Journal, 4, 2–12.
26.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.MayD. C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 1–18.
27.
HuizingaD.ElliottD. S. (1986). Reassessing the reliability of self-report delinquency measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2, 293–327.
28.
IntraviaJ.JonesS.PiqueroA. P. (2012). The roles of social bonds, personality, and perceived costs: An empirical investigation into Hirschi’s “new” control theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 1182–1200.
29.
JenningsW. G.ZgobaK. M.DonnerC. M.HendersonB. B.TewksburyR. (2014). Considering specialization/versatility as an unintended collateral consequence of SORN. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 184–192.
30.
KatosV.BednarP. M. (2008). A cybercrime investigation framework. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 30, 223–228.
31.
KheyD. N.JenningsW. G.Lanza-KaduceL.FrazierC. (2009). An exploration into the factors associated with specialization among college student computer criminals. Criminal Justice Studies, 22, 421–434.
KleinM. W. (1984). Offense specialization and versatility among juveniles. British Journal of Criminology, 24, 185–194.
34.
LattimoreP. K.VisherC. A.LinsterR. (1994). Specialization in juvenile careers: Markov results for a California cohort. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 291–316.
35.
LongJ. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
MacDonaldJ. M.LattimoreP. K. (2010). Count models in criminology. In PiqueroA.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York, NY: Springer.
37.
MazerolleP.BrameR.PaternosterR.PiqueroA. R.DeanC. W. (2000). Onset age, persistence, and offending versatility: Comparisons across gender. Criminology, 38, 1143–1172.
38.
McQuadeS. C. (2006). Understanding and managing cybercrime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
39.
MietheT.OlsonJ.MitchellO. (2006). Specialization and persistence in the arrest histories of sex offenders: A comparative analysis of alternative measures and offense types. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 204–229.
40.
MoonB.McCluskeyJ. D.McCluskeyC. P. (2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 767–772.
41.
OrrA. J. (2003). Black-white differences in achievement: The importance of wealth. Sociology of Education, 76, 281–304.
42.
PiqueroA. R.FarringtonD. P.BlumsteinA. (2003). The criminal career paradigm. Crime and Justice, 30, 359–506.
43.
PiqueroA. R.JenningsW. G.BarnesJ. C. (2012). Violence in criminal careers: A review of the literature from a developmental life-course perspective. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 17, 171–179.
44.
PiqueroA. R.PaternosterR.BrameR.MazerolleP.DeanC. W. (1999). Onset age and specialization in offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 235–274.
45.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.
46.
RosoffS. M.PontellH. N.TillmanR. H. (2002). Profit without honor: White-collar crime and the looting of America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
47.
SkinnerW. F.FreamA. M. (1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college students. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 34, 495–518.
48.
StattinH.MagnussonD.ReichelH. (1989). Criminal activity at different ages: A study based on a Swedish longitudinal research population. British Journal of Criminology, 29, 368–385.
49.
SullivanC.McGloinJ.PrattT.PiqueroA. (2006). Rethinking the “norm” of offender generality: Investigating specialization in the short-term. Criminology, 44, 199–233.
50.
WallD. A. (2010). The internet as a conduit for criminal activity. In PattavinaA. (Ed.), Information technology and the criminal justice system. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
51.
WieckoF. M. (2010). Research note: Assessing the validity of college samples: Are students really that different?Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1186–1190.
52.
WillinghamD. T. (2012). Why does family wealth affect learning?American Educator, 36, 33–39.
53.
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, 43–55.
54.
WrightB. R. E.CaspiA.MoffittT. E.SilvaP. A. (2001). The effects of social ties on crime vary by criminal propensity: A life-course model of interdependence. Criminology, 39, 321–351.
55.
YarM. (2005). Computer hacking: Just another case of juvenile delinquency?The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 387–399.
56.
ZimringF. E.JenningsW. G.PiqueroA. R.HaysS. (2009). Investigating the continuity of sex offending: Evidence from the Second Philadelphia Birth Cohort. Justice Quarterly, 26, 58–76.
57.
ZimringF. E.PiqueroA. R.JenningsW. G. (2007). Sexual delinquency in Racine: Does early sex offending predict later sex offending in youth and young adulthood?Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 507–534.
