Crime, Law and Social Change (2019) 72:607–622

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-019-09844-7

White-collar offenders vs. common offenders:

a comparative study on personality traits
and self-control

Rita Ribeiro 1 & Inês Sousa Guedes 2 & José N. Cruz 3

Published online: 17 May 2019

# Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract
Several studies have produced evidence of the existence of differences between
common offenders and white-collar offenders. In Portugal, however, there is
little or no empirical work on this topic. To fill this gap, a survey was
administered to a sample of 137 incarcerated subjects in several Portuguese
prisons, separated into white-collar offenders (n = 74) and common offenders
(n = 63). For this evaluation, sociodemographic, personality and self-control
variables were measured. The results showed significant differences between
the two groups of offenders. White-collar offenders are older, have more
qualifications and are mostly married or divorced, contrasting with common
offenders, who are younger, less qualified and mostly single. Moreover, find-
ings indicate personality differences regarding Bopenness to experience^ in both
groups. With regard to self-control, the General Theory of Crime is supported
as no differences were found between both types of offenders. The results are
discussed and the implications of the findings are outlined.

Rita Ribeiro first author.

* Inês Sousa Guedes

iguedes@direito.up.pt

Rita Ribeiro
ritaquinoribeiro@gmail.com
José N. Cruz
josec@direito.up.pt

1
Faculty of Law, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
2
CJS, School of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
3
CIJE - Faculty of Law, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
608 Ribeiro R. et al.

Introduction

The study of white-collar crime (WCC) is particularly interesting because WC of-

fenders appear to have different socio-demographic attributes compared to common
offenders, and often similar to non-offenders [1, 2]. Consequently, understanding the
white-collar offender profile, particularly in relation to personality and levels of self-
control is important, since it is plausible that they also differ at these levels. Further
exploration of these differences may allow for the construction of typologies with
practical applicability in evaluation, prediction and intervention in different types of
offenders [3, 4].
The present research focuses on the white-collar offender and not on the context in
which white-collar offenses are committed. It explores the importance of personality
traits and self-control in explaining white-collar criminality by comparing white-collar
offenders to common offenders. For the purposes of the present study, common
offenders are considered those who commit crimes that do not fall under the definition
of WCC adopted here. It is intended to draw attention to the need for the psychological
evaluation of offenders in order to create prevention and intervention strategies to
reduce white-collar criminality. A psychological and social evaluation of the offender (a
psychosocial profile), assists the justice system in the prevention of offenses and the
criminal investigations (e.g. interrogation techniques). This research is also relevant to
subsequent decision and intervention with offenders.
The paper begins with an overview of the relevant literature, followed by the
development of the research questions to be investigated. The empirical study is then
presented and the results discussed.

Socio-demographics of the white-collar offender

The theoretical definition of WCC used in this study was provided by J. Helmkamp, J.
Ball and K. Townsend, in 1996 (cit. in [2], p.6)

White collar crimes are illegal and unethical acts that violate fiduciary responsi-
bility of public trust committed by an individual or organization, usually during
the course of legitimate occupational activity, by person of high or respectable
social status for personal or organizational gain.

WCC differs from common crime, especially in the nature of victimization and offenses
[5]. Typically, acts of WCC are not associated with physical violence, take place in
structured contexts and are committed in the environment of professional practice.
WCC is associated with the abuse of trust and the intention of achieving economic
advantages for the offender or a third person [1, 2]. Differently, common crimes are not
committed during the course of legitimate occupational activity and, normally, threaten
or violate the physical integrity. Scholars focus on different aspects of the white-collar
offender. While some (e.g., [6]) emphasize the characteristics of the white-collar
offender (e.g., high socioeconomic status, professional position), others focus on the
offense’s characteristics (e.g., context, legal status, victim type). Regarding
sociodemographic characteristics, the general consensus is that the majority of white-
White-collar offenders vs. common offenders: a comparative study on... 609

collar offenders are male [7–10]. This result may be related to gender differences in the
occupation of certain professions [7]. As for age, white-collar offenders are usually
between 40 and 45 years old. They are older than common offenders [9–13]. The
differences in age may indicate that younger individuals do not have the same
opportunities to practice these types of offenses (Ring 2003 cit. in [14]). Higher
professional occupations are, as a rule, restricted to older individuals with more
experience and longer careers [14].
White-collar offenders’ education is equal to, or greater than, that of the general
population and that of common offenders [15]. However, this finding may vary
according to the type of WCC committed [4, 8, 10, 13, 16]. Achieving high positions
that allow greater opportunities to commit WCC requires above all long training and
specialized knowledge [17]. In what concerns marital status, white-collar offenders are
usually married [16, 18], although the divorce rate is higher in white-collar offenders
than in common offenders [4, 9]. In spite of some demographic similarities, Wheeler
[5] and Walters and Geyer [4] showed that white-collar offenders are a heterogeneous
group when we consider their sociodemographic characteristics and the type of WCC
committed [8].

Personality of the white-collar offender

Personality has been widely studied in the literature as a construct capable of explaining
individual differences. It constitutes a theoretical framework for the study of behavior
by the possibility of predicting future reactions or dispositions [19, 20]. However,
because it is a widely diffuse concept, it becomes difficult to find a universal definition
[21, 22].
In the last decades great advances in the understanding of the structure of personality
were possible with longitudinal studies [23], with convergent lines suggesting the five
accepted factors to organize and to categorize the multiplicity of personality traits [24].
The Five-Factor Model (FFM), by Costa and McCrae [25], is one of the most widely
used and empirically validated approaches to personality. It integrates the factors
BOCEAN^: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism,
with the level and weighting of each of the traits determining the personality of an
individual [25].
Openness is characterized by the interest of individuals in culture and openness to
new emotions, as well as new ideas and the search for new experiences [26]. Consci-
entiousness is related to the ability to resist temptations, control impulses, manage
desires, and organize and perform tasks [26]. Extraversion, also known as positive
affectivity, is related to the predisposition of individuals to experience positive emo-
tional states and to feel good about themselves and the world [27]. Agreeableness refers
to interpersonal relationships and mediates the individual character dimensions de-
scribed by McCrae and John [27] and Digman [23] as Bpleasantness versus
antagonism^ or Bconformity versus hostile noncompliance.^ [28]. It consists of facets
such as trust, altruism, kindness and observance. Neuroticism is linked to emotions,
associated to emotional instability or negative affectivity [29], and represents the
differences in the individuals’ experience of distress and cognitive and behavioral
styles that derive from distress [27].
610 Ribeiro R. et al.

According to some empirical studies, three FFM personality traits have been
associated with WC offenders: high levels of extraversion, low levels of agreeableness,
and high levels of neuroticism [4, 14, 30–34].
With regard to conscientiousness dimension, contradictory results have been found.
While authors such Berry et al. [35], Collins and Schmidt [36] and Ragatz and Fremow
[34] discovered high levels of this personality trait in WCC offenders, Blickle et al. [31]
and Friehe and Schildberg-Hörisch [37] did not find any differences between WCC and
managers currently active in German corporations.
There is no evidence of differences in openness between WC offenders and other
groups. There is a gap in the literature that uses the FFM to compare the personality of
WC offenders with common offenders. In fact, generally studies repy on the compar-
ison between WC offenders and non-offenders. Therefore, existing results fail to
elucidate on personality differences between these offending groups. This study may
fill this gap.

Self-control and white-collar crime

According to Gottfredson and Hirschi [38], involvement in crime is related to individ-

ual differences in self-control, defined as the individual’s ability to control behavior in
order to obtain rewards and avoid punishment. These authors consider that crime is a
gratification of immediate desires, and thus individuals with low levels of self-control,
self-centered and impulsive are more likely to commit offenses than those with higher
levels.
Gottfredson and Hirschi [38] state that the concept of low self-control is composed
of six elements that are interrelated: impulsivity, simple task orientation, risk seeking,
preference for physical activities, self-centrism, and temperament.1 These components
do not constitute alternative forms of low self-control. They are constituents of low self-
control, tend to appear together creating an unidimensional latent trait. It is important to
explore differences between white-collar offenders and common offenders regarding
these components. In fact, risk seeking is a characteristic associated with crimes in
general, but emphasized mainly in relation to the WCC ([2]; Mikulay and Goffin 1998
cit. in [39, 40]).
The nature of the WCC and its offenders seems to question the General
Theory’s assertions, since they are acts that imply intelligence, complexity and,
above all, non-immediate benefits [40–42]. WC offenders tend to be individuals
with expertise, success in legitimate social institutions, who develop good
interpersonal relationships and have stable marriages [10]. These characteristics,
according to Gottfredson and Hirschi [38], are associated to individuals with
high levels of self-control. In fact, it is likely that self-control is essential for
WC offenders to achieve high positions in the business structure that allow
access to opportunities to commit their offenses. Accordingly, several authors
consider that white-collar offenders and common offenders are different
[43–45].

1
See Gottfredson & Hirschi [38] for the definitions of the six elements of self-control.
White-collar offenders vs. common offenders: a comparative study on... 611

Several studies have found evidence that the theory of self-control is suitable to explain
WCC. In a comparison between a group of 365 white-collar offenders and a group of 344
managers who belonged to the same hierarchical level of a corporation, Collins and
Schmidt [36] observed that offenders reported lower levels of self-control, especially with
regard to adoption risky behaviors when compared to non-offenders. Mon [46] studied the
case of Radio Corporation of America (RCA) that manufactured television and related
products in Taiwan. In RCA, the decision-making power was concentrated at the top
management level. Managers with the aim of lowering costs used highly dangerous
methods to get rid of toxic wastes and thus the RCA contaminated groundwater and soil
with heavy metals, causing substantial health threats. Mon [46] showed that RCA
managers had many manifestations of low self-control behaviors as they tended to pursue
short-term gratification of desires and to ignore the negative consequences of their acts.
Similarly, Szockyj and Geis [47], in a study with 452 persons charged with by inside
trading, found that half of the defendants committed more than one offense, but the
majority of corporate officers and directors, who by their positions were likely to possess
great self-control and had access to opportunities, traded illegally on only one occasion. In
contrast, lower-level employees were more likely to recidivate, as it could be expected
accordingly to Self-Control Theory. Following the same line, Blickle et al. [31] observed
that non-offending entrepreneurs presented higher levels of behavioral self-control than
white-collar offenders. Furthermore, Holtfreter et al. [48] found a negative relationship
between self-control and the adoption of fraud crimes. In other words, individuals with
lower levels of self-control are more likely to commit fraud. Likewise, Lugo [49] found a
negative relation between self-control and intentions to commit an environmental crime.
In contrast, Van Wyk et al. [50] concluded that low self-control was not a significant
predictor of employee theft. Similarly, Piquero et al. [51], using a behavioral measure of
low self-control in an attempt to explain the intentions of corporate offending, did not find
any significant relationship between the two variables. In short, the literature remains
somewhat inconclusive as to the relationship between self-control and white-collar crime.
As far as we know, there is no empirical literature comparing white-collar offenders
with common offenders with regard to levels of self-control. According to Gottfredson
and Hirschi [38], there should be no differences, since self-control is the explanation of
all types of crime, which implies that labels such as Bstreet criminals^ or Bwhite collar
offenses^ should be treated as misleading. If this is true, it is important to analyze other
individual characteristics that might explain the engagement in WCC.

Recidivism and specialization of WC offenders

According to Self-Control Theory, the levels of self-control are stable throughout life, and it
is possible to assume that the propensity to commit crimes remains throughout life.
Weisburd et al. [52] tested the Self-Control Theory in a sample of convicted WC offenders,
and concluded that the majority of them relapsed. Similarly, Benson and Moore [43] show
that about 40% of white-collar offenders have previous convictions. Weisburd and Waring
[53] indicate that the recidivism levels of WC offenders are higher than it could be
expected, although lower than those of common offenders.
The Self-Control Theory postulates that individuals are versatile in committing
crimes, and not limited to one type of offense [47]. This view is manifestly different
612 Ribeiro R. et al.

from the theories that advocate specialization of offenders, commonly associated with
WC offenders [4]. The literature has failed to provide solid conclusions regarding the
idea that white-collar offenders specialize. Some studies have shown that they are not
versatile [44, 52]. Benson and Moore [43] conclude that WC offenders are four times
more likely to have prior convictions for WCC than for other crimes. This contradicts
Self-Control Theory in its premise of versatility, as these offenders maintain a high
level of specialization. Other studies [4, 54, 55] pointed out to the existence of different
paths of white-collar offenders: some characterized by low self-control and no special-
ization, and others characterized by high self-control and specialization. However,
Benson and Kerley [56] and Weisburd and Waring [53] showed that white-collar
offenders resemble common offenders in relation to lack of specialization. Thus,
findings regarding the specialization of WC offenders seem to remain inconclusive.

Hypotheses

Based on the arguments discussed in the previous section, several research hypotheses
have been established:

Socio-demographics

i. WC offenders and common offenders are distinct at the level of

sociodemographic characteristics:

(a) White-collar offenders are older than common offenders.

(b) WC offenders have higher levels of schooling compared to common
offenders.
(c) White-collar offenders are mostly married and have high divorce rates.

Personality

ii. WC offenders and common offenders differ in the FFM personality traits.

Self-control

iii. WC offenders do not differ from common offenders in levels of self-control.

iv. No differences are expected in the levels of components of self-control
between offenders’ type.

Recidivism

v. WC offenders have lower recidivism levels than common offenders.

Specialization

vi. Common offenders are more versatile in crimes they commit when com-
pared to WC offenders.
White-collar offenders vs. common offenders: a comparative study on... 613

Methodology

Sample and type of study

A quantitative methodology was employed in the present study. Surveys were

administered to a sample of prison inmates differing for type of crime commit-
ted. Moreover, this study is correlational and cross-sectional since it was
intended to evaluate the variables that can be associated to the differentiation
of two groups.
The sample is constituted by two groups of individuals separated according to the
type of crime committed, which will be designated as common offenders and white-
collar offenders. In total, 137 individuals were inquired: 74 are individuals condemned
for WCC and 63 are condemned by violence against person. All the participants are
male and they were, at the time when they were surveyed, in seven different prisons in
Portugal.

Offenses

Common offenders were individuals condemned for crimes related to violence

against person since it is an offense with manifest different characteristics from
WCC. In order to operationalize the WC offenses, a set of crimes from
Portuguese criminal law code were selected based on previous national and
international studies. Following Wheeler [5], it is admitted that the type of
considered offenses may not be representative of all white-collar crime, how-
ever, we believe these categories provide a broad and heterogeneous view of
white-collar crimes in the Portuguese context. The offenses were the following:
breach of trust, insurance fraud, informatic fraud, fraud by the employer,
counterfeiting means of non-cash payment, intentional bankruptcy, negligent
bankruptcy, embezzlement, fraud in management, influence peddling, false
allegations, false statement and perjury, bribery, personal advantage by employ-
ee, breach of judicial secrecy, corruption, illicit economic advantage, misuse of
authority, market manipulation, tax fraud and money laundering.

Instrument and variables

In order to collect empirical data required to achieve the goals of the present research, a
survey was developed. The groups that constitute this survey and the respective
variables are as following.

Group I: this group is constituted by sociodemographic variables such as

sex, age, occupation, education and marital status. Moreover, two questions
are related to previous convictions in order to measure recidivism and
specialization.
Group II: the second group is constituted by the set of items of the Grasmick et al.
[57] scale that intend to measure the levels of self-control. This scale comprises 24
items divided in 6 subscales which correspond to the six dimensions of low self-
control developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi [38]. Answers to these items are
614 Ribeiro R. et al.

given in a Likert scale with four options (1- Totally disagree, 2- Disagree, 3-
Agree, 4- Strongly agree). Items were aggregated in order to create a total score of
self-control, where a high result indicates a low level of self-control. In order to
compare the two types of offenders, total score of self-control and also the mean
levels of each of the 6 components (risk seeking, impulsivity, preference for simple
tasks, preference for physical tasks, self-centrism and temperament) were calcu-
lated (see attachments 1 and 2 for Cronbach alphas).
Group III: this last group integrates the measurement of personality dimensions
through the Portuguese version of the Neo Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) [58].
This adaptation includes 60 items and can be completed in approximately 15 min.
The evaluation of the psychometric properties of this instrument (validity and
reliability) has been showing high levels of internal consistency in the measure-
ment of the five personality dimensions [58]. This set of 60 items has an answer
format in a Likert scale with five options (from strongly disagree to strongly
agree).

Table 1 presents the Cronbach alphas for personality and self-control dimensions.

Proceedings

In order to proceed to the administration of surveys in prisons, it was necessary

to undertake an authorization requirement to the Directorate-General of Social
Reintegration and Prison Services. Following authorization, inmates provided
voluntary consent to participate in research. It was assured their total anonymity
and confidentiality of the information requested of them. After that, surveys
were administrated through self-report.
Quantitative data from this study were analysed through IBM SPSS Statistics. Since
none of the variables of the present study followed a Normal Distribution, non-
parametric tests were employed.

Table 1 α Cronbach values to

Dimensions α
each personality and self-control
dimensions evaluated in the
Personality
scales
Openness to experience .467
Neuroticism .704
Agreeableness .706
Conscientiousness .801
Extraversion .510
Self-control
Risk seeking .684
Impulsivity .549
Preference for simple tasks .659
Preference for physic tasks .584
Self-centrism .637
Temperament .723
White-collar offenders vs. common offenders: a comparative study on... 615

Results

Characterization of the sample according to age, marital status and schooling level

Individuals mean age is 39.71 (SD =9.12). As it is observed in the Table 2, the
mean age levels of WC offenders (X = 43.08) is higher than mean age levels of
common offenders (X = 35.51, p < .000). Concerning to civil status, the results
show that most of WC offenders are divorced (21.9%) while common offenders
are mainly single (68.3%, p < .000). Regarding education level, it is possible to
find that 36,5% of WC offenders report having concluded higher school and
12,2% are graduated. In contrast, only 15,9% of common offenders reported to
finish the higher school and only one is graduated. Moreover, while none of
WC offenders have only the primary school education, 17,5% of common
offenders reported that they did not continue their studies beyond primary
school. These differences between two groups are statistically significant
(p < .000).

Sample characteristics related to recidivism

Table 3 presents the participants’ answers concerning recidivism and specialization. As

it is possible to observe, most individuals are recidivists, both in the case of WC
offenders (59.5%) and common offenders (61.9%). In fact, they had already been
sentenced for another crime. Thus, when comparing recidivism according to the type

Table 2 Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample (age, marital status, education and recidivism) (n =
137; WCC: 54%; common offenders: 46%)

Total sample WC offenders Common offenders P

N 137 74 63
Age 128 71 57
(X ± SD) 39.71 ± 9.12 43.08 ± 8.39 35.51 ± 8.25 .0002
Min-Max 20–66 26–66 20–58
Marital status (n) 134 73 61 .0003
Single 65 (47.4%) 22 (29.7%) 43 (68.3%)
Married 23 (16.8%) 14 (18.9%) 9 (14.3%)
Union of fact 16 (11.7%) 12 (16.2%) 4 (6.3%)
Widower 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Divorced 30 (21.9%) 25(33.8%) 5 (7.9%)
Education levels (n) 134 73 61 .0004
Primary education 11 (8.0%) 0 (0.0%) 11 (17.5%)
Secondary education 74 (54.7%) 36 (48.6%) 61.9 (28.6%)
High school graduates 37 (27.0%) 27 (36.5%) 10 (15.9%)
College graduates 10 (7.3%) 9 (12.2%) 1 (1.6%)
Postgraduate (Masters/PhD) 1 (0.7%) 1 (1.4%) 0 (0%)

2: t-test; 3 and 4 : X2
616 Ribeiro R. et al.

Table 3 Proportion of recidivists and specialists individuals according to the type of crime

Total sample WC offenders Common offenders P

Recidivism (%) Sim Não Sim Não Sim Não

60.6% 37.2% 59.5% 39.2% 61.9% 34.9% .6642
Specialization (%) Sim Não Sim Não Sim Não
41.6% 17.5% 43.2% 16.2% 39.7% 19.0% .6123

X- mean values; 2 and 3 : X2

of offender, the differences are not statistically significant (p value = .066). Regarding
the specialization (if the previous offense was similar to the one for which it is
currently condemned), the two groups did not present statistically significant
differences (p value = .061).

Personality and offender type

Table 4 shows the descriptive results concerning the five personality dimen-
sions. Regarding openness to experience variable, it is possible to observe
that the mean value is higher in WC offenders (X = 40.97) when comparing
to common offenders (X = 37.89, p < .000). There were no statistically sig-
nificant differences between WC offenders and common offenders for the
other personality dimensions.

Self-control and offender type

Observing Table 5, it is possible to conclude that there are no statistically significant

differences between both groups for the self-control (p = .083, above the limit of
rejection). Moreover, no differences between WC and common offenders are observed
in self-control dimensions (risk seeking, impulsivity, preference for simple tasks,
preference for physical tasks and self-centrism).

Table 4 Means and standard deviations of personality dimensions relative to the total sample and according to
the type of offender

Variables Total sample WC offenders Common offenders P

X ± SD X ± SD X ± SD
Openness to experience 39.57 ± 5.22 40.97 ± 5.71 37.89 ± 4.00 .000
Neuroticism 35.41 ± 6.94 35.06 ± 7.40 35.82 ± 6.39 .490
Agreeableness 42.63 ± 6.24 42.19 ± 6.25 43.15 ± 6.24 .519
Conscientiousness 48.63 ± 6.24 49.33 ± 5.95 47.78 ± 6.52 .138
Extraversion 41.52 ± 5.18 41.59 ± 4.99 41.423 ± 5.44 .978

The values for the dimensions shown here range from 0 e 60

White-collar offenders vs. common offenders: a comparative study on... 617

Table 5 Means and standard deviations of the self-control and its components relative to the total sample and
according to the type of offender

Variables Total sample WC offenders Common offenders P

X ± SD X ± SD X ± SD
Self-control 2.18 ± 0.42 2.13 ± 0.39 2.25 ± 0.44 .083
Risk seeking 2.19 ± 0.64 2.17 ± 0.60 2.23 ± 0.69 .562
Impulsivity 2.20 ± 0.56 2.18 ± 0.51 2.24 ± 0.61 .488
Preference for simple tasks 1.96 ± 0.63 1.87 ± 0.59 2.06 ± 0.07 .109
Preference for physical tasks 2.65 ± 0.56 2.57 ± 0.59 2.75 ± 0.52 .145
Self-centrism 1.97 ± 0.59 1.95 ± 0.59 2.00 ± 0.61 .585
Temperament 2.14 ± 0.63 2.07 ± 0.59 2.22 ± 0.66 .097

Discussion

The present study sought to compare personality traits, levels of self-control and a set of
sociodemographic characteristics among white-collar offenders and common offenders.
For this purpose, a survey was administered to a non-random sample of 137 prisoners,
divided into two groups: convicted for WCC (n = 74) and for violence against person
(n = 63) in some prisons in mainland Portugal.
Through this research, the first hypothesis was initially confirmed: white-
collar offenders differ from common offenders in relation to sociodemographic
characteristics – age, education level and marital status. In fact, results showed
that, in comparison to common offenders, white-collar offenders are older, as
has been demonstrated by several authors (e.g., [8, 10, 13, 18, 54]). White-collar
offenders presented higher education levels than ordinary offenders, which can be
explained by the fact that higher levels of education are required to hold positions that
provide access to more opportunities to commit such crimes ([17] cit. in [8]). Ouimet
and Le Blanc [59] refer to marriage as a turning point that contribute to the quitting of
criminal behaviour, so in theory this factor would decrease the likelihood of an individ-
ual committing crimes. Also Arneklev et al. [60] found a negative association between
marriage and criminal involvement, that is, being married would be associated with
significantly lower levels of deviant behaviour. However, white-collar offenders, as the
results of this study showed, are individuals for whom these life events do not have a
positive effect since they are mostly divorced, married or in de facto union – unlike
common offenders, who are essentially single. Nonetheless, the present research cor-
roborated earlier results that the rate of divorce for white-collar offenders is higher in
comparison with common offenders and that the rate of single individuals is lower in
white-collar offenders compared to common offenders [4, 9].
Regarding personality dimensions, the data allowed to confirm hypothesis ii:
BWhite-collar offenders and common offenders present differences in the five main
dimensions of personality.^ However, the only dimension that most seems to evidence
the differences between the two groups of offenders is ‘openness to experience’, with
higher levels in white-collar offenders. This result suggests that white-collar offenders
are more curious, imaginative, original, introspective individuals with a wide range of
618 Ribeiro R. et al.

interests [27]. Nevertheless, as it will be later discussed, this result should be considered
with precaution due to the low internal consistency levels observed.
Concerning self-control and General Theory of Crime, the results showed that there
are no statistically significant differences between the two groups, and so the third
hypothesis is confirmed: BWC offenders do not differ from common offenders in levels
of self-control.^ The fourth hypothesis was also confirmed as no differences were
expected in the levels of components of self-control between offenders’ type. There-
fore, we can conclude that the results of this research are in accordance with what is
assumed by the General Theory of Crime. Gottfredson and Hirschi [38] postulated that
their theory is a general theory, therefore, it should account for all varieties of criminal
acts. In fact, in the present study there were no statistically significant differences
between WC and common offenders in relation to the levels of self-control.
In relation to recidivism and specialization, this study also supports the premises of
the General Theory of Crime since the hypotheses were not confirmed: v - BWhite-
collar offenders have lower levels of recidivism compared to common offenders^ and
vi - B Common offenders are more versatile in the crimes they commit when compared
to white-collar offenders. B In fact, the results of this investigation showed that white-
collar offenders have recurrence rates and levels of versatility similar to common
offenders. These results contradict those obtained by Benson and Moore [43], who
compared the white collar and common offenders convicted in federal courts, and give
further support to the Self-Control Theory.
Although the lack of support to individual variables such as self-control (and its
dimensions) in predicting white-collar when comparing to common offending, the use
of personality characteristics should not be dismissed. The importance of studying
personality is related to the possible diagnosis between offenders for classification and
intervention purposes, concretely with the construction of typologies [16]. Consistently,
authors such as Andrews and Bonta [61] consider that personality is one of the
individual characteristics associated with success or unsuccess of intervention pro-
grams. Thus, results of these studies and new insights about typologies can be useful
in the exploration of psychological models of white-collar crime with practical appli-
cability in evaluation, prediction and intervention in these offenders.
Psychological evaluation is then fundamental in the definition of strategies to
support the Justice System [62]. These studies can also be relevant to the recruitments
undertaken by companies in order to identify individuals with features of potential
offenders and that can be involve in crimes during their professional obligations [63].

Conclusions and limitations

The current study analysed if personality and self-control dimensions were important in
the explanation and differentiation of white-collar criminal behaviour compared with
common offenses. The results showed significant socio-demographic differences between
the two groups of offenders. White-collar offenders are older, have more qualifications and
are mostly married or divorced, contrasting with common offenders, who are younger, less
qualified and mostly single. Moreover, findings indicate personality differences regarding
Bopenness to experience^ in both groups. The study gives support to Self-Control Theory
as long as no differences in self-control were found between the two groups of offenders.
White-collar offenders vs. common offenders: a comparative study on... 619

In spite of the important insights of the present research, it is possible to find a set of
criticisms and limitations. First, the results must be analysed with precaution. In fact,
concerning methodological aspects, the issue is related with the low sample size (n =
137) which might have decreased the statistical power to detect significant differences
between groups. Therefore, future research should struggle to increase the size of
white-collar offenders in their samples. Another important issue is concerned with
low alpha Cronbach values in some dimensions such as openness to experience and
extraversion. Two aspects could help explain the low levels presented in our study. The
first one is the relatively small sample already pointed out before. Secondly, the context
of application of the survey (prisons) might had influenced the Cronbach levels
comparing to other contexts. In Portugal the scale NEO-FFI presented values around
0,75 for Extraversion and 0,72 for Openness to Experience [58]. Moreover, Carvalho
[64] found values of 0,461 for Extraversion and 0,453 for Openness to Experience.
Lastly, Lima et al. [65] observed values of 0,60 for Openness to Experience. In general,
it is possible to observe that values for both dimensions are not very different compared
with the values reported in our studies. However, we consider that in future studies the
scale should be optimized in the Portuguese context.
Besides the issues already discussed, in the current study the classification as white-
collar criminals was based on the offence itself and did not consider features such as the
occupation of the offender. This offence-based definition tends to follow legal classi-
fications captured by official statistics [16]. Although controversial, and not without
problems, the use of offense-based definitions is in accordance with previous research
(e.g., [4, 53]). Data from the present study also allows to conclude that this prison
population only includes a very reduced proportion of individuals with medium and
high positions (24.2% of WCC), precisely the ones that have been the focus of
scientific community in order to understand how and why integrated, socially respect-
able individuals with high economic status commit crimes. It is expectable that white
collar offenders condemned to a prison sentence might be individuals with more similar
characteristics comparing to common offenders. Therefore, the comparison of differ-
ences between those groups might be under-valued [66].
This problem has already been discussed by authors such as Weisburd et al. [13]. It
may be questionable whether these middle-class white-collar criminals (comparing to
the elites) should be included within the boundaries of white-collar crime study. If one
agrees with a narrow definition of white-collar criminal (based on the influential work
of Sutherland), most of the people who are convicted for white-collar crimes would be
excluded from studies – such as ours. It is also known, according to scientific
community (e.g., [67]) that the rate disparity between convicted fraudsters to self-
report criminality is substantially high, meaning that there is a huge difference to
sample from convicted comparing to self-reported offenders. Scholars have argued that
often white-collar offenders escape detection and prosecution. In fact, the difficulties of
official statistics in capturing crimes not reported to police should be noted which might
be higher in these types of crimes [68]. Our sample is limited to incarcerated offenders
while the literature indicates that only a small part of WC offenders is condemned (the
number of individuals condemned with prison sentences is even less, [2], p.36).
Accordingly, this study might have a problem of generalization for offenders with no
contact with the system of justice. Despite its limitations, the present research sheds
light on the differences and similarities between WC criminals and common offenders.
620 Ribeiro R. et al.

References

1. Benson, M. L., & Simpson, S. (2009). White-collar crime: An opportunity perspective. New York:
Routledge.
2. Friedrichs, D. O. (2010). Trusted criminals: White collar crime in contemporary society. Belmont:
Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
3. Cruz, J. (2013). A Criminologia e o Crime de Colarinho Branco. In J. N. Cruz, C. S. Cardoso, A. L. Leite
& R. Faria (Eds.), Infrações económicas e financeiras: estudos de criminologia e de direito (pp. 53–76).
Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
4. Walters, G., & Geyer, M. D. (2004). Criminal thinking and identity in male white-collar offenders.
American Association for Correctional Psychology, 31(3), 263–281.
5. Wheeler, S. (1988). White collar crimes and criminals. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 4127.
6. Brightman, H. (2009). Today’s white collar crime: Legal, investigative and theoretical perspectives. New
York: Routledge.
7. Gottschalk, P., & Glasø, L. (2013). Gender in white-collar crime: An empirical study of pink-collar
criminals. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences, 4, 22–34.
8. Holtfreter, K. (2005). Is occupational fraud Btypical^ white-collar crime? A comparison of individual and
organizational characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 353–365.
9. Weisburd, D. (1991). Crimes of the middle classes: White-collar offenders in the federal courts. Yale
University Press.
10. Wheeler, S., Weisburd, D., Waring, E. & Bode, N. (1998). White Collar Crimes and Criminals. American
Criminal Law Review, 25, 331–357.
11. Alalehto, T., & Larsson, D. (2012). Who is the economic criminal? : A comparison between countries
and types of crime. Sociologisk Forskning, 49(1), 25–44.
12. Van Onna, J. H. R., van der Geest, V. R., Huisman, W., & Denkers, A. J. M. (2014). Criminal trajectories
of white-collar offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(6), 759–784.
13. Weisburd, D., Waring, E., & Chayet, E. F. (2001). White-collar crime and criminal careers. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
14. Alalehto, T. (2015). White collar criminals: The state of knowledge. Open Criminology Journal,
8, 28–35.
15. Poortinga, E., Lemmen, C., & Jibson, M. D. (2006). A case control study: White collar defendants
compared with other defendants charged with nonviolent theft. The Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law, 34(1), 82–89.
16. Listwan, S., Piquero, N., & Voorhis, P. (2010). Recidivism among a white-collar sample: Does person-
ality matter? The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 43(1), 156–174.
17. Albrecht, W. S. (2003). Fraud examination. Mason, OH7 Thompson-southwestern.
18. Benson, M. L. (2002). Crime and the life course : An introduction. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
19. Paunonen, S. V. (1998). Hierarchical organization of personality and prediction of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 538–556.
20. Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 59–61.
21. Hansenne, M. (2004). Psicologia da personalidade. Lisboa: Climepsi.
22. Staub, E. (1980). Social and prosocial behavior: Personal and situational influences and their interactions.
In E. Staub (Ed.), Personality: Basic aspects and current research (pp. 237–294). Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
23. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417–440.
24. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across
instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
25. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO personality inventory. Odessa: Psychology Assessment
Resources.
26. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2010). NEO inventories professional manual for the NEO Personality
Inventory-3, NEO Five-Factor Inventory-3, and NEO Personality Inventory-Revised. Lutz: PAR.
27. McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the five-factor model and its applications.
Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215.
28. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO PI-R professional manual. Odessa: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
White-collar offenders vs. common offenders: a comparative study on... 621

29. Judge, T. A., Heller, D., & Mount, M. K. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 530–541.
30. Alalehto, T. (2003). Economic crime: Does personality matters? International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(3), 1–22.
31. Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some personality correlates of business
white-collar crime. Applied Psychology. An International Review, 55(2), 220–233.
32. Feeley, D. (2006). Personality, envioronment, and the causes of white-collar crime. Law and Psychology
Review, 30, 291–213.
33. Klenowski, P. M., & Dodson, K. D. (2016). Who commits white-collar crime, and what do we know
about them? In S. R. V. Slyke, M. L. Benson, & F. T. Cullen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of white-collar
crime. USA: Oxford University Press.
34. Ragatz, L., & Fremow, W. (2010). A critical examination of research on the psychological profiles of
white-collar criminals. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 10(5), 373–402.
35. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and
their common correlates: A review and metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(2), 410–424.
36. Collins, J., & Schmidt, F. (1993). Personality, integrity, and white collar crime: A construct validity study.
Personnel Psychology, 46(2), 295–311.
37. Friehe, T., & Schildberg-Hörisch, H. (2014). Crime and self-control revisited: Disentan- gling the effect
of self-control on risk and social preferences. Working Paper.
38. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
39. Guedes, I., & Cardoso, C. (2013). Personalidade, adoção de risco e crime de colarinho branco. In J. N.
Cruz, C. S. Cardoso, A. L. Leite & R. Faria (Eds.), Infrações económicas e financeiras: estudos de
criminologia e de direito (pp. 77–90). Coimbra: Coimbra Editora.
40. Simpson, S., & Piquero, N. (2002). Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate crime. Law
and Society Review, 36(3), 509–548.
41. Reed, G., & Yeager, P. C. (1996a). Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology. Criminology,
34, 357–382.
42. Reed, G., & Yeager, P. (1996b). Organizational offending and neoclassical criminology: Challenging the
reach of a general theory of crime. Criminology, 34, 357–382.
43. Benson, M. L., & Moore, E. (1992). Are white-collar and common offenders the same? An empirical and
theoretical critique of a recently proposed general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 29(2), 251–272.
44. Geis, G. (2000). On the absence of self-control as the basis for a general theory of crime: A critique.
Theoretical Criminology, 4(1), 35–53.
45. Tittle, C. R. (1991). Review. American Journal of Sociology, 96(6), 1609–1611.
46. Mon, W.-T. (2002). Causal factors of corporate crime in Taiwan: Qualitative and quantitative findings.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(2), 183–205.
47. Szockyj, E., & Geis, G. (2002). Insider trading patterns and analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(4),
273–286.
48. Holtfreter, K., Beaver, K. M., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2010). Low self-control and fraud offending.
Journal of Financial Crime, 17(3), 295–307.
49. Lugo, M. A. (2013). Self-Control, attitudinal beliefs, and white-Collar crime intentions. (Dissertação de
Mestrado). University of South Florida.
50. Van Wyk, J. A., Benson, M. L., & Harris, D. K. (2000). Test of strain and self-control theories:
Occupational crime in nursing homes. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23(2), 27–44.
51. Piquero, N. L., Schoepfer, A., & Langton, L. (2010). Completely out of control or the desire to be in
complete control? How low self-control and the desire for control relate to corporate offending. Crime &
Delinquency, 56(4), 627–647.
52. Weisburd, D., Chayet, E. F., & Waring, E. (1990). White-collar crime and criminal careers: Some
preliminary findings. Crime & Delinquency, 36(3), 342–355.
53. Weisburd, D., & Waring, E. (2001). White-collar crime and criminal careers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
54. Onna, J. H. R., Geest, V. R., Huisman, W., & Denkers, A. J. M. (2014). Divergent trajectories: Criminal
careers of white collar crime offenders in the Netherlands. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 51(6), 759–784.
55. Piquero, N. L., & Weisburd, D. (2009). Developmental trajectories of white-collar crime. In S. S.
Simpson & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The criminology of white-collar crime (pp. 153–171). New York:
Springer.
622 Ribeiro R. et al.

56. Benson, M. L., & Kerley, K. (2001). Life course theory and white-collar crime. In H. Pontell & D.
Shichor (Eds.), Contemporary issues in crime and criminal justice: Essays in honor of Gilbert Geis (pp.
121–136). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
57. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Testing the core empirical
implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime &
Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29.
58. Magalhães, E., Lima, M. P., Salgueira, A., Gonzalez, A., Costa, J. J., Costa, M. J., & Costa, P. (2014).
NEO-FFI: Psychometric properties of a short personality inventory in a Portuguese contexto. Psicologia:
Reflexão e Crítica, 27(4), 599–614.
59. Ouimet, M., & Le Blanc, M. (1996). Life events in the continuation of the adult criminal career. Criminal
Behavior and Mental Health, 6(1), 75–97.
60. Arneklev, B. J., Elis, L., & Medlicott, S. (2006). Testing the general theory of crime: Comparing the
effects of ‘imprudent behavior’ and an attitudinal indicator of ‘low self-control. Western Criminology
Review, 7(3), 41–55.
61. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati: Anderson.
62. Eaton, T. V., & Korach, S. (2016). A criminological profile of white-collar crime. Journal of Applied
Business Research, 32(1), 129–142.
63. Guedes, I., & Cruz, J. (2011). Existe uma Bpersonalidade^ dos criminosos de colarinho branco (Vol. 10,
pp. 47–60). Ousar e Integrar.
64. Carvalho, T. (2013). Determinantes da Satisfação Conjugal: Felicidade, Bem-estar Subjetivo,
Personalidade e Satisfação Sexual. Dissertação de mestrado apresentada à Universidade Católica
Portuguesa.
65. Lima, M., Magalhães, E., Salgueira, A., Gonzalez, A.-J., Costa, J. J., Costa, M. J., & Costa, P. (2014). A
versão portuguesa do NEO-FFI: Caracterização em função da idade, género e escolaridade. Psicologia,
28(2), 01–10.
66. Lesha, J., & Lesha, D. (2012). Psychopathy and white collar crime: A review of literature. SEEU Review,
8(2), 1–18.
67. Piquero, A. R., David, P. F., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research: New
analyses of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68. Schneider, V. W., & Wiersema, B. (1990). Limits and use of the uniform crime reports. Measuring crime:
Large-scale, long-range efforts. New York: State University of New York Press.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.