Although shoplifting is one of the crimes with the smallest gender gap among all offense types, most studies still conclude that males steal from shops more frequently than females. The roots of the gendered distribution of shoplifting have not yet been satisfactorily explained. This work investigates whether situational action theory (SAT) can account for males’ greater involvement in shoplifting compared to females and if the propensity–exposure interaction that is at the heart of the theory applies to both genders. Results from a large-scale student survey conducted in Austria suggest that SAT generalizes to both genders and that it is well suited to explain why males are more likely to shoplift than females.
AgnewR. (2009). The contribution of “mainstream” theories to the explanation of female delinquency. In ZahnM. (Ed.), The delinquent female (pp. 7–29). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
2.
AiC.NortonE. (2003). Interaction terms in logit and probit models. Economic Letters, 80, 123–129.
AlaridL.BurtonV.CullenF. (2000). Gender and crime among felony offenders: Assessing the generality of social control and differential association theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 171–199.
5.
ArneklevB.GrasmickH.TittleC.BursikR. (1993). Low self-control and imprudent behavior. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9, 225–239.
6.
BamfieldJ. (2012). Shopping and crime. New York, NY: Palgrave.
BerryW.DeMerittJ.EsareyJ. (2010). Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: Is a product term essential?American Journal of Political Science, 54, 248–266.
9.
BlakemoreS.ChoudhuryS. (2006). Development of the adolescent brain: Implications for executive function and social cognition. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 296–312.
10.
BlancoC.GrantJ.PetryN.SimpsonH.AlegriaA.LiuS.HasinD. (2008). Prevalence and correlates of shoplifting in the United States: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). American Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 905–913.
11.
BottcherJ. (2001). Social practices of gender: How gender relates to delinquency in the everyday lives of high-risk youth. Criminology, 39, 893–932.
12.
BowenH. (2012). Testing moderating hypotheses in limited dependent variable and other nonlinear models: Secondary versus total interactions. Journal of Management, 38, 860–889.
13.
BroidyL.AgnewR. (1997). Gender and crime: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 275–306.
BungeM. (2004). How does it work? The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34, 182–210.
16.
BurtonV.CullenF.EvansT.AlaridL.DunawayR. (1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 123–147.
17.
Centre for Retail Research. (2011). The Global Retail Theft Barometer 2010. Monitoring the costs of shrinkage and crime in the global retail industry. The worldwide shrinkage survey. Newark, England: Author.
18.
DalyK.Chesney-LindM. (1988). Feminism and criminology. Justice Quarterly, 5, 497–535.
19.
EnzmannD. (2010). Germany. In Junger-TasJ.MarshallI. H.EnzmannD.KilliasM.SteketeeM.GruszczynskaB. (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond. Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 47–64). New York, NY: Springer.
20.
FarringtonD. (1999). Measuring, explaining and preventing shoplifting: A review of British research. Security Journal, 12, 9–27.
21.
Ferguson-SmithA. C. (2011). Genomic imprinting: The emergence of an epigenetic paradigm. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12, 565–575.
22.
GanglM. (2010). Causal inference in sociological research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 21–47.
23.
GavrayC.VettenburgN.PauwelsL.BrondeelR. (2013). The impact of societal vulnerability and violent values on self-control in a Belgian sample of youth: A gender comparison. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 113–131.
24.
GottfredsonM.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
25.
GrasmickH.BlackwellB.BursikR. (1993). Changes in the sex patterning of perceived threats of sanctions. Law & Society Review, 27, 679–705.
26.
GrasmickH.TittleC.BursickR.ArneklevB. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.
27.
HaarD.WikströmP.-O. (2010). Crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and violent scenario responses: Testing situational action theory in regression and Rasch models. European Journal of Applied Mathematics, 21, 307–323.
28.
HaganJ. (1989). Structural criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
29.
HannonL.KnappP. (2003). Reassessing nonlinearity in the urban disadvantage/violent crime relationship: An example of methodological bias from log-transformation. Criminology, 41, 1427–1448.
30.
HayC.MeldrumR. (2016). Self-control and crime over the life course. London, England: Sage.
31.
Hayslett-McCallK.BernardT. (2002). Attachment, masculinity, and self-control: A theory of male crime rates. Theoretical Criminology, 6, 5–33.
32.
HilbeJ. (2011). Negative binomial regression. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
HirtenlehnerH.BlackwellB. (2015). Can differences in attachment to parents and level of self-control explain the gender gap in juvenile delinquency? Testing a gendered attachment-self-control theory. In GuzmanJ. (Ed.), Advances in criminology research (pp. 91–116). New York, NY: Nova.
35.
HirtenlehnerH.BlackwellB.LeitgöbH.BacherJ. (2014). Explaining the gender gap in juvenile shoplifting. A power-control theoretical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 35, 41–65.
36.
HubbardD.PrattT. (2002). A meta-analysis of the predictors of delinquency among females. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 1–13.
37.
JessorR. (1992). Risk behavior in adolescence: A psychosocial framework for understanding and action. Developmental Review, 12, 374–390.
38.
Junger-TasJ. (2012). Delinquent behavior in 30 countries. In Junger-TasJ.MarshallI. H.EnzmannD.KilliasM.SteketeeM.GruszczynskaB. (Eds.), The many faces of youth crime. Contrasting theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency across countries and cultures (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: Springer.
39.
Junger-TasJ.RibeaudD.CruyffM. (2004). Juvenile delinquency and gender. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 333–375.
40.
Karaca-MandicP.NortonE.DowdP. (2012). Interaction terms in non-linear models. Health Services Research, 47, 255–274.
41.
KilliasM.AebiF.HerrmannL.DilitzC.LuciaS. (2010). Switzerland. In Junger-TasJ.MarshallI. H.EnzmannD.KilliasM.SteketeeM.GruszczynskaB. (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond. Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 79–95). New York, NY: Springer.
42.
KlemkeL. (1992). The sociology of shoplifting: Boosters and snitches today. Westport, CT: Praeger.
43.
KrasnovskyT.LaneR. C. (1998). Shoplifting: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 219–236.
44.
LaGrangeT.SilvermanR. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency. Criminology, 37, 41–72.
45.
LipinaS.PosnerM. (2012). The impact of poverty on the development of brain networks. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, Article 238.
46.
MarshallC. (2013). Self-reported property crime patterns in 30 countries: Adventures in multivariate exploratory data analysis. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 125–146.
47.
MarshallI. H.EnzmannD. (2012). The generalizability of self-control theory. In Junger-TasJ.MarshallI. H.EnzmannD.KilliasM.SteketeeM.GruszczynskaB. (Eds.), The many faces of youth crime: Contrasting theoretical perspectives on juvenile delinquency across countries and cultures (pp. 285–325). New York, NY: Springer.
48.
MarshallI. H.HeN. (2010). USA. In Junger-TasJ.MarshallI. H.EnzmannD.KilliasM.SteketeeM.GruszczynskaB. (Eds.), Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond. Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 139–157). New York, NY: Springer.
49.
MatsuedaR.AndersonK. (1998). The dynamics of delinquent peers and delinquent behavior. Criminology, 36, 269–306.
50.
McClellandG.JuddC. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderation effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.
51.
MearsD.PloegerM.WarrM. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in delinquency: Peer influence and moral evaluations of behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 251–266.
52.
MesserschmidtJ. (1993). Masculinities and crime: Critique and reconceptualization of theory. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
53.
MoffittT.CaspiA.RutterM.SilvaP. (2001). Sex differences in antisocial behavior. Conduct, disorder, delinquency, and violence in the Dunedin longitudinal study. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
54.
OsgoodW.FinkenL.McMorrisB. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance II: Tobit regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18, 319–347.
55.
PauwelsL. (2012). How similar is the interaction between low self-control and deviant moral beliefs in the explanation of adolescent offending? An inquiry in subgroups by gender and immigrant background. In FruiliA.VenetoL. (Eds.), Psychology of morality (pp. 141–153). New York, NY: Nova.
56.
PauwelsL. (2015). Über die Haltbarkeit der in der situational action theory beschriebenen Interaktionseffekte in verschiedenen Bevölkerungsgruppen. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 98, 280–296.
57.
PiqueroN. L.GoverA.MacDonaldJ.PiqueroA. (2005). The influence of delinquent peers on delinquency: Does gender matter?Youth & Society, 36, 251–275.
58.
PiqueroN. L.SealockM. (2004). Gender and general strain theory: A preliminary test of Broidy and Agnew’s gender/GST hypotheses. Justice Quarterly, 21, 125–158.
59.
RebellonC.ModeckiK. (2013). Accounting for projection bias in models of delinquent peer influence: The utility and limits of latent variable approaches. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 163–186.
60.
RussellC.DeanM. (2000). To log or not to log: Bootstrap as an alternative to the parametric estimation of moderation effects in the presence of skewed dependent variables. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 166–185.
61.
RutterM. (2012). Gene-environment interdependence. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 391–412.
62.
SaltzmanL.PaternosterR.WaldoG.ChiricosT. (1982). Deterrent and experiential effects: The problem of causal order in perceptual deterrence research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 19, 172–189.
63.
SchilsN.PauwelsL. (2014). Explaining violent extremism for subgroups by gender and immigrant background: Using SAT as a framework. Journal of Strategic Security, 7, 27–47.
64.
SimonsR.BurtC.BarrA.LeiM.StewartE. (2014). Incorporating routine activities, activity spaces, and situational definitions into the social schematic theory of crime. Criminology, 52, 655–687.
65.
StataCorp. (2015). Stata statistical software: Release 14. College Station, TX: Author.
66.
SteffensmeierD.AllanE. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459–487.
67.
SteketeeM.JungerM.Junger-TasJ. (2013). Sex differences in the predictors of juvenile delinquency females are more susceptible to poor environments; Males are influenced more by low self-control. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 88–105.
68.
StummvollG.KromerI.HagerI. (2010). Austria. In Junger-TasJ.MarshallI. H.EnzmannD.KilliasM.SteketeeM.GruszczynskaB. (Eds.) Juvenile delinquency in Europe and beyond. Results of the Second International Self-Report Delinquency Study (pp. 97–110). New York, NY: Springer.
69.
SvenssonR. (2004). Shame as a consequence of the parent–child relationship: A study of gender differences in juvenile delinquency. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 477–504.
70.
SvenssonR.PauwelsL. (2010). Is a risky lifestyle always “risky”? The interaction between individual propensity and lifestyle risk in adolescent offending: A test in two urban samples. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 608–626.
71.
SvenssonR.PauwelsL.WeermanF.BruinsmaG. (2016). Explaining individual changes in moral values and moral emotions among adolescent boys and girls: A fixed-effects analysis. European Journal of Criminology. doi:10.1177/1477370816649626
ThijsP.van DijkI.StoofR.NottenN. (2015). Adolescent problem behaviour: The gender gap in European perspective. European Journal of Criminology, 12, 598–615.
74.
TongletM. (2002). Consumer misbehaviour: An exploratory study of shoplifting. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 1, 336–354.
75.
TreiberK. (2017). Biosocial criminology and models of criminal decision making. In BernascoW.van GelderJ. L.ElffersH. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of offender decision making. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
76.
VazsonyiA.PickeringE.JungerM.HessingT. (2001). An empirical test of a general theory of crime: A four-nation comparative study of self-control and the prediction of deviance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 91–131.
77.
WarrM. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
78.
WeermanF.BernascoW.BruinsmaG.PauwelsL. (2015). Gender differences in delinquency and situational action theory: A partial test. Justice Quarterly. doi:10.1080/07418825.2015.1064987
79.
WeermanF.HoeveM. (2012). Peers and delinquency among females and males: Are sex differences in delinquency explained by peer factors?European Journal of Criminology, 9, 228–244.
80.
WikströmP.-O. (2004). Crime as alternative: Towards a cross-level situational action theory of crime causation. In McCordJ. (Ed.), Beyond empiricism: Institutions and intentions in the study of crime (pp. 1–37). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
81.
WikströmP.-O. (2005). The social origins of pathways in crime: Towards a developmental ecological action theory of crime involvement and its changes. In FarringtonD. (Ed.), Integrated developmental and life-course theories of offending. Advances in criminological theory (Vol. 14, pp. 211–245). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
82.
WikströmP.-O. (2006). Individuals, settings and acts of crime. Situational mechanisms and the explanation of crime. In WikströmP.-O.SampsonR. (Eds.), The explanation of crime: Context, mechanisms and development (pp. 61–107). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
83.
WikströmP.-O. (2007). In search of causes and explanations of crime. In KingR.WincupE. (Eds.), Doing research on crime and justice (pp. 117–140). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
84.
WikströmP.-O. (2008). Deterrence and deterrence experiences: Preventing crime through the threat of punishment. In ShohamS.BeckO.KettM. (Eds.), International handbook of penology and criminal justice (pp. 345–378). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
85.
WikströmP.-O. (2009). Crime propensity, criminogenic exposure and crime involvement in early to mid adolescence. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform, 92, 253–266.
86.
WikströmP.-O. (2010). Explaining crime as moral action. In HitlinS.VaiseyS. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 211–240). New York, NY: Springer.
87.
WikströmP.-O. (2012). Does everything matter? Addressing the problem of causation and explanation in the study of crime. In McGloinJ.SullivanC.KennedyL. (Eds.), When crime appears. The role of emergence (pp. 53–72). New York, NY: Routledge.
88.
WikströmP.-O. (2014). Why crime happens: A situational action theory. In ManzoG. (Ed.), Analytical sociology: Actions and networks (pp. 74–94). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.
89.
WikströmP.-O.ButterworthD. (2006). Adolescent crime. Individual differences and lifestyles. New York, NY: Routledge.
90.
WikströmP.-O.CeccatoV.HardieB.TreiberK. (2010). Activity fields and the dynamics of crime. Advancing knowledge about the role of the environment in crime causation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26, 55–87.
91.
WikströmP.-O.OberwittlerD.TreiberK.HardieB. (2012). Breaking rules. The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
92.
WikströmP.-O.TreiberK. (2007). The role of self-control in crime causation. Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. European Journal of Criminology, 4, 237–264.
93.
WikströmP.-O.TreiberK. (2016). Situational theory: The importance of interactions and action mechanisms in the explanation of crime. In PiqueroA. (Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 415–444). Chichester, England: Wiley & Sons.
94.
WittenbergJ. (2009). Diebstahlskriminalität von Jugendlichen. Eine Überprüfung der Theorie des geplanten Verhaltens am Beispiel des Ladendiebstahls. Münster, Germany: Waxmann.
95.
WongT.SlotboomA.BijleveldC. (2010). Risk factors for delinquency in adolescent and young adult females: A European review. European Journal of Criminology, 7, 266–284.
96.
WrightB.CaspiA.MoffittT.SilvaP. (2001). The effects of social ties on crime vary by criminal propensity: A life-course model of interdependence. Criminology, 39, 321–351.
