Journal of Contemporary

Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS
Criminal
OFJustice
WHITE-COLLAR
/ November 2001
OFFENSES

WRONGFULNESS AND HARMFULNESS

AS COMPONENTS OF SERIOUSNESS
OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES
SEAN P. ROSENMERKEL
University of Maryland

The purpose of this study is to examine the way that individuals rate the seriousness of white-
collar crimes in relation to other types of crime. The contention is that individuals will rate white-
collar crimes as less serious than more common street crimes. Furthermore, the belief is that indi-
viduals will show some consensus in the way in which they rank white-collar crimes, with slight
variations for those offenses with little or no perceived harm. This study will progress past sim-
ply rating a general definition of crime seriousness by examining the crimes in terms of the con-
cepts of morality and the harm associated. Replicating a study by Mark Warr, in which the con-
cepts of crime wrongfulness and harmfulness were introduced, the author will examine the
dimensions of seriousness that people use to determine the concept. This will provide an in-
depth examination of the perceptions of seriousness, specifically in regards to white-collar
offenses.

T he perception of crime has interested scholars for many years. The way
in which individuals view criminal activities is of particular interest in
the realm of public policy. As Miethe (1982) stated, public perceptions of
crime have a potential effect on many aspects of the social world, from gaug-
ing crime trends to establishing sentencing guidelines to allocating police
resources (O’Connell & Whelan, 1996). Few studies (e.g., Gibbons, 1969;

The author would like to thank Joseph Jacoby, Steve Cernkovich, and Amie Nielsen for help with
this endeavor, and Jeff Bouffard for some editorial comments. A version of this article was pre-
sented to the 2000 American Society of Criminology conference in San Francisco, CA in
November. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sean P. Rosenmerkel,
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park,
4511 Knox Road, Suite 301, College Park, MD 20740; phone: (301) 403-8338; e-mail:
srosenmerkel@crim.umd.edu.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 17 No. 4, November 2001 308-327
© 2001 Sage Publications

308
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 309

Hartung, 1953; Reed & Reed, 1975) indicate that the public rates the serious-
ness of white-collar crimes the same as ordinary street crimes; however, the
present research contends that white-collar crimes, because they do not have
a direct, palpable effect on individuals, are perceived as less serious and will
be rated as such in surveys. To date, few studies (e.g., Cullen, Link, &
Polanzi, 1982) have specifically examined the seriousness of white-collar
crime.
The scientific study of public perception of crime seriousness began with
the pioneering work of Sellin and Wolfgang (1964), who surveyed judges,
police, and college students in Philadelphia to obtain seriousness rankings for
141 offenses. In general, Sellin and Wolfgang found the following: (a) there is
a great deal of consensus about the relative seriousness of crimes, and (b) per-
ceptions of crime seriousness depend highly on attitudes toward individual
loss of life or injury and the amount of money lost in a crime.
Since this initial study, many researchers have used Sellin and Wolfgang’s
(1964) scale of offenses in replication (e.g., Cullen et al., 1982; McCleary,
O’Neil, Epperlein, Jones, & Gray, 1981; Rossi, Waite, Bose, & Berk, 1974).
All of these studies, to one degree or another, have confirmed the findings of
Sellin and Wolfgang (1964). Rossi et al. (1974), though finding consensus
among individuals in rating crime seriousness, also found that the ratings of
more highly educated individuals varied less around the average ratings of
the sample.
McCleary et al. (1981), while examining possible differences between the
public and a sample of criminal justice bureaucrats, found a good deal of con-
sensus between ratings of crime seriousness provided by their sample and by
the sample used by Rossi et al. (1974). The most common areas of dissensus
were seriousness ratings of victimless crimes, certain violent crimes, and
crimes against public order.
For purposes of the present research, the most important use of these crime
scales was conducted by Cullen et al. (1982). This study utilized the Sellin
and Wolfgang (1964) scales to study the public perception of the seriousness
of white-collar crime compared to other types of crime. Cullen et al. (1982)
analyzed data from 105 mailed questionnaires completed by residents of a
small Illinois town. The overall purpose of this study was to replicate the
study by Rossi et al. (1974), with the intent of singling out white-collar
offenses for analysis. Cullen et al. (1982) found that public ratings of overall
crime seriousness had increased between 1974 and 1982. More important,
white-collar crimes were rated as less serious than almost all other categories
of crime.
Obviously, other studies looking into the seriousness of crime have been
conducted that have looked at the issue from a perspective other than that of
seriousness itself. Cohen (1988) conducted a study of seriousness in which
310 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

he broadened the scope of interest past the simple public surveys toward
examining the relevance of costs, both in terms of money and risks of injury
and/or death. Cohen’s contention is that studying the monetary costs of crime
has the potential to provide further insight into seriousness that is not
addressed through surveys, thus strengthening any policy implications of
overall seriousness rankings. A further study by Meier and Short (1985)
examined the seriousness of crime as it relates to an individual’s perception
of hazard. Hazard is defined as “a danger or the cause of some danger” (p. 389).
In general, Meier and Short (1985) asserted that crime is similar to natural
disasters in that both are devastating and can occur without warning. Crime
was reported to be similar to natural disasters and other hazards in that natural
disasters also pose a risk to life and property, but without the possibility of
retaliation. Crime differs from most hazards in that crimes are usually
directed at particular individuals, thus giving them a “personal touch.” A
final study by Hawkins (1980) examined the perceptions of crime serious-
ness relative to a punishment scale for offenses. One obvious finding was that
individuals believe that some crimes call for harsher punishments than oth-
ers. Furthermore, they found that the rating of punishment tended to vary not
only with the nature of the crime but also with the nature of the offender. They
also found that assignment of punishments tended to differ by age, race, and
social class. Hawkins (1980) found that seriousness ratings varied among
certain subgroups within a race-class interaction. For example, lower income
Blacks gave higher seriousness ratings than did upper income Blacks,
whereas higher income Whites gave higher ratings than did lower class
Whites.
Clearly, previous research in the area of crime seriousness indicates that
scales for measuring this concept need refinement. Criticisms of the scales of
Sellin and Wolfgang (1964), as well as criticisms of other measures, indicate
that much remains to be learned about crime seriousness. Some of the criti-
cisms of these scales are outlined below.
There are three primary areas of criticism aimed at these types of studies.
First, critics argue that the scales do not explicitly define what is meant by the
term seriousness, leaving the definition open to individual interpretation
(Blum-West, 1985). In the majority of the studies utilizing the scales (e.g.,
Rossi et al., 1974), this is indeed the case. Respondents are asked to judge the
seriousness of the crime, but are not told what seriousness means. Sherman
and Dowdle (1974) argued that studies drawing attention to vague ideas of
seriousness are bound to gain consensus among respondents; however, when
respondents apply their own concepts of criminal harm, they base judgments
on a varying scale of crime importance.
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 311

Rossi and Henry (1980) examined this topic on the basis of differentiating
between individual’s personal opinions and obedience to social norms. They
asked whether the consensus found in studies such as Cullen et al. (1982) and
Rossi et al. (1974) might be altered if the participants were applying from
their notions of right, in accordance with their socialized norms, rather than
their personal opinions. They postulated that more variation would occur if
respondents were instructed to rate seriousness based on their own opinions.
Warr (1989) examined this issue as well and found that two groups of indi-
viduals formed along definitions of seriousness in terms of the moral gravity
of the crime, with perceived harmfulness and wrongfulness as dimensions of
crime seriousness. Warr distinguished between those who used the concepts
of wrongfulness and harmfulness independently when judging seriousness
(discriminators) and those who believed all crimes to be wrong, judging the
seriousness only on the perceived harmfulness (nondiscriminators). Warr
found that although the groups differed on the dimensions of wrongfulness,
they had relative agreement on the seriousness and harmfulness of crimes,
with nondiscriminators being more inclined to rate seriousness and harmful-
ness higher than discriminators. In general, Warr stated, “these and other
findings indicate that seriousness judgments are more structured and com-
plex than commonly supposed and that conventional measures of serious-
ness, when applied to substantive problems, may mask or obscure distinct
mechanisms of evaluation” (p. 795).
Second, critics of the scales argue that offenses defined by a single, brief
phrase, such as “seduction of a minor” or “blackmail,” leave respondents to
develop their own sense of background into the particular offense. Studies
have shown that single-phrase descriptions do not provide enough back-
ground of the individual situations of crimes, thus preventing respondents
from considering the circumstances that may have precipitated the offense or
the full physical or emotional impact on the participants (Blum-West, 1985;
Sebba, 1984). Studies using single-phrase descriptions operate under the
assumption that seriousness of crimes is assigned based solely on the harm,
either physical or economic, that is inflicted. Parton, Hansel, and Stratton
(1991) argued that this supposition is not valid, stating that respondents inte-
grate other, more vague concepts of harm into their sense of seriousness.
A third criticism of the use of these crime seriousness scales, as well as a
criticism of most studies of crime seriousness, is the reliance on samples of
offenses that are not representative of everyday crime. Rossi and Henry
(1980) stated,

the National Crime Information Center codes recognize over 400 general
crime classifications, while the most any crime seriousness study has cov-
312 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

ered is 140 criminal acts that most probably are covered by only a handful,
perhaps as many as 25, of the general crime classifications. (p. 498)

Too few offense types have been included in existing studies to permit
generalizing the findings to all offenses. Most crime seriousness studies
overrepresent serious, violent criminal acts. For example, in the Sellin and
Wolfgang (1964) crime seriousness scale of 141 offenses, there are 13 refer-
ences to crimes involving murder and 32 references to property crimes. In
examining actual rates of offense, however, more than 90% of all crimes are
property crimes and only a small percentage of crimes constitute murder.
This overrepresentation of serious crimes has the potential to sensitize
respondents to the crimes that are most uncommon (Meier & Short, 1982).
As reported above, Warr (1989) conducted a study in which he divided
crime seriousness into categories of wrongfulness and harmfulness to exam-
ine the dimensions that underlie judgments of crime seriousness. Warr out-
lined distinct differences between the normative evaluation of an offense
(wrongfulness) and the assessment of the overall consequences of a particu-
lar offense (harmfulness). Warr traced the possible differentiation of these
two concepts back to the works of Piaget (1932), Durkheim (1949), and Kant
(Taylor, 1975).
The study by Warr (1989) was important for studies of crime seriousness in
that it attempted to silence some of the criticisms of the crime seriousness
scales of Sellin and Wolfgang (1964), primarily those relating to the lack of a
definition of seriousness. His purpose was to understand the way in which
individuals rate crimes along dimensions of wrongfulness and harmfulness
when determining the seriousness of a crime. In general, Warr found that
there was some measure of consensus about the overall seriousness of crimes
but that individuals rate crimes differently based on perceptions of wrongful-
ness and harmfulness of particular offenses.
For purposes of the present research, one flaw in the Warr (1989) study is
his exclusion of true white-collar offenses into his survey instrument. Those
crimes within Warr’s survey that most resemble white-collar offenses are
classified as either “property crimes” or “other crimes that are balanced along
levels of wrongfulness and harmfulness.” The present study, a replication of
the Warr research with changes in the survey instrument, provides the oppor-
tunity to examine wrongfulness and harmfulness ratings of white-collar
crimes in comparison with street crimes.
In his influential address to the American Sociological Association, Edwin
Sutherland (1949) established the first working definition of white-collar
crime, differentiating common street crimes from those committed by indi-
viduals in positions of power. In his definition, Sutherland described white-
collar crimes as those offenses “committed by a person of respectability and
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 313

high social status in the course of his occupation” (p. 9). Although opening
the door to the analysis of white-collar crime, Sutherland failed to create a
definition that would ultimately stand the test of time. Many texts regarding
white-collar crime recognize that defining white-collar crime is the hardest
part of understanding the phenomenon (Albanese, 1995; Coleman, 1998;
Poveda, 1994). To this end, many scholars forgo trying to establish an all-
encompassing definition, preferring to develop typologies of white-collar
crime (e.g., Clinard & Quinney, 1973; Coleman, 1989, 1998; Edelhertz,
1970).
Most recent attempts to develop a definition of white-collar crime have led
to the development of subcategories under a broader heading of white-collar
offending. Examples of these are elite deviance (i.e., Mills, 1956; Simon,
1999), occupational deviance (Clinard & Quinney, 1973; Edelhertz, 1970),
and organizational or corporate offending (Clinard & Quinney, 1973; Cole-
man, 1989; Schrager & Short, 1980). In effect, the current nature of white-
collar crime is one that characterizes many differing types of offenses carried
out by numerous entities.
Having established a better understanding of the nature of white-collar
crime, what does the public think of the seriousness of white-collar crime?
The initial study by Cullen et al. (1982) found that the public does not view
white-collar crime as serious as more common street crimes. Although find-
ing that the opinions of individuals had changed between 1974 in the Rossi
et al. (1974) sample and the sample in 1982, the seriousness ratings for white-
collar offenses were, on average, lower than more common street crimes. The
Cullen et al. (1982) sample did find some measure of consensus among rat-
ings of white-collar offenses.
Benson, Cullen, and Maakestad (1990) surveyed local prosecutors to
determine their thoughts on the seriousness of white-collar crimes and the
sentencing that these prosecutors recommend. This study revealed that the
prosecutors, in general, feel that white-collar crime is not a serious problem.
Furthermore, more than half of the prosecutors, both in rural and urban juris-
dictions, feel that the number of white-collar cases that they prosecute will
remain constant.
The goal of the present research is to examine the perceptions of the public
concerning white-collar crimes. First and foremost, the purpose of this
research is to fill the void that exists in knowledge about the seriousness of
white-collar crime. As with the replication of Rossi et al.’s (1974) study by
Cullen et al. (1982) to look specifically at white-collar offenses, the present
research will loosely replicate the work of Warr (1989) to examine perception
of the seriousness of white-collar offending. By replicating Warr (1989), the
present research will attempt to address some of the criticisms of the Sellin
314 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

and Wolfgang (1964) crime seriousness scale to arrive at a better understand-

ing of crime seriousness as it pertains to white-collar offenses.
In attempting to differentiate between the way that individuals feel about
white-collar crimes as opposed to the more common street crimes, there are
two hypotheses that will be explored. First, as prior research has shown, the
author proposes that there will be a difference in seriousness ratings given to
white-collar crimes as opposed to the more common street crimes. This does
not assume that all offenses labeled as white-collar will be rated lower than
street crimes, rather that as a group, white-collar offenses will have an overall
lower mean seriousness rating than street crimes.
Second, this research will allow for the exploration of the underlying con-
cepts of crime seriousness, namely wrongfulness and harmfulness. As
explained by Warr (1989), individuals do make distinctions between wrong-
fulness and harmfulness when assessing an overall rating of crime serious-
ness. In terms of white-collar crimes, the author would postulate that individ-
uals will rate white-collar crimes as wrongful as most other crimes but less
harmful that most other crimes, thus creating an overall lower rating in terms
of seriousness. Furthermore, in rating crime seriousness, individuals will rely
more heavily on the harm of a white-collar crime than other crimes. This idea
follows reasoning that white-collar crimes will be viewed as wrongful as
most other crimes but not as harmful.

SAMPLE
The population of interest in the present analysis are adult, U.S. college
students. These students were selected from a medium-sized mid-Western
university based on their enrollment in large, introductory-level classes in
sociology. The selection of classes was based on the discretion of the instruc-
tors for entrance into their lectures and the willingness of the students to par-
ticipate in the study. A total of 300 questionnaires were distributed through-
out the classes. Of the 300 originally distributed, 268 (89%) were returned.

SURVEY INSTRUMENT
The questionnaire used in this research was similar to the instrument used
by Warr (1989) in his study of crime seriousness. There are two primary dif-
ferences between the questionnaire used by Warr and the present question-
naire. First, the Warr (1989) questionnaire included 31 items for rating,
whereas the current questionnaire included 23 items. This reduction in num-
ber was an attempt to save time needed for completing the surveys. The ques-
tionnaire consisted of 8 white-collar offenses, 6 property offenses, and 7 vio-
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 315

lent offenses. Two other offenses (”driving while intoxicated” and “selling
cocaine or LSD”) were included in the questionnaire but did not fit into any of
the established crime categories. Second, as indicated above, the research by
Warr (1989) did not focus on white-collar offenses, and therefore few actual
white-collar offenses appeared in his survey. The present research incorpo-
rated 8 white-collar offenses into the questionnaire, representing a broad
range of white-collar offenses, spanning elite, occupational, and organiza-
tional offense types.
Specifically, this questionnaire is an improvement over previous attempts
to study the public perception of white-collar crime. Much like Warr (1989),
by defining categories of wrongfulness and harmfulness of offenses, the
respondent can focus on dimensions of crime seriousness rather than rely on
their own vague opinions of crime seriousness, as was the case with Rossi
et al. (1974) and Cullen et al. (1982). By including white-collar offenses, this
study moves beyond Warr (1989) to obtain the focus on those white-collar
offenses that are omitted from his research.
Each respondent was asked to complete three questions about each
offense, rating seriousness, wrongfulness, and harmfulness. This provided
the opportunity to study the responses of each individual across the ques-
tions, with the potential to examine how individuals weigh the concepts of
wrongfulness and harmfulness in determining the seriousness of a crime. The
actual list of offenses represents crimes incorporating personal, property, and
white-collar crimes. The descriptions of the individual crimes were para-
phrased from survey instruments by both Rossi et al. (1974) and Warr (1989)
and selected to provide a wide range of crime severity. The order of presenta-
tion for the crimes for the first question were conducted by selecting crimes
from the list of 23, without replacement to achieve a measure of randomiza-
tion. This procedure was repeated when selecting the order for the questions
concerning wrongfulness and harmfulness. Each respondent was given a
questionnaire with the same order of offenses.

PRIMARY VARIABLES
The primary variables used in the analysis are constructs of crime serious-
ness, crime wrongfulness, and crime harmfulness. Offense types included
“all offenses,” “white-collar offenses,” “property offenses,” “violent
offenses,” and “street offenses.” For “all offenses,” the scale is composed of
all of the offenses rated in the questionnaire.
For “white-collar offenses,” “property offenses,” ”violent offenses,” and
“street offenses,” scales were developed utilizing representative offenses
from the questionnaire. The items in this scale, as with all of the remaining
316 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

scales, are determined across seriousness, wrongfulness, and harmfulness.

For seriousness, the scale for white-collar crime has an alpha reliability of
.832. Similarly, the scale for wrongfulness of white-collar offenses has a reli-
ability of .889, and the harmfulness has a reliability of .749. The alpha reli-
ability for the seriousness scale of property offenses is .741, for wrongfulness
is .868, and for harmfulness is .838. The alpha reliability for the seriousness
scale of violent offenses is .747, for wrongfulness is .696, and for harmful-
ness is .544. The final scale, representing street offenses, was constructed by
adding the items of the scales for property and violent offenses together as
well as incorporating two remaining crimes that do not fit within either prop-
erty or violent offenses. Those two offenses are: “driving while intoxicated”
and “selling cocaine or LSD.” These two offenses, though not fitting in any
particular crime category in the analysis, represent drug and alcohol offenses,
which combined to total almost 25% of the caseload of the criminal justice
system. The alpha reliability for the seriousness of street offenses is .842, for
wrongfulness is .875, and for harmfulness is .807.

CONTROL VARIABLES
Several key demographic variables were used as control variables in an
effort to control for variance related to personal characteristics of the respon-
dents. Age of respondent was asked and was coded as a continuous variable.
Sex was coded as a dichotomous variable with 1 representing “males” and 2
representing “females.” Due to the lack of overall diversity in the racial com-
position of the university students sampled, race was not entered as a control
variable in the present research.
In an attempt to determine socioeconomic status, three separate questions
were asked about the parents of the students. The questions asked about the
characteristics of the family in which the child was raised, whether by biolog-
ical parents or some derivative of a stepfamily. Two of the questions con-
cerned the education level of the parents. The second socioeconomic ques-
tion asked respondents to list the family’s approximate annual income. The
choices of this question ranged from a low response of “under $10,000” to a
high of “$80,000 and above.” The scale was constructed to offer selections in
$10,000 increments. The categories were coded 1 to 8 respectively.
The last control variables were questions concerning the victimization
experience of the respondent or respondent’s family. There were three ques-
tions for respondents to answer for themselves and three similar questions
relating to family members. These questions about victimization asked if the
respondent had ever been the victim of a particular type of crime. The crimes
represented a range of white-collar, property, and violent offenses. The
respondents were also asked whether family members had been victims of
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 317

any of these types of crimes. The answers were coded 0 for “no” and 1 for
“yes.”

DATA ANALYSIS
Following the completion of the questionnaires, analyses were conducted
on the data to address the hypotheses concerning the perception of the seri-
ousness, wrongfulness, and harmfulness of white-collar crime. The analyses
in the present study loosely follow the analyses used in the Warr (1989) study.
The mean rating of seriousness, wrongfulness, and harmfulness was found
for each particular offense throughout the entire sample. A mean was then
calculated for a group of offenses based on the type of crime. Personal, prop-
erty, and white-collar offenses were then grouped and an overall mean was
computed for each offense category. This enabled an examination of the dif-
ference between white-collar offenses and the two other categories, as well as
the more general concept of street crime. For this analysis, t tests were con-
ducted to test the differences between the means for white-collar crime and
street crimes.
The second analysis examined the hypothesis that asserts a difference in
the weighting between the concepts of wrongfulness and harmfulness used in
determining the overall crime seriousness rating. Initially, a model was con-
structed that regressed the seriousness scores of all offenses on the wrongful-
ness and harmfulness of all offenses. This regression and the resulting coeffi-
cients allowed for the establishment of a baseline equation against which the
author could compare the remaining regressions. Subsequent regressions
were conducted whereby the seriousness of a particular group of offenses,
(i.e., white-collar, property, violent, or street) was regressed on the wrongful-
ness and harmfulness of the relevant offenses, incorporating the control
variables.
These regression models were then compared against the baseline model to
determine the extent to which there was agreement. The comparison aided in
the determining of how respondents used wrongfulness and harmfulness in
determining an overall rating of crime seriousness. One interpretation derived
from this comparison was determining the way in which individuals use the
concepts of wrongfulness and harmfulness to determine crime seriousness
and how an individual rates white-collar offenses as opposed to the more
common street crimes along these conceptual lines.
Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression techniques were used in the anal-
ysis of the data. The multiple-regression model followed a set of assumptions
concerning the nature of the data. Those assumptions are as follows: (a) the
model equation for the regression is Y = a + ΣbiXi + ei, (b) the X in the equa-
tion are not linearly dependent, (c) the expected value of the conditional
318 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Variable N Mean SD

Age 268 19.32 2.66

Sex 266 1.65 0.48
Male (1) 94
Female (2) 172
Parents’ education level
Father 268 3.77 1.60
Mother 268 3.71 1.51
Total family income 262 4.40 2.03
Victimization experience
White-collar offensesa
Respondent 268 .09 .29
Family 268 .33 .47
Property offensesa
Respondent 268 .23 .42
Family 268 .52 .50
Violent offensesa
Respondent 268 .09 .29
Family 268 .26 .44
a. Victimization experiences are coded 1 = yes, 0 = no.

errors is zero, and (d) the variance of the conditional errors is the standard
error at every covariate pattern (Agresti & Finley, 1997).

RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, and percentages of the rel-
evant control variables. The mean age for the respondents is low at 19.32,
thus creating initial problems for generalizability of results. Furthermore, the
population is dominated by females, who outnumber males nearly 2 to 1. The
mean education level of parents is remarkably similar, with the average par-
ent having attained a level of education between a technical school and an
associate’s degree. The mean annual income for families is moderate, with
most students reporting family incomes of between $30,000 and $50,000.
The levels of victimization for the respondent are relatively low, with 9%
reporting being victims of white-collar and violent crimes and 23% reporting
being victims of property crimes; the victimization of family members was
reported to be higher, with the range from 26.5% for violent to 52% for prop-
erty.
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 319

TABLE 2
Means of Offenses Rated on Categories of Seriousness, Wrongfulness, and
Harmfulness
Offense Seriousness Wrongfulness Harmfulness

1. Robbing a store and killing two employees 9.84 9.78 9.87

2. Robbing a person of $400 on the street 7.66 8.07 6.59
3. A father sexually abusing his teenage son
or daughter 9.65 9.85 9.72
4. Killing a pedestrian while speeding 9.28 9.07 9.72
5. Planned killing of a policeman 9.63 9.74 9.73
6. A teenager hitting an old woman in the street 8.28 8.90 9.14
7. A man hitting his wife during an argument 8.18 9.24 8.96
8. Shoplifting a pair of socks from a store 2.58 5.30 2.43
9. Breaking into a house and stealing a TV 6.95 7.50 4.75
10. Stealing an unlocked car 7.41 7.48 5.26
11. Painting obscenities on a highway billboard 3.71 5.46 3.11
12. Looting goods in a riot 5.79 6.89 4.82
13. Leaving the scene of an accident 7.22 7.46 7.07
14. Knowingly selling stolen goods 6.08 7.31 4.88
15. Knowingly selling bad food that results
in death 9.21 9.32 9.59
16. Overcharging for automotive repairs 4.94 6.47 3.62
17. Employee embezzling company funds 6.41 7.37 5.24
18. Causing injury to employees by neglecting
to repair machinery 7.72 7.92 8.32
19. Advertising defective cars as perfectly safe 6.06 7.59 7.91
20. Overcharging for credit in selling goods 5.54 6.40 4.43
21. Company contaminating river used for
drinking water 8.20 8.54 8.45
22. Selling cocaine or LSD 7.72 7.83 7.99
23. Driving while intoxicated 8.51 8.41 8.69

Table 2 presents the means given for all offenses across categories of seri-
ousness, wrongfulness, and harmfulness. At first glance, the results over-
whelmingly indicate that violent offenses are rated as more serious, wrongful
and harmful than most of the other categories of offenses. Significant differ-
ences between the mean ratings for property and white-collar offenses are
much smaller.
Table 2 lists together the offenses that compose different offense catego-
ries. Violent crimes represent offenses numbered 1 through 7 in the table;
property crimes are in numbers 8 through 13; white-collar crimes are listed as
numbers 14 through 21; and the two remaining offenses, “driving while
intoxicated” and “selling cocaine or LSD,” are listed separately.
320 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

TABLE 3
Means of Offense Categories Rated on Seriousness, Wrongfulness, and
Harmfulness
Offense Category Seriousness Wrongfulness Harmfulness

White-collar 6.7715 7.6138 6.5546

Property 5.6095 6.6816 4.5715
Violent 8.9323 9.2361 9.1050

The means of the differing offense categories across seriousness, wrong-

fulness, and harmfulness were computed in other calculations (see Table 3).
The mean seriousness for violent offenses is 8.932, for wrongfulness is
9.236, and for harmfulness is 9.105. The mean seriousness for property
offenses is 5.609, for wrongfulness is 6.682 and for harmfulness is 4.572. The
mean seriousness for white-collar offenses is 6.772, for wrongfulness is
7.614, and for harmfulness is 6.555.
Table 4 presents the results of the regression of seriousness of all offenses
against the wrongfulness and harmfulness of all offenses and the control vari-
ables. This model, which incorporates all offenses in the analysis, represents
the baseline against which all subsequent regressions are compared.
Model 1 of the table shows the regression of the seriousness on wrongful-
ness and harmfulness only. As expected, the results show that wrongfulness
and harmfulness are highly significant predictors of seriousness and the
model R2 is extremely high at nearly 54% of the variance explained. The
regression coefficients are both positive, indicating that as the level of crime
wrongfulness and harmfulness rises, respondents rated crime as more seri-
ous.
Of note here is the strength of the standardized regression coefficients for
wrongfulness (.524) and harmfulness (.284). Although both are highly sig-
nificant predictors ( p < .001), the results indicate that for all offenses, the
mean wrongfulness of the offenses is a stronger predictor of the level of seri-
ousness than is the harmfulness of the offenses. One might posit that respon-
dents relied more heavily on the wrongfulness of the offenses than on the
harmfulness of the offenses when determining seriousness of all offense
types.
Model 2 of Table 4 represents the addition of the primary control variables
to the regression equation. The addition of these variables has no significant
effect on the equation, as the level of variance (R2) explained by the model
rises a negligible amount to 55%. None of the control variables added to the
equation are significant predictors of the seriousness of offenses. The only
substantive difference introduced by the addition of the control variables is an
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 321

TABLE 4
Regression of Seriousness of all Offenses on Wrongfulness and Harmfulness and
a
Control Variables
Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Mean wrong of all offenses .524*** .507*** .501***

Mean harm of all offenses .284*** .305*** .308***
Age –.011 –.010
Sex (1 = male, 2 = female) .014 .013
Father’s education level .011 .012
Mother’s education level .035 .035
Total family income –.030 –.031
Victimization questions
Respondent
White-collar .010
Property –.020
Violent –.014
Other
White-collar .004
Property .008
Violent –.017
R squared .538 .545 .546
a. Standardized regression coefficients.
*** p < .001.

increase in the predictive power of the mean harmfulness variable and a slight
decrease in wrongfulness. Characteristics of the respondents such as age,
gender, and SES have a slight effect on this assessment of the level of harm in
relation to crime seriousness.
Model 3 represents the addition of the victimization questions to the
regression equation. Once again, the addition of the new variables does not
have an affect on the overall results, with all additional variables being
nonsignificant predictors of the level of crime seriousness. Previous research
(Wolfgang, Figilio, Tracy, & Singer, 1985) has found victimization not to be a
predictor of an individual’s perception of crime seriousness. This finding is
confirmed by the present study.
Table 5 represents the regression of the seriousness of white-collar
offenses on the wrongfulness and harmfulness of white-collar offenses and
the control variables. Model 1 is the regression of offense seriousness on
wrongfulness and harmfulness. As was evident in the baseline equation,
wrongfulness and harmfulness variables are significant predictors of the
level of crime seriousness as it pertains to white-collar offenses. Not only are
the regression coefficients of both variables highly significant (p < .001), but
the amount of variance (R2) explained by the model is large at 41%.
322 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

TABLE 5
Regression of Seriousness of White-Collar Offenses on Wrongfulness and Harmful-
ness and Control Variables by the Standardized Regression Coefficient
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Mean wrong of white-collar crime .201*** .231*** .229***

Mean harm of white-collar crime .506*** .482*** .479***
Age –.003 –.008
Sex (1 = male, 2 = female) –.003 .002
Father’s education level .001 .000
Mother’s education level .011 .012
Total family income –.008 –.009
Victimization questions
Respondent
White-collar .026
Other
White-collar .016
R squared .410 .416 .418
***p < .001.

Regarding the relative strength of the predictors, the baseline equation

indicated that wrongfulness was a stronger predictor of the level of crime
seriousness for all offenses. In the terms of white-collar offenses, however,
the results indicate that harmfulness (b = .482) is a stronger predictor of seri-
ousness in terms of white-collar offenses than is wrongfulness (b = .201), as
was hypothesized.
Model 2 represents the addition of the primary control variables. As was
the case in the baseline equation, none of the demographic variables are sig-
nificant predictors of crime seriousness of white-collar offenses. Relatedly,
the predictive power of the model does not increase with the addition of these
variables. Model 3 depicts the addition of those victimization questions per-
taining to white-collar offenses. These variables are not shown to be signifi-
cant predictors of perceptions of crime seriousness of white-collar offenses.
Subsequent analyses were conducted concerning property, personal, and
street crimes concerning the ratings of seriousness, wrongfulness, and harm-
fulness (not reported). In general, these results followed the results found for
white-collar offenses; however, there are a few significant differences. In
examining the regression of seriousness of property crimes against wrongful-
ness and harmfulness, the author found that unlike white-collar offenses,
wrongfulness is a stronger predictor than harmfulness, although the findings
are still not significant.
Another difference is that in the regression of seriousness of violent crimes
on wrongfulness and harmfulness, income achieves a low level of signifi-
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 323

cance in a negative direction. This finding is in line with previous research

that has shown that lower class individuals are more often victims of violent
crimes and would therefore be more aware of the consequences of the violent
offenses.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The initial hypothesis of this research was to determine if the crime seri-
ousness ratings attributed to differing offense categories were themselves dif-
ferent. The results indicate that this is indeed the case. An interesting finding
of this research concerns the level of seriousness, wrongfulness, and harm-
fulness of white-collar offenses in comparison to property and violent
offenses. One belief at the start of the project concerned the notion that white-
collar crimes are believed to be less serious than property or violent crimes.
Although this is true for violent crimes, this is not the case for property crime.
Across categories of seriousness, wrongfulness, and harmfulness, the means
for white-collar crimes lie between property and violent crimes.
One explanation for this occurrence concerns the sample used in the analy-
sis. The low mean age of respondents casts some doubt on the level of com-
mitment that is shown to personal property. It is argued that a lower sense of
commitment to individual property would result in lower ratings of those
offenses that entail the theft or destruction of property.
A second explanation concerns a shared sense of awareness of the effect
that white-collar crimes have on society. In the study by Rossi et al. (1974),
the 140 offenses within their survey were broken down into 11 subcategories
of crimes. Their results placed white-collar crimes as the 10th lowest crime
category, second only to crimes against public order. With the replication by
Cullen et al. (1982), white-collar crimes had moved from 10th to 7th in the
list of crime categories. Cullen partially attributed this increase to the height-
ened awareness of the public to white-collar offending following the Water-
gate scandal.
The results in this study may be a product of the further awakening of the
public to the nature of white-collar criminality. With the savings and loan
scandal of the 1980s and the constant debate over the Microsoft juggernaut,
white-collar crimes have become a larger issue in society and in turn have
received increased media attention.
The second hypothesis of this research concerned the use of wrongfulness
and harmfulness as measures of crime seriousness toward the determination
of whether differences are evident in the use of these two components for
white-collar compared with other crimes. The results of the analysis provide
support for the hypothesis.
324 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

The results of the regressions of crime seriousness of differing offense cat-

egories on the wrongfulness and harmfulness of those offense categories
indicate that both variables are significant predictors of crime seriousness. As
outlined above, the only difference observed occurred in examining the
strength of the relationships across offense types. In terms of white-collar
offenses, the results suggest that individuals use the harmfulness of an
offense more than the wrongfulness of the offense in rating the overall crime
seriousness. The belief is that the amount of harm produced by a given crime
is apparently more salient to people in determining the seriousness of white-
collar crimes than is the underlying wrongfulness of that crime. Why is this
the case?
Warr’s (1989) study was not interested in proving why individuals relied
more heavily on wrongfulness or harmfulness when rating crimes’ serious-
ness; he was simply interested in proving that individuals do use wrongful-
ness and harmfulness differently. In trying to determine why individuals rely
more heavily on harmfulness when rating the seriousness of white-collar
offenses, one needs to examine the nature of harm itself. There are two pri-
mary aspects of harm that effect how an individual might feel about a crime,
the type of harm and the intent of the offender.
The type of harm relates to whether a crime is economic or physical in
nature. As one might expect, these results indicate that crimes that are based
purely on economic loss are rated as less harmful and serious than those
crimes that have some physical impact on a victim. The white-collar crimes
in the questionnaire reflect a wide variety of crimes spanning both economi-
cally and physically driven offenses. In general, those crimes that are the
most violent or cause the largest amount of loss are determined to be the most
harmful. Intent of the offender refers to the desire of the offender to deprive a
victim of his right to property or personal safety by committing a crime.
Street crimes, whether property or violent, involve an offender whose pur-
pose is to effect a victim by depriving them of property or physical well-
being, in many instances, during a face-to-face encounter.
The findings presented in this article indicate support for the hypothesis
that individuals use ideas of wrongfulness and harmfulness in determining
overall crime seriousness, and furthermore that they use them differently for
white-collar crimes than for other types of crimes. The results show that those
surveyed relied more heavily on the concept of harmfulness than wrongful-
ness when deciding the level of seriousness of a white-collar offense than
more common street offenses, for which they relied more heavily on the
wrongfulness of an offense.
This study has accomplished its primary objectives of furthering the
research into white-collar crimes as they pertain to crime seriousness; how-
ever, with the limitations outlined above, this study merely sets the stage for
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 325

even greater probing into the ways in which individuals think about white-
collar offenses. As is the case with most research endeavors, the present study
has some limitations that must briefly be addressed. An initial limitation of
this study, as discussed above, is based on the sample used in the analysis.
This limitation reduces the opportunity to make more general conclusions
about the pubic at large. The second major limitation is that raised in refer-
ence to the work of Sellin and Wolfgang’s (1964) scales of seriousness and
the research deriving from it. This limitation centers on the use of a single
phrase to represent the criminal acts to be rated. A third limitation, which is
addressed above, is the problem stemming from the attempt to identify some
common measure of seriousness, wrongfulness, and harmfulness that can be
transferred across different offense categories. Trying to measure a true
objective definition of harm, for example, across categories of white-collar,
property, and violent offenses cannot be accomplished without understand-
ing each individual’s definition of harm for that particular offense category.
Even then, the standards by which people apply that measure of harm would
differ according to the circumstances of each individual offense.
This study is instrumental in outlining the need for further research into the
area of crime seriousness as it relates to white-collar crime. Though the sam-
ple of respondents analyzed here was not representative of the general popu-
lation, the results indicate that there is a marked difference in the way that
individuals conceptualize white-collar offenses as compared to other
offenses. Incorporating the components of wrongfulness and harmfulness
into the fold seems to aid in some of the problems with the majority of
research into crime seriousness, but they by no means act as a cure-all for
future research.
The overall direction of research into the areas of crime seriousness and
white-collar crime should be expanded significantly to incorporate changes
in contemporary events. The future of crime seriousness research should
blend the way that individuals feel about the crimes themselves with a sense
of the fear that certain crimes create among potential victims. The fear of
crime that is felt by those individuals living in rural areas does not adequately
compare to the fear that is felt by those living in more urban settings. In addi-
tion, ideas of race and class tend to further complicate the essence of fear felt
by individuals. Without including some form of fear variable into the equa-
tion, studies such as the present one fall short in fully explaining how individ-
uals determine crime seriousness.
White-collar crime expansion opens an entirely different set of issues. The
future of white-collar crime research is as unpredictable as any form of devi-
ance. The primary problem comes in being able to identify crimes when they
are committed. Rapid innovation and the globalization of corporations have
made specialization a premium and have opened an arena in which criminals
326 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / November 2001

can operate with technical jargon and corporate ideologies. The problem
therefore arises from the difficulty of presenting a picture of white-collar
crimes that the public can understand so that they might be able to identify the
problem with the commission of a particular offense. It is only then that they
might be able to realize the true harm that can result from white-collar crimes.

REFERENCES
Agresti, A., & Finley, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences (3rd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Albanese, J. (1995). White collar crime in America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Benson, M., Cullen, F., & Maakestad, W. (1990). Local prosecutors and corporate
crime. Crime and Delinquency, 36, 356-372.
Blum-West, S. (1985). The seriousness of crime: A study of popular morality. Deviant
Behavior, 6, 83-98.
Clinard, M., & Quinney, R. (1973). Criminal behavior systems: A typology (2nd ed.).
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Cohen, M. (1988). Some new evidence on the seriousness of crime. Criminology, 26,
343-353.
Coleman, J. (1989). The criminal elite. New York: St. Martin’s.
Coleman, J. (1998). The criminal elite: Understanding white-collar crime (4th ed.).
New York: St. Martin’s.
Cullen, F., Link, B., & Polanzi, C. (1982). The seriousness of crime revisited: Have
attitudes toward white-collar crime changed? Criminology, 20, 83-102.
Durkheim, E. (1949). The division of labor in society. Glencoe, NY: Free Press.
Edelhertz, H. (1970). The nature, impact, and prosecution of white-collar crime.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Gibbons, D. (1969). Crime and punishment: A study in social attitudes. Social Forces,
47, 391-397.
Hartung, F. (1953). Common and discrete values. Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 3-22.
Hawkins, D. (1980). Perception of punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 1,
193-215.
McCleary, R., O’Neil, M., Epperlein, T., Jones, C., & Gray, R. (1981). Effects of legal
education and work experience on perceptions of crime seriousness. Social Prob-
lems, 28, 276-289.
Meier, R., & Short, J. (1982). The consequences of white-collar crime. In H. Edel-
hertz & T. Overcast (Eds.), White-collar crime: An agenda for research.
Lexington, MA: DC Health.
Meier, R., & Short, J. (1985). Crime as hazard: Perceptions of risk and seriousness.
Criminology, 23, 389-399.
Miethe, T. (1982). Public consensus on crime seriousness: Normative structure or
methodological artifact? Criminology, 20, 515-526.
Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Rosenmerkel / SERIOUSNESS OF WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES 327

O’ Connell, M., & Whelan, A. (1996). Taking wrongs seriously: Public perceptions of
crime seriousness. British Journal of Criminology, 36, 299-318.
Parton, D., Hansel, M., & Stratton, J. (1991). Measuring crime seriousness: Lessons
from The National Survey of Crime Severity. British Journal of Criminology, 31,
72-84.
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Harcourt Press.
Poveda, T. (1994). Rethinking white collar crime. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Reed, J., & Reed, R. (1975). Doctor, lawyer, indian chief: Old rhymes and new on
white-collar crime. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 3,
279-293.
Rossi, P., & Henry, J. P. (1980). Seriousness: A measure for all purposes? In M. W.
Klein & K. S. Tielmann (Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice evaluation. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Rossi, P., Waite, E., Bose, C., & Berk, R. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Norma-
tive structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review, 39,
224-237.
Schrager, L., & Short, J. (1980). How serious a crime? Perceptions of organizational
and common crimes. In G. Geis & E. Scotland (Eds.), White collar crime: Theory
and research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sebba, L. (1984). Crime seriousness and criminal intent. Crime and Delinquency, 30,
227-244.
Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. New York: John
Wiley.
Sherman, R., & Dowdle, M. (1974). Perception of crime and punishment: A multidi-
mensional scaling analysis. Social Science Research, 3, 109-126.
Simon, D. (1999). Elite deviance (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sutherland, E. (1949). White-collar crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Taylor, P. (1975). Principles of ethics. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Warr, M. (1989). What is the perceived seriousness of crimes? Criminology, 27,
795-821.
Wolfgang, M., Figilio, R., Tracy, P., & Singer, S. (1985). The National Survey of
Crime Severity. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

Sean P. Rosenmerkel is currently a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology and Crim-
inal Justice at the University of Maryland, College Park, and is a graduate research analyst at
the Bureau of Governmental Research, and also at the University of Maryland, College Park.
His research interests include white-collar crime, public perception of crime, and mental health
of inmates.