Deviant Behavior, 27: 537
565, 2006

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0163-9625 print/1521-0456 online
DOI: 10.1080/01639620600781548

an empirical test of the

relationship between
employee theft and low
self-control

Lynn Langton, Nicole Leeper Piquero, and

Richard C. Hollinger
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Although Gottfredson and Hirschi (1987, 1990)
maintain that low self-control can account for
white-collar=corporate offending, there have been
few and inconclusive empirical tests in this area.
One area of white-collar crime, in particular,
which could benefit from an examination of the
role of low self-control in predicting offending, is
employee theft. Although employee theft is one of
the more costly and pervasive crimes impacting the
American economy each year, there has been very
little research examining the role of individual
characteristics and personality traits in predicting
this type of deviant behavior. The current research
is a preliminary attempt at integrating the two
bodies of literature, employee theft and low
self-control.

INTRODUCTION
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) General Theory of Crime is
undeniably one of the most widely examined and debated
theories in criminology today. Similarly, employee theft is
Received 25 July 2005; accepted 7 February 2006.
Address correspondence to Richard Hollinger, University of Florida, 201 Walker Hall,
P.O. Box 115950, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, Gainesville, FL 32611,
USA. E-mail: rhollin@crim.ufl.edu

537
538 L. Langton et al.

one of the most costly crimes to the American economy

(Friedrichs 2004). Yet, although a number of prior studies have
examined employee theft and even more have explored the
trait of low self-control, to date no research has examined
whether the two subjects are linked in any way. Such a study
could provide important extensions of both bodies of litera-
ture. For example, the extant research examining characteris-
tics of employee theft has focused primarily on demographic
variables (e.g., age and sex) (see Hollinger and Clark 1983;
Mustaine and Tewksbury 2002) and variables related to
the workplace climate (Altheide et al. 1978; Ditton 1977;
Greenberg 1997; Harris and Benson 1998; Huiras et al.
2000; Mangione and Quinn 1975), with researchers conclud-
ing that no single factor or theory can explain each and every
occurrence of theft behavior (Hollinger 1989). On the other
hand, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:232; emphasis in
original) have presented a theory in which they claim low
self-control to be ‘‘the individual level cause of crime.’’ Thus,
it seems only logical to investigate whether low self-control
can be used to better understand employee theft.
Our preliminary test of low self-control’s ability to explain a
heretofore unexamined crime type, employee theft, also
provides the starting point for a useful theoretical expansion
of General Theory. There have been few tests examining low
self-control and white-collar crime, and those that have
attempted this task are not overly supportive of Hirschi and
Gottfredson’s (1990; see also Hirschi and Gottfredson 1987)
claims of an expected linkage (Benson and Moore 1992;
Simpson and Piquero 2002). Hence, assessing low self-control’s
ability to account for the white-collar crime of employee theft
provides a chance for the theory to explain yet another variety
of crime.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Employee Theft
Employee theft is defined as ‘‘the unauthorized taking, con-
trol, or transfer of money and=or property of the formal work
organization that is perpetrated by an employee during
the course of occupational activity’’ (Hollinger and Clark
1983:2). Over the past several decades, a number of studies
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 539

have suggested that employee theft is a widespread, pervas-

ive, and costly form of crime (Greenberg and Barling 1996;
Friedrichs 2004; Hollinger 1989; Hollinger and Clark
1983; Hollinger and Dabney 1994; Mustaine and Tewksbury
2002; Neihoff and Paul 2000; Thomas et al. 2001). Estimates
of the losses that retail businesses suffer as a result of
employee theft typically range between 5 and 10 billion
dollars annually (Friedrichs 2004), but can reach upwards
of hundreds of billions of dollars if all industry sectors
are included (Friedrichs 2004; Lary 1988; Mustaine and
Tewksbury 2002).
Obviously, the monetary costs of employee theft have
substantial effects on society and the economy. For one,
employee theft results in an inflation of the price of con-
sumer items by any where from 10 to 15% (Friedrichs
2004; Hollinger and Clark 1983) and costs the average
American family approximately $400 dollars per year
(Consumer Reports 2002:20). Additionally, losses from
employee theft play a major part in the bankruptcies of
between 30 to 50% of all organizations (Greenberg 1997;
Greenberg and Barling 1996; Hollinger 1989; Neihoff
and Paul 2000; Thomas et al. 2001). Furthermore, employee
theft is also blamed for the deterioration of workplace
morale and a lack of trust and camaraderie among
co-workers and between employees and their employers
(Hollinger 1989).
Despite the apparent serious consequences of employee
theft, comparatively little is known about the prevalence
of theft among employees or the causes of such behavior.
Employee theft is difficult to study due to a lack of official
law enforcement involvement in the incidences and an
inability to concretely determine whether losses are
attributable to employees or non-employees (Hollinger
1989; Mustaine and Tewksbury 2002). Thus, estimates
of employee theft vary substantially (see Wimbush and
Dalton 1997), with some reports finding that 75% of
all employees have engaged in theft on at least one
occasion (Neihoff and Paul 2000) and others offering
more conservative estimates of approximately one-third
to 40% of employees stealing from their employers annu-
ally (Hollinger 1989; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Thomas
et al. 2001).
540 L. Langton et al.

In extant literature, researchers typically draw from two

wide-ranging categories of explanations to account for
employee theft behaviors. The first type of explanation
focuses on external, environmental-type factors that cause
an employee to steal. Here researchers approach employee
theft from a strain theory perspective, examining such
issues as general economic pressures or financial need on
the part of the offender (see Cressey 1953; Greenberg and
Barling 1996; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Hollinger 1989;
Mustaine and Tewksbury 2002), and the disjunction
between how workers perceive they should be compen-
sated and treated versus their actual pay and experiences
on the job (Altheide et al. 1978; Ditton 1977; Harris and
Benson 1998; Hollinger and Clark 1982a, 1983; Hollinger
and Dabney 1994; Huiras et al. 2000; Greenberg 1990,
1993, 1997; Greenberg and Barling 1996; Mangione and
Quinn 1975; Mars 1974; Mustaine and Tewksbury 2002;
Neihoff and Paul 2000; Sieh 1987; Tucker 1989). Each of
these factors has been found to contribute to instances of
employee theft, with general economic pressure variables
typically accounting for the least amount of variability. Also
in the category of environmental-type factors is the research
that examines organizations’ attempts at putting in place
internal measures of theft control that reduce opportunities
for stealing (see Clarke 1997; Friedrichs 2004; Greenberg
and Barling 1996; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Mustaine
and Tewksbury 2002; Neihoff and Paul 2000; Parilla
et al. 1988). In this area, research generally finds reductions
in employee theft when it becomes more difficult for
employees to steal and opportunities for stealing, such
as access to the safe or cash supply, are not as readily
available.
The second category of studies examines the propensity
for employee theft based on individual-level characteristics.
For starters, a number of demographic, atheoretical charac-
teristics have been found to be significant predictors of
employee theft. Hollinger and Clark (1983), for example,
determined that young, male, unmarried employees were
the most likely group to commit employee theft. Similarly,
Mustaine and Tewksbury (2002) found gender, race, and
alcohol use to be significantly related to self-reported
employee theft among college students.
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 541

Research on the individual-level characteristics that

increase employee theft behavior also draws from crimino-
logical theories such as social bonding and differential asso-
ciation=social learning (see Akers 1985; Hirschi 1969;
Sutherland 1947). Several studies have found that employees
who are not attached (i.e., bonded) to their jobs, those who
are the most marginalized, who receive the lowest wages
with the least benefits, or who do not foresee themselves
staying in a particular job for an extended period of time
or making a career out of the job, are more likely to engage
in employee theft (see Hollinger 1986; Hollinger and Clark
1983; Huiras et al. 2000; Thomas et al. 2001; Tucker
1989). Other research concentrates on the informal structure
of a workplace and the ways in which employees learn tech-
niques, motivations, and rationalizations for theft behavior
from their co-workers (Sykes and Matza 1957; Shover and
Hochstetler 2002). Along these lines, findings show that
employees are more influenced by their workplace peers
than by the formal rules established by executives and man-
agers (Hollinger and Clark 1982b; Parilla et al. 1988).
Due to the wide range of external and individual level fac-
tors related to employee theft, researchers have concluded
that there is no single factor or theory that can explain each
and every occurrence. Despite the prevalence of employee
theft and the wide range of possible causes for such beha-
vior, the fact still remains that most employees do not steal
from their companies (Hollinger 1989). Even within the same
company, two seemingly high-risk employees, holding the
same occupational position and possessing the same demo-
graphic characteristics, are not both necessarily going to
commit employee theft. Therefore, one must wonder if there
are not other traits that predispose an employee to theft beha-
viors. Interestingly, however, in all of the literature on
employee theft there are few references, if any, to the poten-
tial role of individual disposition and=or personality traits
and for predicting this type of deviant behavior.
Within criminology there is one personality characteristic,
in particular, that often comes to mind any time an individual-
level explanation for deviance is required; Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s (1990) concept of low self-control. Particularly in
light of the fact that Gottfredson and Hirschi assert that low
self-control is ‘‘the individual level cause of crime’’
542 L. Langton et al.

(1990:232; emphasis in original) and have specifically

suggested that their theory could be applied to white-collar
crime it seems that employee theft research could benefit from
an examination of the crime from this particular theoretical
perspective. Next we turn to a review of the literature on
low self-control before testing the possible causal connection
between low self-control and employee theft.

Low Self-Control
As previously mentioned, Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General
Theory of Crime (1990) is one of the most widely examined
and debated theories in criminology. The central proposition
of the theory is that individuals, from childhood on, possess
different levels of self-control that remain relatively stable
throughout the life course. The less self-control one has,
the greater their propensity for criminality and the more
likely they are to engage in any number of criminal and anal-
ogous behaviors given the opportunity.
According to the theory, low self-control is largely the
result of ineffective child rearing (Gottfredson and Hirschi
1990:97), and is characterized by the presence of six attitu-
dinal traits: impulsivity, preference for simple tasks, risk-
seeking, preference for physical rather than mental activities,
self-centeredness, and quick temperedness. These attitudinal
characteristics are manifested through any and all behaviors
that satisfy the needs and desires of the low self-control indi-
vidual (including, but not limited to crimes). In other words,
since all criminal and analogous behaviors provide immedi-
ate gratification of desire, relief from minor irritation, and=or
a sense of excitement, they are outcomes of having low self-
control (Stylianou 2002).
The general theory of crime has been the subject of
much empirical research and also been at the heart of
many debates (Akers 1991; Barlow 1991; Benson and
Moore 1992; Geis 2000; Herbert et al. 1998; Reed and
Yeager 1996; Simpson and Piquero 2002). For purposes
of analytic testing Harold Grasmick and his colleagues
(1993) developed a 24-item scale, measuring self-control
as a unidimensional construct of the six attitudinal charac-
teristics spelled out by Gottfredson and Hirschi. Using this
scale, as well as numerous other measures of self-control,
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 543

the theory has been tested on criminal and analogous

behaviors ranging from smoking (Arnekelev et al. 1993;
Stylianou 2001), to drinking and driving (Keane et al.
1993; Nagin and Paternoster 1993; Piquero and Tibbetts
1996), skipping school (Gibbs et al. 1998; Stylianou
2002), drug use (LaGrange and Silverman 1999; Stylianou
2002), intentions to shoplift (Piquero and Tibbetts 1996),
and even white-collar=corporate crime (Benson and Moore
1992; Simpson and Piquero 2002). The majority of these
studies have shown evidence of a relationship between
low self-control and each of the deviant behaviors (Pratt
and Cullen 2000).
One area in which there have been few and inconclusive
empirical tests of the theory is in the realm of white-collar
crime. Gottfredson and Hirshi (1987, 1990) acknowledge
that white-collar crime presents a bit of an issue for the
theory because it presumes that the offender has achieved
some level of employment or status, which in itself requires
a certain degree of self-control. However, they maintain that
white-collar crimes are actually no different from other street
crimes, in that they are committed to satisfy an immediate
desire (i.e., the quick gain of money, power, status). Further-
more, they claim that when white-collar offenders are
compared to other non-offenders in similar work and status
positions, the offenders will have a lower relative level of
self-control (emphasis added, Gottfredson and Hirschi
1990; Simpson and Piquero 2002).
Benson and Moore (1992) examined the relationship
between low self-control and white-collar crime and found
that behavioral measures of low self-control (e.g., excessive
drinking, drug use, poor educational performance, and
below average social adjustment in high school) were better
predictors of street offenses than of crimes like fraud,
embezzlement, and bribery. Similarly, Simpson and Piquero
(2002) pitted low self-control against organizational theories
of corporate offending and found that measures of organi-
zational theory were more highly related to intentions for
corporate criminality than were behavioral measures of
self-control like traffic violations, accidents, divorce, and
drinking. Thus, behavioral gauges of low self-control do
not appear to provide a solid explanation for white-collar
or corporate crime.
544 L. Langton et al.

Moreover, despite the substantial amount of research that

does show a link between low self-control and common
criminal=deviant behaviors (Pratt and Cullen 2000), both
the theory and many tests of the theory have come under
criticism. Because the definition of self-control seems to be
derived directly from characteristics of criminal acts in gen-
eral, the theory is charged with being tautological (see Akers
1991; Pratt and Cullen 2000; Stylianou 2002). As Grasmick
and his colleagues point out (1993:9), many of Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s statements regarding the characteristics of an
individual with low self-control actually describe predicted
outcomes of having low self-control rather than the attributes
of low self-control.
The issue of tautology is raised when low self-control is
viewed as a cause of crime and analogous behaviors, with
these same deviant behaviors then used as measures of low
self-control (Pratt and Cullen 2000; Stylianou 2002). By no
means are all empirical studies of self-control plagued by
the tautology issue (see Pratt and Cullen 2000), but such criti-
cisms do cause enough concern that many researchers resort
to using only attitudinal measures of self-control. This sol-
ution, however, ignores the fact that Gottfredson and Hirschi
(1990) suggest that self-control is best measured through
behavioral scales, examining levels of participation in devi-
ant behavior, rather than through attitudinal scales. Although
several studies have found that behavioral measures of low
self-control are better predictors of crime and delinquency
(Evans et al. 1997; Paternoster and Brame 1998), other
research suggests that it does not matter which type of
measure is used because each actually taps into a different
aspect of self-control (Tittle et al. 2003; Turner and Piquero
2002:463).
Furthermore, most studies utilizing behavioral indicators
of self-control follow Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) claim
that low self-control produces a wide range of behaviors.
Thus, they employ general behavioral measures of self-
control that are not in any way connected to actual offenses.
In other words, there is a disjunction between the deviant
behaviors measuring self-control and the offenses, such that
the offenses are not a logical extension of the behaviors.
Gottfredson and Hirschi would contend that specific deviant
behaviors are not predictors of other specific analogous
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 545

behaviors. However, the idea of specialization remains a

commonly held conviction, and certainly folk belief holds
that certain deviant behaviors are correlated with certain
other criminal behaviors (i.e., the idea that inflicting harm
on animals is linked with a tendency to engage in other acts
of violence). In sum, there is still much to be learned regard-
ing the types of measures (general or specific, behavioral or
attitudinal) that best capture low self-control.

CURRENT FOCUS
The current research is an exploratory attempt to expand on
existing literature in several important ways. First, it exam-
ines the relationship between low self-control and employee
theft. This relationship has yet to be directly examined in the
extant literature, yet several key points speak to the need for
such an assessment. First, as previously noted, employee
theft is an offense that costs the economy billions of dollars
each year (Greenberg and Barling 1996; Friedrichs 2004;
Hollinger 1989; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Hollinger and
Dabney 1994; Hollinger and Langton 2004; Mustaine and
Tewksbury 2002; Neihoff and Paul 2000; Thomas et al.
2001) but has received comparatively little theoretical atten-
tion. Moreover, although the link between employee theft
and low self-control has not been examined, there do seem
to be some obvious overlaps between the existing explana-
tions of employee theft and Gottfredson and Hirschi’s con-
ceptualization of low self-control. First, individuals with
low self-control are thought to commit crimes when the
crimes provide them with the easy and immediate gratifi-
cation of their desires. Likewise, one explanation for
employee theft is that it is a quick and easy solution to econ-
omic pressures or financial need (Greenberg and Barling
1996; Hollinger and Clark 1983; Mustaine and Tewksbury
2002; Neihoff and Paul 2000). Second, employees who view
their employers as dishonest or unfair are more likely to
engage in employee theft (Hollinger 1989) and research on
low self-control has found that individuals with low self-
control are more likely to perceive situations as unfair
(Piquero et al. 2004) and interpret interactions as hostile or
aversive (Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Third, both sets of
literatures begin with the inherent assumption that all people
546 L. Langton et al.

are tempted to engage in deviance (see Hollinger and Clark

1983; Gottfredson and Hirschi 1990). Fourth, individuals
with low self-control tend to be short-sighted, not concerned
with long-term costs or benefits (Gottfredson and Hirschi
1990). Similarly, employees who are not concerned about
their long-term employment with a particular organization
are more likely to commit employee theft (Hollinger and
Clark 1983; Thomas et al. 2001). Finally, previous research
has suggested that internal controls, such as shame, serve
as better deterrents of deviance in the workplace than the
threat of embarrassment or formal sanctioning (Grasmick
and Kobayashi 2002; Hollinger and Clark 1982b) and by nat-
ure an individual with low self-control would not such pos-
sess internal controls. Thus, it seems that several strong
points indicate the need for empirical examination of the
relationship between low self-control and employee theft.
The second contribution of this study is that the relation-
ship between low self-control and intentions to engage in
employee theft will be tested using both attitudinal and beha-
vioral measures of self-control. In doing so, the research will
take into account criticisms of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
theory while remaining true to their suggestions for appropri-
ately testing the major hypotheses. Additionally, rather than
using general behavioral indicators of low self-control (e.g.,
traffic accidents) that are not logically related to the actual
offense (e.g., sales fraud), this test will also employ a beha-
vioral indicator of low self-control with more of a logical
association to the offense itself. In other words, the test is a
preliminary attempt at challenging Gottfredson and Hirschi’s
claim that engaging in one form of deviance does not
increase the likelihood of undertaking a specific type of
offending.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Data
The data for this study was collected at a large southeastern
university during the spring 2004 semester. The 224 respon-
dents were enrolled in one of several sections of an introduc-
tory criminology course, which was open to students of all
majors across the university. The students were informed that
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 547

their participation in the survey was voluntary and all were

given an informed consent form to sign. Because there were
not significant differences in the composition of the sections,
all were aggregated into one data set composed of 149
females and 74 males, averaging 20 years in age.1 The
demographic characteristics of the sample were closely
matched to that of the larger university, suggesting a rep-
resentative sample of these students.
Although previous research, particularly on the effects of
low self-control, has set a precedent for the use of student-
based samples (Nagin and Paternoster 1993; Gibbs and
Giever 1995; Piquero and Tibbetts 1996; Piquero et al.
2004; Simpson and Piquero 2002), criticism has been raised
regarding the generalizabilty of student-generated findings.
Several points justify the use of an undergraduate sample
in the current study. Most importantly, employee theft is dis-
proportionately committed by individuals in their late teens
to early twenties (Hollinger and Clark 1983; Hollinger et al.
1992; Lary 1988; Mustaine and Tewksbury 2002). Thus, the
age of the college sample is particularly appropriate for a
study on employee theft. Furthermore, earlier research has
argued that college students may actually have a higher pro-
pensity to steal from their employers than other non-student
employees (Mustaine and Tewksbury 2002). College stu-
dents tend to make school a priority over their jobs, meaning
less company loyalty and less time spent at each job, on top
of economic pressures they may experience and their heigh-
tened tendency to use drugs and alcohol (Mustaine and
Tewksbury 2002). College students, in particular, also tend
to be employed in temporary positions in which they make
low wages, have little vested interest, and work with other
employee of their same age and status. Previous research
has found that these very characteristics (i.e., temporary

1
Completed survey response rates from each of the sections ranged from 41 to 96
percent of the total class enrollment with an average rate of 68 percent. Unfortunately,
attendance was not taken in any of the four sections so it is unknown what percentage of
the students were absent on the day of the survey versus those who simply chose to not
complete the questionnaire. The possibility does exist that the study is inherently biased
due to unknown distinctions between the participating and not participating=present group.
However, Gottfredson and Hirschi would suggest that the bias is against their theory
because those who did not attend class or chose not to participate are expected to be the
individuals with the lowest self-control.
548 L. Langton et al.

work, low wages, no long-term interest, involvement in

informal social structure) increase the likelihood of
employee theft.
College students also have the work experience to validate
their use in the present research endeavor. Forty-three per-
cent of the students in the current sample reported having
a job that paid for a portion of their education, and this per-
centage does not account for all of the other students work-
ing over the summers and on other breaks. Many companies,
retailers especially, rely heavily on these part-time and
temporary employees (Hollinger and Langton 2004). Thus,
although college students admittedly may not be the most
appropriate sample for a study of white-collar crimes such
as embezzlement or price-fixing, they are a sound sample
to use for examining employee theft.
Gottfredson and Hirschi (2000:67) also justify the use of a
student sample by claiming that their theory can be tested on
any population. The authors assert that:
self-control affects educational and occupational attainment
groups. This natural restriction of range has the same effect
as restrictions inadvertently imposed by those seeking parti-
cular kinds of offenders. Fortunately, nature provides suf-
ficient variation in self-control within select groups to allow
study of its effects.
Thus, even among college students, it is expected that
there will be distinctions in the different levels of self-control
that are measured, allowing for the study of the relationship
between low self-control and intentions to commit employee
theft.

Survey Design
The students in the four surveyed classes were asked
to complete self-report questionnaires that included the
Grasmick and colleagues (1993) 24-item self-control scale,
questions pertaining to past, current, and future deviance,
and a realistic scenario detailing a situation in which the
respondent commits an act of employee theft. Each respon-
dent randomly received one of three scenarios that differed
only slightly in the conditions under which the same exact
act of theft occurred. In all three of the scenarios, the
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 549

opportunity for stealing is the same, which is an important

point for Gottfredson and Hirschi. They note that oppor-
tunity and self-control can often be confounded in research,
and that holding opportunity constant is one means of
ensuring that differences in offending can be ascribed to
variations in tendency rather than opportunity (Gottfredson
and Hirschi 1990:220). After comparing the responses to
each of the three scenarios and finding no significant differ-
ences, all of the surveys were aggregated for the particular
research at hand. The Appendix lists all three scenario con-
ditions as well as the items included in the Grasmick and
colleagues scale.
Prior to reading the scenario, the respondent was asked to
put themselves in the position of the employee depicted. In
all three instances, the vignette depicts the employee as a
hard-working, reliable worker who has been employed at
the same store for six months. The portrayed individual is
legitimately frustrated with his or her employer after not
receiving a well-deserved and promised raise. The character
is also preparing to leave for college and is short on the
money needed to pay registration fees. Another employee
leaves the cash register unlocked at the end of one evening
and the employee takes $250 from the cash drawer.
Despite extensive pre-testing of the vignette to ensure its
believability and portrayal of a realistic social situation,
critics may argue that scenario methodology only examines
behavioral intentions, which may be very different from
actual behavior. To this point, however, it must be noted that
empirical research examining the relationship between
intended and actual behavior has revealed a strong corre-
lation between the two (see Green 1989; Kim and Hunter
1993), suggesting a certain interchangeability. Furthermore,
researchers have already successfully utilized scenario meth-
odology to test Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory (Piquero
and Tibbetts 1996; Simpson and Piquero 2002; Piquero et al.
2004) and also to examine employee theft (Thomas et al.
2001), so the current research merely follows from their
example. Finally, the use of hypothetical vignettes allows
for the control of workplace environment characteristics such
as dissatisfaction, employee alienation, and opportunity,
which have previously been found to impact employee theft
behaviors (Hollinger and Clark 1983; Friedrichs 2004).
550 L. Langton et al.

Variables
Theft Intentions
The main dependent variable, intentions to engage in
employee theft, is a self-reported estimate of the degree to
which the respondent would consider stealing money from
his or her employer. Following the vignette, respondents
were asked to rank on a scale from zero (not likely at all)
to ten (very likely) the likelihood that they would behave
as the character in the scenario. Table 1 provides descriptive
information for each of the variables.

Application/Resumé Dishonesty
Although rarely mentioned within the discipline of crimi-
nology, dishonesty on applications=resumés is a huge issue
for human resource professionals around the country. As
one expert on application deception reports, ‘‘At a minimum
resumé fraud can give dishonest candidates an unfair advan-
tage over people who could be more qualified or more pro-
ductive. At worst such fraud can lead an employer to invite
theft or a violent individual into the office’’ (Prater and Kiser
2002:14). This sentiment, teamed with the growing focus of
loss prevention departments on the use of pre-employment
integrity screening measures, including education, prior
employment, and criminal conviction checks, indicates a sus-
picion that employees who resort to lying on an application or
resumé are more likely to engage in other offenses against
their employers. To our knowledge, however, the relationship

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics

Variable Mean SD Min Max

Age 19.92 1.79 18 31

Sex (0 ¼ male, 1 ¼ female) 0.67 0.47 0 1
Race (0 ¼ white, 1 ¼ nonwhite) 0.32 0.47 0 1
Prior experience (0 ¼ no) 0.29 0.45 0 1
Resume deception (0 ¼ no) 0.2 0.4 0 1
Behavioral Self-Control Scale 1.26 0.71 0 4
Attitudinal Self-Control Scale 72.03 8.1 37 93
Theft intentions (0 ¼ no likelihood) 0.76 1.59 0 9
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 551

between lying on an application=resumé and employee

theft, in particular, has never been empirically tested.
Moreover, lying on an application=resumé can not only be
regarded as a behavioral measure of low self-control, but a
behavioral measure of low self-control that appears more
directly linked to employee theft than other common behavioral
measures of low self-control such as smoking and seatbelt use.
Thus, the current research will also look at whether the relation-
ship between lying on an application=resumé and employee
theft is stronger than the relationship between general beha-
vioral measures of low self-control and employee theft.
Although it could be argued that the use of resume fraud as
a manifestation of low self-control subjects the current study
to the same tautological concerns that have plagued previous
studies as well, the distinction between lying on an appli-
cation and employee theft is that resumé fraud, like not
wearing a seat belt and driving too fast, is a common malum
prohibitum offense. Although individuals who lie on their
resumés are essentially engaging in a form fraud, they are
not typically viewed as ‘‘criminals.’’
To ascertain whether respondents had ever lied on a
resumé the question was asked, ‘‘Have you ever ‘tweaked’
or lied on a resumé or application?’’ The variable is dichot-
omous, with response options of either ‘‘no,’’ coded as (0)
or ‘‘yes,’’ coded as (1).

Self-Control
Because Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) suggest that beha-
vioral indicators may be the best measures of low self-control
and other empirical tests of general theory have found beha-
vioral measures to correctly assess an individual’s level of
self control, a 4-item behavioral self-control scale was cre-
ated using behavioral measures similar to those utilized in
prior research. By virtue of the use of a behavior low self-
control scale, the current study faces the same tautological
concerns that have plagued similar studies. In order to best
avoid these criticisms while remaining true to Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s recommendations, the behavioral scale is com-
posed of deviant behaviors that are strictly mala prohibita
offenses and are consistent with behavioral low self-control
measures used in extant research. The items comprising
552 L. Langton et al.

the scale include: seatbelt use, cigarette smoking, drinking

alcohol, and the use of a fake ID. Risky driving conduct,
cigarette smoking, and alcohol consumption have been
previously identified as behavioral manifestations of low
self-control by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990:91) and suc-
cessfully utilized as behavioral indicators of low self-control
in previous research (see Keane et al. 1993; LaGrange and
Silverman 1999; Strand and Garr 1994). The use of a fake
ID is a similar deviant behavior from which individuals are
discouraged from engaging, but are likely to be reprimanded
rather than punished if they are caught.
Yes=no response options (coded 0 for no, 1 for yes)
accompanied each of the items in the survey.2 As such, the
behavioral self-control scale ranges from 0 to 4 with the
higher values representing lower levels of self-control.
Although Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993) argue that beha-
vioral indicators are the best measures of self-control, they
also frame their theory to allow self-control to be measured
as the valuation of certain attitudes and beliefs. Accordingly,
numerous empirical tests of the theory utilize attitudinal
measures of self-control, the most common being the
Grasmick and colleagues (1993) 24-item self-control scale.
Because prior research using this scale has arrived at sub-
stantive conclusions supporting the claims of Gottfredson
and Hirschi (see Pratt and Cullen 2000 for a review), the cur-
rent research would be incomplete without its inclusion.
Respondents were presented with all 24 scale questions,
which had response options ranging from (1) strongly agree
to (4) strongly disagree. In other words, a lower score on
the scale represents a lower level of self-control. The scale
was tested for reliability and found to have strong internal
consistency (alpha ¼ .819). The factor analysis revealed the
presence of a single underlying factor.
Bivariate correlations between the behavioral scale, attitu-
dinal scale, and resumé fraud are significant (p < .01) and in
the expected directions (see Table 2). Additionally, none of
the correlations are above .24, suggesting that each of the
variables is measuring something different and multi-
colinearity is not a problem.
2
The exception is seat belt use, which was recoded so that respondents who do not wear
a seat belt were given a one (1) and respondents who do wear seat belts given a zero (0).
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 553

TABLE 2 Bivariate Correlations

Behavioral SC Attitudinal SC Lying on a resume

Behavioral SC 1
Attitudinal SC
.150 1
Lying on a resume .219
.221 1
 
¼ p < .05, ¼ p < .01.

Controls
In addition to the independent variables, age, race, sex and
prior experience of a similar negative encounter with an
employer are controlled for in the analysis. Prior experience
was measured with the question, ‘‘Have you ever experi-
enced interactions with an employer similar to what Jennifer=
John experienced?’’ No=yes response options followed the
survey question.

ANALYTIC PLAN
The current research will examine several major issues. First,
the study will look at the relationship between low self-
control and intentions to engage in employee theft, an occu-
pational crime that has never been examined from the low
self-control perspective. Because of the positive skew and
zero-clustering of the dependent variable (i.e., the majority
of respondents reported no likelihood of engaging in the theft
behavior) Tobit regression will be used.3 Both behavioral and
attitudinal measures of low self-control will be included as
independent variables to ensure that both suggestions from
and criticisms of Gottfredson and Hirschi are taken into
account. Including both measures of low self-control in the
models will further allow for a comparison to see which
has the strongest effect on deviance controlling for the other.
Next, the relationship between lying on an application=
resume and intentions to engage in employee theft will be
tested. Although research and actions coming from human
3
We also estimated a logistic regression model with employee theft as a dichotomous
variable measuring a zero versus nonzero likelihood of behaving as the character in the
scenario. The same substantive findings emerged and are available on request.
554 L. Langton et al.

resource and loss prevention professionals seem to suggest

that those who misrepresent themselves on their resumés
are more likely to commit other acts of occupational
deviance, this has not been empirically examined. Further-
more, including both lying on an application=resume and
behavioral measures of low self-control in a Tobit regression,
predicting intentions to engage in the crime of employee
theft, will provide a basic, preliminary test of whether gen-
eral deviance or a more specific, related deviant behavior
is a better predictor of one variety of occupational crime.

RESULTS
Because Gottfredson and Hirschi maintain that behavioral
measures of low self-control should be able to account for
variations in any and all types of offending, the analysis
begins with the behavioral low self-control scale regressed
on employee theft, controlling for age, race, sex, and prior
experience (Table 3, Model 1). In line with expectations,
the behavioral measure has a significant effect on intentions
to commit the crime of employee theft (p ¼ .004).
When lying on an application=resumé replaces the beha-
vioral indicator of self-control in a model predicting employee
theft (Table 3, Model 2), the results reveal that resumé fraud is
also a significant predictor of intentions to steal from one’s
employers (p ¼ .003). In fact, lying on an application=resumé
remains significantly related to employee theft even after the

TABLE 3 Tobit Regressions Predicting Employee Theft Intentions

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variable B Std. E B Std. E B Std. E B Std. E

Age
0.11 0.16
0.11 0.16
0.12 0.16
0.08 0.15
Race
0.45 0.61
0.74 0.62
0.58 0.61
0.84 0.62
Sex
0.97 0.59
0.94 0.59
0.93 0.58
0.46 0.61
Prior exp. 0.32 0.61 0.35 0.61 0.29 0.61 0.25 0.61
Resume 2.01 0.66 1.63 .66 1.17 0.65 þ
Behavioral SC 1.14 0.40 0.91 0.40 0.85 0.40
Attitudinal SC
0.13 0.04
þ
¼ p < .1,  ¼ p < .05, 
¼ p < .01.
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 555

behavioral self-control scale is controlled for in Model 3.

Interestingly, when the attitudinal self-control scale, the most
widely supported measure in self-control literature, is added
to the regression model, it too attains significance (p ¼ .001).
Although the attitudinal scale appears to be the strongest
variable in the model, the behavioral scale still retains a
significant effect on intentions to predict employee theft after
controlling for the attitudinal measure of self-control (p ¼ .033).
On the other hand, lying on an application=resumé retains
only moderate significance (p¼ .076) after the attitudinal mea-
sure is controlled for. This finding is in line with Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s contention that general measures of self-control
should be able to predict any type of criminal behavior.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this study was to begin to investigate the
relationship between low self-control and employee theft, a
heretofore unexamined outcome within the context of the
general theory of crime. Additionally, our effort extends much
of the prior research on the general theory of crime by employ-
ing both behavioral and attitudinal indicators in the same
study. Such an extension is important because although some
evidence indicates that either type of measure of self-control
can be used (Tittle et al. 2003), Gottfredson and Hirschi
clearly prefer the use of behavioral indicators over attitudinal
indicators (Hirschi and Gottfredson 1993). Moreover, we start
to extend previous behavioral measures in an important way.
Specifically, whereas Gottfredson and Hirschi anticipate that
a simple behavioral measure of self-control will be related
to all forms of criminal and analogous behaviors, this research
explored whether a behavioral indicator more in-line with the
outcome being predicted would have a greater effect versus
the more general behavioral indicator. That is, do context-
specific behavioral measures of self-control relate to context-
specific measures of criminal behavior more so than general
behavioral measures of self-control?
To examine this question, we used the specific analogous
behavior (e.g., resumé fraud) in concert with the two self-
control measures in an effort to explore the determinants
of employee theft. Our reasoning here was that the spe-
cific behavioral low self-control measure of lying on an
556 L. Langton et al.

application=resumé would be a better predictor of employee

theft vis-à-vis the general behavioral measure of self-control
because resumé fraud and employee theft occur within a
similar context, (i.e., the workplace). Consistent with expec-
tations, our results indicated that lying on an application=
resumé was a significant predictor of intention to engage in
employee theft. However, the attitudinal measure of self-
control was the strongest predictor of theft likelihood,
and the combination of general attitudinal and behavioral
measures reduced the effect of lying on an application=
resumé on anticipated theft behavior. This finding supports
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s contention that general measures
of self-control can be used to explain any and all criminal
and analogous behaviors.
Our study is limited in several respects, causing us to cau-
tion against the generalizability of our findings. The hope is
that this research will be received as an exploratory examin-
ation of general theory of crime’s ability to account for
employee theft and that the limitations that plague our study
will open doors for future inquiry. The first limitation is that
our data were gathered from a convenience sample of col-
lege students. Although such a sample certainly has experi-
ence with the types of behaviors under investigation in this
study and is acceptable for general theory of crime testing
(see Hirschi and Gottfredson 2000), it will be of interest to
replicate these findings using other samples. Along these
same lines, we have no information on the population of stu-
dents who were absent from class at the time of survey
administration versus those who chose not to complete the
questionnaire. Thus, our findings could potentially be biased
by a failure to elicit higher response rates.
Second, following much of the past research on the gen-
eral theory of crime, we used an intentions-based measure
of criminal activity. Although intended acts certainly do
not correlate perfectly with actual behavior, prior research
has shown a strong overlap between intentions and actual
behavior (Kim and Hunter 1993; Green 1989; Pogarsky
2004). Still, future research should replicate our study using
measures of actual participation in criminal activity. We also
used one of the more common forms of occupational crime,
employee theft, as our principal outcome variable. Other
forms of occupational deviance, however, may not be
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 557

strongly predicted by self-control because the opportunity to

engage in such crimes is contingent on one’s level of self-
control. It may be that other individual characteristics, such
as the desire for control, relate better to certain kinds of
employee crime (see Piquero et al. 2005). That said, future
research should examine a wider range of occupational
crimes to determine the reach of self-control in explaining
employee offending. Additionally, research should include
both instrumental and expressive white-collar crimes to
ascertain whether low self-control is a stronger predictor of
one type over the other.
Finally, our study was unable to control for measures from
competing theoretical models, such as deterrence, social-
learning, and strain theory, and it failed to include organiza-
tional characteristics. Prior research has demonstrated that
individual predictors of white-collar offending may be inten-
sified or weakened by the workplace environment (see, for
example, Trevino and Youngblood 1990). Thus, it is impor-
tant for future research on employee crimes to examine the
interrelationship between various theoretical models, parti-
cularly taking into account the effect of the organizational
environment on an individual’s propensity for offending.
In the end, the results from this study bear relevance for
General Theory of Crime, and in particular, empirical assess-
ments of the theory. As Hirschi and Gottfredson (1987) first
suggested when introducing their theory, our results indicate
that the theory’s reach can be extended to include employee
theft. Given the level of support that self-control has attained
with regard to explaining a wide array of criminal and anal-
ogous behaviors (Pratt and Cullen 2000), it is impressive that
the key concept of self-control continues to relate to various
forms of crime. This is the case in our study, regardless of the
use of general or specific behavioral or attitudinal measure of
self-control.
Additionally and of equal importance, the results from this
study also have a practical relevance for the struggle to
reduce losses from employee theft. We found that resumé
fraud is both strongly correlated with intentions to engage
in white-collar crime and also indicative of an underlying
criminal propensity (low self-control) that is predictive of
intentions to engage in employee theft. Thus, our findings
suggest that employers would be wise to carefully screen
558 L. Langton et al.

the resumés of potential employees, as preliminary empirical

evidence suggests that the early discovery of resumé fraud
could prevent against the hiring of an individual who is more
likely to steal. Although this may seem to be a common-
sense preventative practice, it is a practice that many emplo-
yers have not typically taken seriously, possibly experiencing
undue loss as a result.

REFERENCES
Altheide, D. L., P. A. Adler, P. Adler, and D. A. Altheide. 1978. ‘‘The Social
Meanings of Employee Theft.’’ Pp. 90
124. In Crime at the Top, edited
by J. M. Johnson and J. D. Douglas. Philadelphia: Lippencott.
Akers, R. 1985. Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Third
edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L. 1991. ‘‘Self Control as a General Theory of Crime.’’ Journal
of Quantitative Criminology 7:202
211.
Arnekelev, B., H. G. Grasmick, C. Tittle, and R. Bursik. 1993. ‘‘Low Self-
Control and Imprudent Behavior.’’ Journal of Quantitative Crimi-
nology 9:225
247.
Benson, M. and E. Moore. 1992. ‘‘Are White-Collar and Common Offen-
ders the Same? An Empirical and Theoretical Critique of a Recently
Proposed General Theory of Crime.’’ Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 29:251
272.
Clarke, R. 1997. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies.
Second edition. Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
Consumer Reports Magazine. 2002. ‘‘The Crime Tax.’’ October 10: 20.
Cressey, D. 1953. Other People’s Money. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Ditton, J. 1977. Part-Time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling and Pilfer-
age. London: Macmillan.
Evans, T., F. Cullen, V. Burton, Jr., R. Dunaway, and M. Benson. 1997.
‘‘The Social Consequences of Self-Control: Testing the General Theory
of Crime.’’ Criminology 35:475
504.
Friedrichs, D. O. 2004. Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in
Contemporary Society. Second edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth=
Thomson Learning, Inc.
Geis, G. 2000. ‘‘On the Absence of Self-Control as the Basis for a Gen-
eral Theory of Crime: A Critique.’’ Theoretical Criminology 4:35
53.
Gibbs, J. J. and D. Giever. 1995. ‘‘Self-Control and its Manifestations
Among University Students: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s General Theory.’’ Justice Quarterly 12:231
255.
Gibbs, J. J., D. Giever, and J. S. Martin. 1998. ‘‘Parental Management and
Self-Control: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General
Theory.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35:40
70.
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 559

Gottfredson, M. and T. Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Grasmick, H. and E. Kobayashi. 2002. ‘‘Workplace Deviance in Japan:
Applying an Extended Model of Deterrence.’’ Deviant Behavior
23:21
43.
Grasmick, H., C. Tittle, R. Bursik, Jr., and B. Arneklev. 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.
Green, D. 1989. ‘‘Measures of Illegal Behavior in Individual-Level Deter-
rence Research.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
26:253
275.
Greenberg, J. 1990. ‘‘Employee Theft as a Reaction to Underpayment
Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts.’’ Journal of Applied
Psychology 75:561
568.
Greenberg, J. 1993. ‘‘Stealing in the Name of Justice: Informational and
Interpersonal Moderators of Theft Reactions to Underpayment
Inequity.’’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
54:81
103.
Greenberg, J. 1997. ‘‘The STEAL Motive: Managing the Social Determi-
nants of Employee Theft.’’ Pp. 85
108. In Antisocial Behavior in
Organizations, edited by R. Giacalone and J. Greenberg. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Greenberg, L. and J. Barling. 1996. ‘‘Employee Theft.’’ In Trends in
Organizational Behavior, edited by C. L. Cooper and D. M. Rousseau.
Volume 3, 1:49
64. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Harris, D. and M. Benson. 1998. ‘‘Nursing Home Theft: The Hidden
Problem.’’ Journal of Aging Studies 12:57
67.
Hirschi, T. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Hirschi, T. and M. Gottfredson. 1987. ‘‘Causes of White-Collar Crime.’’
Criminology 25:949
971.
Hirschi, T. and M. Gottfredson. 1993. ‘‘Commentary: Testing the General
Theory of Crime.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:
47
54.
Hollinger, R. 1986. ‘‘Acts Against the Workplace: Social Bonding and
Employee Deviance.’’ Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal
7:53
75.
Hollinger, R. 1989. Dishonesty in the Workplace: A Manager’s Guide to
Preventing Employee Theft. Park Ridge, IL: London House Press.
Hollinger, R. and J. Clark. 1982a. ‘‘Employee Deviance: A Response to
the Perceived Quality of Work Experience.’’ Work and Occupations
9:97
114.
Hollinger, R. and J. Clark. 1982b. ‘‘Formal and Informal Social Controls
of Employee Deviance.’’ The Sociological Quarterly 23:333
343.
560 L. Langton et al.

Hollinger, R. and J. Clark. 1983. Theft By Employees. Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.
Hollinger, R. and D. Dabney. 1994. ‘‘Reducing Shrinkage in the Retail
Store: It’s Not Just a Job for the Loss Prevention Department.’’ Security
Journal 5(1):2 10.
Hollinger, R. and L. Langton. 2004. ‘‘2003 National Retail Security
Survey Final Report.’’ Available at (www.crim.ufl.edu=research=srp=
srp.htm).
Huiras, J, C. Uggen, and B. McMorris. 2000. ‘‘Career Jobs, Survival Jobs
and Employee Deviance: A Social Investment Model of Workplace
Misconduct.’’ The Sociological Quarterly 41: 245 263.
Keane, C., P. Maxim, and J. Teevan. 1993. ‘‘Drinking and Driving, Self-
Control and Gender: Testing a General Theory of Crime.’’ Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 30:30 46.
Kim, M. and J. Hunter. 1993. ‘‘Relationships Among Attitudes, Beha-
vioral Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Past Research.
Part 2.’’ Communications Research 20:331 364.
LaGrange, T. and R. Silverman. 1999. ‘‘Low Self-Control and Opport-
unity: Testing the General Theory of Crime as an Explanation for
Gender Differences in Delinquency.’’ Criminology 37:41 72.
Lary, B. K. 1988. ‘‘Thievery on the Inside.’’ Security Management 32:
79 84.
Mangione, T. W. and R. P. Quinn. 1975. ‘‘Job Satisfaction, Counter-
Productive Behavior, and Drug Use at Work.’’ Journal of Applied
Psychology 11:114 116.
Mars, G. 1974. ‘‘Dock Pilferage: A Case Study in Occupational Theft.’’
Pp. 209 228. In Deviance and Social Control, edited by P. Rock
and M. McIntosh. London: Tavistock.
Mustaine, E. and R. Tewksbury. 2002. ‘‘Workplace Theft: An Analysis of
Student-Employee Offenders and Job Attributes.’’ American Journal of
Criminal Justice 27:111 127.
Nagin, D. and R. Paternoster. 1993. ‘‘Enduring Individual Differences
and Rational Choice Theories of Crime.’’ Law and Society Review
27:467 496.
Neihoff, B. and R. Paul. 2000. ‘‘Causes of Employee Theft and Strategies
that HR Managers can Use for Prevention.’’ Human Resource
Management 39:1 64.
Parilla, P., R. Hollinger, and J. Clark. 1988. ‘‘Organizational Control
of Deviant Behavior: The Case of Employee Theft.’’ Social Science
Quarterly 69:261 280.
Paternoster, R. and R. Brame. 1998. ‘‘The Structural Similarity of Pro-
cesses Generating Criminal and Analogous Behavior.’’ Criminology
36:633 670.
Piquero, A. and S. Tibbetts. 1996. ‘‘Specifying the Direct and Indirect
Effects of Low Self-Control and Situational Factors in Offenders’
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 561

Decision Making: Toward a More Complete Model of Rational

Offending.’’ Justice Quarterly 30:481
510.
Piquero, A. R., Z. Gomez-Smith, and L. Langton. 2004. ‘‘Discerning
Unfairness Where Others May Not: Low Self-Control and Unfair Sanc-
tion Perceptions.’’ Criminology 42:699
733.
Piquero, N., M. Exum, and S. Simpson. 2005. ‘‘Integrating the Desire for
Control and Rational Choice in a Corporate Crime Context.’’ Justice
Quarterly 22:252
280.
Pogarsky, G. 2004. ‘‘Projected Offending and Contemporaneous Rule-
Violation: Implications for Heterotypic Continuity.’’ Criminology
42:111
135.
Prater, T. and S. Kiser. 2002. ‘‘Lies, Lies, More Lies.’’ Advanced Manage-
ment Journal 67:9
14.
Pratt, T. and F. Cullen. 2000. ‘‘The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis.’’ Criminology
38:931
964.
Reed, G. E. and P. C. Yeager. 1996. ‘‘Organizational Offending and Neo-
classical Criminology: Challenging the Reach of a General Theory of
Crime.’’ Criminology 34:357
382.
Shover, N. and A. Hochstetler. 2002. ‘‘Cultural Explanation and Organi-
zational Crime.’’ Crime, Law, & Social Change 37:1
18.
Sieh, E. W. 1987. ‘‘Garment Workers: Perceptions of Inequity and
Employee Theft.’’ British Journal of Criminology 27:174
190.
Simpson, S. and N. Piquero. 2002. ‘‘Low Self-Control, Organizational
Theory, and Corporate Crime.’’ Law and Society Review 36:509
548.
Strand, G. and M. Garr. 1994. ‘‘Driving Under the Influence.’’
Pp. 47
69. In The Generality of Deviance, edited by T. Hirschi
and M. Gottfredson. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Stylianou, S. 2002. ‘‘The Relationship Between Elements and Manifesta-
tions of Low Self-Control in a General Theory of Crime: Two Com-
ments and a Test.’’ Deviant Behavior 23:531
557.
Sutherland, E. 1947. Principles of Criminology. Fourth edition. Philadelphia:
J.B. Lippincott.
Sykes, G. and D. Matza. 1957. ‘‘Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory
of Delinquency.’’ American Sociological Review 22:664
670.
Thomas, P., R. Wolper, K. Scott, and D. Jones. 2001. ‘‘The Relationship
Between Immediate Turnover and Employee Theft in the Restaurant
Industry.’’ Journal of Business and Psychology 15:561
577.
Tittle, C. R., D. A. Ward, and H. G. Grasmick. 2003. ‘‘Self-Control and
Crime=Deviance: Cognitive vs. Behavioral Measures.’’ Journal of
Quantitative Criminology 19:333
365.
Trevino, L. and S. Youngblood. 1990. ‘‘Bad Apples in Bad Barrels: A
Causal Analysis of Ethical Decision-Making Behavior.’’ Journal of
Applied Psychology 75:378
385.
562 L. Langton et al.

Tucker, J. 1989. ‘‘Employee Theft as Social Control.’’ Deviant Behavior

10:319
334.
Turner, M. G. and A. R. Piquero. 2002. ‘‘The Stability of Self-Control.’’
Journal of Criminal Justice 30:457
471.
Wimbash, J. C. and D. R. Dalton. 1997. ‘‘Base Rate for Employee Theft:
Convergence of Multiple Methods.’’ Journal of Applied Psychology
82:756
763.

APPENDIX
Scenario (C1)
Jennifer=John is a high-school senior from a working-class
background. S=He has just been accepted to a university
and, to earn money toward her=his first semester, has been
working evenings and weekends at a local grocery store
where s=he stocks shelves and serves as a cashier for
$7=hour. S=He works diligently, knows her=his job well,
and develops a reputation for helping other employees when
they have questions about a newly installed computer sys-
tem. For six months, s=he regularly arrives for work on time,
works hard during her=his shifts, and is willing to cover the
shifts of those who call in sick. One day s=he asks her=his
boss for a promotion to the position of assistant supervisor,
which pays $10=hour. On two separate occasions, her=his
boss tells her=him that if s=he continues to be a good
employee, s=he can expect the promotion within three
months. Three months pass and, one day, Jennifer=John
reminds her=his boss about the promised promotion.
Her=His boss says that s=he has already been promoted
and may start her=his new job the next day.
A month or so after receiving the promotion, just before
classes are to begin at her=his university, Jennifer=John finds
herself=himself short on registration fees by about $250.
Her=His parents cannot afford to pay the fees for her=him
so, when another employee forgets to lock the cash register
before leaving one night Jennifer=John steals $250 from that
employee’s cash register.

Scenario (C2)
Jennifer=John is a high-school senior from a working-class
background. S=He has just been accepted to a university
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 563

and, to earn money toward her=his first semester, has been

working evenings and weekends at a local grocery store
where s=he stocks shelves and serves as a cashier for
$7=hour. S=He works diligently, knows her=his job well,
and develops a reputation for helping other employees when
they have questions about a newly installed computer system.
For six months, s=he regularly arrives for work on time, works
hard during her=his shifts, and is willing to cover the shifts of
those who call in sick. One day s=he asks her=his boss for a
promotion to the position of assistant supervisor, which pays
$10=hour. On two separate occasions, her=his boss tells
her=him that if s=he continues to be a good employee, s=he
can expect the promotion within three months. Three months
pass and one day, Jennifer=John reminds her=his boss about
the promised promotion. Her=His boss says that the company
needs to save money and that s=he will therefore not be
giving anybody a promotion this year.
A month or so later, just before classes are to begin at
her=his university, Jennifer=John finds herself=himself short
on registration fees by about $250. Her=His parents cannot
afford to pay the fees for her=him so, when another employee
forgets to lock the cash register before leaving one night,
Jennifer=John steals $250 from that employee’s cash register.

Scenario (C3)
Jennifer=John is a high-school senior from a working-
class background. S=He has just been accepted to a local
university and, to earn money toward her=his first semester,
has been working evenings and weekends at a local grocery
store where s=he stocks shelves and serves as a cashier for
$7=hour. S=He works diligently, knows her=his job well,
and develops a reputation for helping other employees when
they have questions about a newly installed computer sys-
tem. For six months, s=he regularly arrives for work on time,
works hard during his shifts, and is willing to cover the shifts
of those who call in sick. One day s=he asks her=his boss for
a promotion to the position of assistant supervisor, which
pays $10=hour. On two separate occasions, her=his boss
tells her=him that if s=he continues to be a good employee,
s=he can expect the promotion within three months. Three
months pass and, one day, Jennifer=John reminds her=his
564 L. Langton et al.

boss about the promised promotion. Her=His boss says that

Jennifer=John will no longer be receiving the promotion.
Instead, the promotion goes to the boss’s son, who has only
been working at the company for a few weeks.
A month or so later, just before classes are to begin at
her=his university, Jennifer=John finds herself=himself short
on registration fees by about $250. Her=His parents cannot
afford to pay the fees for her=him so, when another employee
forgets to lock the cash register before leaving one night,
Jennifer=John steals $250 from that employee’s cash register.

Grasmick et al. (1993) Self-Control Scale

I often act on the spur of the moment.
I don’t devote much thought and effort to preparing for the
future.
I often do whatever brings me pleasure here and now, even
at the cost of some distant goal.
I’m more concerned with what happens to me in the short
run than in the long run.
I frequently try to avoid projects that I know will be difficult.
When things get complicated, I tend to quit or withdraw.
The things in life that are easiest to do bring me the most
pleasure.
I dislike really hard tasks that stretch my abilities to the limit.
I like to test myself every now and then by doing something a
little risky.
Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it.
I sometimes find it exciting to do things for which I might get
in trouble.
Excitement and adventure are more important to me than
security.
If I had a choice, I would almost always rather do something
physical than something mental.
I almost always feel better when I am on the move than when
I am sitting and thinking.
I like to get out and do things more than I like to read or con-
template ideas.
I seem to have more energy and a greater need for activity
than most other people my age.
I try to look out for myself first, even if it means making
things difficult for other people.
 Employee Theft and Self-Control 565

I’m not very sympathetic to other people when they are hav-
ing problems.
If things I do upset people, it’s their problem not mine.
I will try to get the things I want even when I know it’s caus-
ing problems for other people.
I lose my temper pretty easily.
Often, when I’m angry at people I feel more like hurting
them than talking to them about why I am angry.
When I’m really angry, other people better stay away
from me.
When I have a serious disagreement with someone, it’s
usually hard for me to talk calmly about it without getting
upset.
I tend to hold grudges.