496378

research-article2013
CCJ29310.1177/1043986213496378Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeDodge et al.

Article
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice
29(3) 399­–415
Do Men and Women © 2013 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permissions:
Perceive White-Collar and sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1043986213496378
Street Crime Differently? ccj.sagepub.com

Exploring Gender Differences

in the Perception of
Seriousness, Motives, and
Punishment

Mary Dodge1, Stacey J. Bosick2, and Victoria Van

Antwerp1

Abstract
Public perceptions of white-collar crime have shifted from indifference to awareness
based on recent, highly publicized corporate collapses and Ponzi schemes. This
research explores perceptions of white-collar crime with a focus on gender.
Participants (N = 900) read one of six crime scenarios involving either a white-collar
crime (Ponzi scheme, embezzlement, corporate crime) or a street crime (auto theft,
burglary, prostitution) committed by a male or female offender. Respondents then
rated the behavior on seriousness, harshness of punishment, and offender motivation
(i.e., greed and stress). Overall, the results support previously observed patterns
showing that citizens see white-collar crime as a serious societal problem. Ponzi
schemes are seen as more serious than the three street crimes. The findings also
show differences between male and female respondents on the issues of offense
seriousness, punishment, and offender motivation, but attitudes toward offenders’
gender are more ambiguous.

Keywords
white-collar crime, corporate crime, street crime, gender and crime, public opinion

1School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, CO, USA

2Department of Sociology, University of Colorado Denver, CO, USA

Corresponding Author:
Mary Dodge, School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, PO 173364, Campus Box 142,
Denver, CO 80217, USA.
Email: Mary.dodge@ucdenver.edu
400 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29(3)

Prior research exploring gender differences in public perceptions of white-collar crime

is scarce, and few studies have placed gender differences among offenses and offend-
ers as the central focus. But with the potentially increasing involvement of women in
white-collar crime, it is important to investigate whether the public views female
white-collar offenders the same as males, to better understand societal expectations of
resource allocation and constructions of gender in the criminal justice system. Also, as
women assume more important political and policy-making roles in society, further
exploration of gender as a defining construct for who commits crimes and why may
offer insight into differences in motivation and may influence potential public policy
decisions. Public opinion often shapes legislative reactions to crime and punishment.
This article first reviews previous research and changing trends in public opinion
related to the seriousness of white-collar crime compared to street crime. More impor-
tant, the research examines perceived differences in gender of the offender and respon-
dents. Then we present the findings of the current research, which uses crime scenarios
to explore public opinion and perceptions of offenders and offenses with a focus on
gender differences. The research also presents comparative information on the per-
ceived seriousness and punishment deserved for six types of crime (burglary, auto
theft, prostitution, Ponzi scheme, embezzlement, and corporate crime). Also, to extend
the existing literature, we include an exploration of how the public views potential
motivations (greed and stress) and offenders’ feelings of remorse for their actions.
Finally, suggestions for policy implications and future research are discussed.

Public Perceptions
Understanding how and why the public reacts to crime is an important area of research,
with widespread policy implications. When community members take umbrage and
demand answers to crime problems, at a local level and nationwide, policy makers
tend to listen. Whether the crimes involve serious drugs, such as crack or methamphet-
amine, or gang violence, communities rely on politicians and criminal justice officials
to curb problematic behaviors. Until recently, however, white-collar crime rarely
raised eyebrows among the general public (Geis, 1973). Not surprising, early survey
research on public opinion showed offenses that resulted in direct bodily harm were
viewed as the most serious. Overall, initial research on public perceptions of crime and
seriousness showed relatively consistent results, generally associated with the degree
of physical harm (Grabosky, Braithwaite, & Wilson, 1987; O’Connell & Whelan,
1996; Rossi, Waite, Bose, & Berk; 1974; Sellin & Wolfgang, 1964). Rossi et al. (1974),
for example, found that crimes against persons, particularly murders, were ranked as
the most serious out of 140 types of offenses. In comparison, crimes without a “vic-
tim,” such as loitering, drunkenness, and vandalism, received low rankings, as did
many of the white-collar crimes. White-collar crimes (e.g., embezzlement, price goug-
ing, and price fixing) typically were among the lowest in seriousness rankings by the
public. However, respondents in Cullen, Clark, Mathers, and Cullen’s (1983) survey
of a sample of 240 adults supported criminal sanctions for white-collar crimes because
of the high moral and economic costs.
Dodge et al. 401

There are many potential reasons why white-collar crimes fail to provoke the same
levels of concern and outrage as other types of crime. White-collar crimes often lack a
“victim” with whom a community member may empathize. Victims who fall prey to a
financial scheme appear less deserving of sympathy compared to those injured during
a violent criminal event; indeed, the physical harm is usually much greater in the latter.
The 2012 shooting in an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, for example, resulted in
millions of dollars of donations to help victims, whereas those who are victimized by
white-collar criminals receive little compensation, though the devastation that results
in some cases is tragic, particularly for vulnerable populations. Past research measur-
ing public opinions of white-collar versus street crime largely shows that the former is
viewed as less serious and less harmful and that white-collar offenders are deserving
of more lenient punishment. But despite the widespread view that the public views
white-collar crime as not very serious, research on this matter has painted a more com-
plex picture, one that seems to evolve and change historically.

Seriousness
Studies of the public’s perception of white-collar crime and white-collar offenders
began in earnest during the late 1960s. Subsequent research revealed that numerous
and often conflicting variables contributed to views of offense seriousness. White-
collar crimes were frequently seen as less serious compared to street crimes, particu-
larly those committed against persons resulting in physical injury (Evans, Cullen, &
Dubeck, 1993; Geis 1973; Rosenmerkel, 2001; Rossi et al., 1974; Sutherland, 1949).
Freidrichs (2010), however, noted a handful of early studies revealing that the public
viewed unsafe products and selling contaminated food as worse, under certain circum-
stances, than armed robbery and arson (see, e.g., Cullen et al. 1985; Hauber, Toonvliet,
& Willemse, 1988; Holland, 1995). Recent trends indicate that certain types of white-
collar crimes, especially those involving injury or death, are seen as quite serious
(Cullen, Link, & Polanzi, 1982; Isenring, 2008; Schrager & Short, 1980). Cullen et al.
(1983) discovered that perceptions of the seriousness of white-collar crime increased
during the 1970s, especially compared to other offenses. Additionally, the researchers
found that white-collar offenses resulting in physical harm were seen as more serious
forms of white-collar crime. Later survey research noted that the public viewed most
white-collar crime as less serious than crimes against persons. Rosenmerkel’s (2001)
study showed that white-collar crime ranked between property and violent crime—
hence, the continued trend over time to view these offenses as more serious. Kane and
Wall’s (2006) analysis of the National White-Collar Crime Center’s 2005 victimiza-
tion survey found that respondents rated white-collar crimes as equally serious as con-
ventional crime. Other recent studies discovered similar attitudes toward white-collar
offenses (Rebovich & Jiandani, 2000; Rebovich & Kane, 2002). Piquero, Carmichael,
and Piquero (2008), using the center’s survey data, also noted that respondents defined
white-collar crimes as equally or more serious than street crimes. Thus, the results of
public perception studies regarding the seriousness of white-collar crime appear to be
quite mixed.
402 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29(3)

Punishment
Essential to the current inquiry is public opinion on the severity of punishment assigned
to white-collar versus street crimes. Schoepfer, Carmichael, and Piquero (2007), using
data from the National White-Collar Crime Center’s victimization survey, examined
public perspectives of certainty and severity of sanctions for offenders who had com-
mitted robbery versus fraud. The results of the study distinguished questions of what
the public believes will likely happen and what it thinks should happen. Their analysis
revealed that 82% of the respondents believed that the robber would likely receive more
severe punishment compared to the fraudster (15%). More interesting, when asked who
should receive a more severe punishment, 31% believed that the robber did, 31% indi-
cated that the fraudster should, and 38% selected equality in punishment. According to
the researchers, this finding exemplifies the schism between what the public believes
should happen to fraudsters and the criminal justice system’s treatment of offenders.

Demographic Influences
Research exploring demographic variables related to perceptions of crime seriousness
and punishment is varied and appears to be inconsistent across studies and time (see
e.g., Grabosky et al., 1987; Green & Kugler, 2012; Friedrichs, 2010; Hauber et al.,
1988). Ethnicity/race, gender, socioeconomic status, and education all have resulted in
perceptual differences about the seriousness of crime types. Rossi et al. (1974), for
example, found that Blacks tended to rate all crime more seriously compared to
Whites. Additionally, males from lower socioeconomic households rated the serious-
ness of crimes overall higher than their higher socioeconomic counterparts. Piquero
et al. (2008) discovered that age and education heavily influenced how individuals
viewed the seriousness of white-collar crime. Older respondents in the Piquero study
were more likely to see white-collar crimes as equally serious as street crimes com-
pared to young respondents. The research also revealed that individuals with higher
educational levels rated white-collar crime as equally serious as street crime. Similarly,
Payne, Gainey, Triplett, and Danner (2004) found that only education was related to
punitive beliefs and punishment for white-collar crimes involving occupational haz-
ards. Schoepfer et al. (2007) noted that respondents with a higher education believed
that street and white-collar crimes should be punished equally.
More recent studies of perceptions of white-collar crime show an increased aware-
ness and concern among the public, although little is known about the role that gender
plays in public perceptions. Rossi et al. (1974) discovered no gender differences
among respondents in crime seriousness rankings. Piquero and colleagues (2008)
noted that gender had little influence on individual perceptions of the seriousness of
street and white-collar crime. Schoepfer et al. (2007), however, found that “females
were less likely to believe that the street crime of robbery should be punished more
severely and more likely to believe that both crimes [fraud] should be equally likely to
receive a severe punishment” (p. 159). While the typical white-collar offender is a
male in a position of authority, the role of women in white-collar crime has emerged
Dodge et al. 403

as an important discourse. The role of women in elite offending is changing, and their
participation in the economic and corporate world offers greater opportunities for
committing white-collar crime (see, e.g., Adler, 1975; Dodge, 2009; Simon & Ahn-
Redding, 2005). Thus, it is important to ascertain whether changing gender differences
in white-collar offending have affected public perceptions of seriousness, motivations,
and punishment, especially in regard to gender differences in perceptions.
The current study, while designed to examine perceptions of different types of
crime, offers additional insight into the role of gender and white-collar crime. Few
studies have placed gender of the offender and public opinion as a central framework,
which may deepen our understanding of how the public views male and female white-
collar offenders and what role gender plays in perceptions of wrongdoing.

Method
Participants
Data were collected in El Paso County, Colorado, between February 7 and February
28, 2011. Participants included 900 residents who had been called to serve for jury
duty. After being dismissed by the court, they were asked to volunteer to read a short
crime scenario and complete a brief survey. Over half the respondents were female
(53.2%), and a large percentage indicated some college education (35.0%). Most were
White (81.6%), with Hispanics and Blacks representing 8.5% and 5.1% of the respon-
dents, respectively. Most participants were married (63.4%) and employed (74.0%).
Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 89, with a mean age of 45. Participant demo-
graphics appear to be representative of the community’s population, although
Hispanics and Blacks are somewhat underrepresented. According to the most recent
census data, the El Paso County population is 84% White, 15% Hispanic, and 7%
Black. Among the respondents, 16% and 25.5% indicated that they had been a victim
of white-collar crime and street crime, respectively.

Instruments
Every respondent was asked to read one crime scenario, approximately 85 words long.
Each scenario described one of six crime types, either a white-collar offense (Ponzi,
embezzlement, or corporate) or a street offense (auto theft, burglary, or prostitution). The
gender of the offender was also manipulated, leading to 12 scenarios. The scenarios were
evenly distributed to the 900 respondents so that 75 respondents were assigned to each
scenario. After reading the description of the offense, respondents were asked to rate the
seriousness of the crime (1 = not very serious, 8 = extremely serious), the type of punish-
ment deserved for the crime committed (probation, monetary fine, jail, or prison), the
remorse felt by the defendant (1 = not very, 8 = extremely), and the extent to which the
crime was motivated by greed and stress (1 = not likely, 8 = highly likely).
The scenarios were designed to focus on the type of offense and the gender of the
offender (Bob or Jane Wilson) while maintaining as much consistency as possible
404 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29(3)

Table 1. Mean Perception Ratings for Each Crime Scenario.

Seriousness Remorseb Greed Stress Incarceration Appropriate

Crime Typea M F M F M F M F M F

Ponzi 7.12 6.97 2.92 2.93 7.28 7.01 4.70 4.39 0.86 0.77
Embezzlement 6.76 6.64 3.63 3.90 6.26 6.35 4.01 3.81 0.66 0.59
Corporate 6.37 6.52 3.00 3.51 6.88 6.61 4.37 4.47 0.67 0.63
Auto Theft 6.43 6.23 2.42 2.96 5.74 5.27 4.18 4.81 0.86 0.74
Burglary 6.46 6.49 3.08 2.92 5.25 5.47 4.65 4.40 0.81 0.83
Prostitution 4.93 4.59 3.00 3.38 3.41 3.44 4.92 5.11 0.23 0.26

Note: N = 900 participants, n = 75 per scenario. M = male; F = female.

aTwo-way analysis of variance results indicate that the difference in means across crime type are statistically significant

for each perception rating (p < .01). Chi-square tests suggest that the proportion of individuals supporting incarceration
significantly differs by crime type (p < .01). The gender-combined means and proportions are not shown.
bTwo-way analysis of variance results indicate that the differences in means across gender are statistically significant only

for perceptions of remorse (p < .05). Chi-square tests suggest that gender differences in the proportion of individuals
supporting incarceration are not statistically significant.

across crimes. The vignettes contained little or no detail on the specific circum-
stances of the offenses or information on the offenders’ character or motivation.
Interpretation of why the offender engaged in the action was purposely vague to
allow respondents to interpret motivation based on the criminal act or the gender of
the offender. In every case, to show guilt, the perpetrator confesses to the crime to
avoid a trial. The financial crimes included a corporate scheme by an energy com-
pany to inflate profits, embezzlement from a legal firm, and a Ponzi scheme. The
street crimes indicated that all perpetrators were unemployed and engaged in auto
theft, burglary, and prostitution to obtain money (scenarios are available upon
request from the first author).

Results
The first part of the analysis aimed to better understand public perceptions about
white-collar compared to street crimes. The 900 respondents were randomly selected
to answer questions about 1 of 12 crime scenarios. We set up two-way analysis of vari-
ance models for each of four perceptions: crime seriousness, offender remorse,
offender greed, and offender stress. Crime type and gender of offender were included
as factors in the analysis. We used chi-square tests to understand the relationships
between crime type and the respondent’s perception of appropriate punishment, as
well as the relationship between gender of the offender and the respondent’s percep-
tion of appropriate punishment. Crime type is significantly related to each of the five
perceptions (p < .01). Gender of the offender is a significant predictor of one’s percep-
tion of offender remorse (p < .05) but is not significantly related to the other four
perceptions. Table 1 displays the mean ratings of crime seriousness, offender remorse,
offender greed, offender stress, and the proportion of respondents who surmised that
incarceration was the most appropriate punishment for each scenario.
Dodge et al. 405

Substantively, our respondents perceived the six crimes as very serious offenses.
The average ratings given to these offenses ranged from 4.59 to 7.12. The Ponzi crime
scenarios received highest ratings for seriousness, while the prostitution scenarios
received the lowest ratings for seriousness. Still, respondents who were assigned the
prostitution scenario considered the offense to be a serious one. With an exception of
these particular offenses, the descriptive statistics suggest that the respondents viewed
white-collar crimes as being about as serious as street crimes.
The average level of remorse attributed to offenders described in the scenarios ranged
from 2.42 to 3.90, indicating that our respondents perceived the offenders as less than
remorseful. There were no systematic differences between the remorse levels attributed
to white-collar offenders and those attributed to street offenders. On average, however,
the offenders involved in the embezzlement scenarios were viewed as having slightly
greater remorse than the offenders described in the other crime scenarios.
The respondents were asked to rate the extent to which offender greed was respon-
sible for the criminal act described in their scenario. Every white-collar offense
received a higher rating for greed than every street offense. The white-collar crime
scenarios received average ratings of 6.26 to 7.28 for greed, while the street crime
scenarios received average ratings of 3.41 to 5.74.
Respondents also were asked to rate the extent to which the offense could be attrib-
uted to the stress level of the offender. The average level of stress attributed to offend-
ers across crime types ranged from 3.81 to 5.11. Greater levels of stress were attributed
to offenders described as prostitutes than those described as embezzlers. White-collar
offenders were not consistently viewed as having more stress than street offenders.
Finally, respondents were asked what punishment was appropriate for the offenses
described. For all but the prostitution scenarios, more than half the respondents
selected a form of incarceration (i.e., jail or prison) as the most appropriate punish-
ment. Roughly a quarter of respondents assigned to a prostitution scenario felt that
incarceration was more fitting than punishment such as probation or fines. Otherwise,
there was no consistent distinction between the punishments suggested for the white-
collar crimes and those for street crimes.

Perceptions of Offenders’ Gender

The second part of the analysis aimed to understand the extent to which the offender’s
gender influences public perception about white-collar and street offending. Our find-
ings suggest that these perceptions are not heavily shaped by gender. Respondents
rated crimes involving male offenders and crimes involving female offenders similarly
(Table 1). The extent to which the offenses were attributed to greed or stress was also
similar for male and female offenders. Furthermore, gender does not appear to signifi-
cantly influence views about appropriate punishment. Although a higher proportion of
respondents advocated incarceration for female offenders than male offenders for the
prostitution and burglary scenarios, for every other crime type, a higher proportion of
respondents supported incarceration when a male offender was involved than when a
female offender was involved. Results from chi-square tests suggest that the
406 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29(3)

relationship between gender of offender and support of incarceration is statistically

insignificant. Only perceptions of remorse were significantly predicted by the gender
of the offender. With an exception of burglary, the female offenders were viewed as
being more remorseful than male offenders across all crime types. In short, the offend-
er’s gender appears minor in shaping public perceptions of crime scenarios and does
not appear to influence the perceptions of white-collar offenders and offenses differ-
ently than it does street offenders and offenses.

The Influence of Respondents’ Gender

In the third stage of analysis, we sought to understand how the gender of the respon-
dents influenced their perceptions about white-collar crime as compared to street
crimes and whether the gender of the offender interacts with the gender of the respon-
dent to influence these perceptions. Five regression models were run for each of the
six crime types. Respondent’s gender and offender’s gender were included in the mod-
els. We allowed for interaction between the two. We also included controls for mar-
riage, employment, white-collar victimization, street crime victimization, race,
education, and age. Tables 2 and 3 display the results of the ordinary least squares
regression models for these scenarios.
Few gender differences emerge from this analysis. The results based on the white-
collar scenario (Table 2) suggest that male respondents view Ponzi scenarios as more
serious offenses compared to female respondents. On the 8-point scale (1 = not very
serious, 8 = extremely serious), an average male respondent rated Ponzi scenarios
nearly a half a point higher (0.446) than female respondents. Male respondents viewed
corporate crimes less seriously than female respondents did but only when the offender
was described as male. The reverse was true when a female offender was described,
where female respondents viewed corporate crime less seriously than male respon-
dents did. In other words, both genders viewed corporate offending by same-gender
offenders as more serious than that by other-gender offenders.
Table 3 displays the regression results for the street offenses. The findings suggest
that male respondents are more likely than female respondents to view female burglars
as remorseful. Female respondents viewed female burglars as being much less
remorseful than male burglars (by a full point). Similarly, male respondents viewed
female prostitution as less serious than male prostitution, whereas female respondents
viewed male prostitution as less serious than female prostitution. On the whole, men
viewed prostitution less seriously than female respondents did, however.
Table 4 displays the results of logistic regression models of punishment on respon-
dent’s gender, controlling for marriage, employment, white-collar victimization, street
crime victimization, race, education, and age. We include gender of the respondent and
the offender, as well as the interaction between the two. Male respondents have sig-
nificantly lower odds than do female respondents of suggesting incarceration for
offenders involved in embezzlement (0.347 times) or corporate offenses (0.277 times).
Regardless of the gender of the respondent, incarceration for auto theft has odds three
times higher (3.260) for a male offender than a female offender.
 Table 2. Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Perceptions on Respondent’s Gender for White-Collar Crime Scenarios.

Ponzi Embezzlement Corporate

Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress
Male respondent
0.446* 0.455 –0.226 0.167 0.190 0.031 –0.392 –0.045 –0.715* 0.069 –0.630 0.131
(0.256) (0.496) (0.264) (0.574) (0.293) (0.461) (0.425) (0.561) (0.398) (0.475) (0.420) (0.564)
Male offender
0.347 –0.124 0.245 0.125 0.258 0.178 –0.091 0.463 –0.854** –0.568 0.239 0.358
(0.234) (0.444) (0.242) (0.523) (0.278) (0.413) (0.387) (0.499) (0.410) (0.494) (0.437) (0.588)
Male Respondent × Male Offender
−0.326 −0.157 −0.031 0.468 −0.406 −1.150* 0.073 −0.998 1.597*** −0.164 0.398 −0.360
(0.351) (0.684) (0.363) (0.800) (0.406) (0.621) (0.576) (0.755) (0.556) (0.662) (0.586) (0.789)
Never married
−0.294 −0.162 −0.413 0.248 −0.094 0.203 −0.309 −0.036 −0.249 0.190 −0.149 −0.423
(0.252) (0.504) (0.260) (0.568) (0.286) (0.425) (0.407) (0.527) (0.414) (0.489) (0.433) (0.581)
Divorced
0.101 0.415 0.063 1.604*** 0.155 0.175 −0.142 0.064 0.088 −0.328 −0.379 −1.720***
(0.243) (0.476) (0.251) (0.543) (0.295) (0.460) (0.431) (0.556) (0.356) (0.428) (0.379) (0.514)
Employed
0.112 −0.633 −0.387* −0.830* 0.375 −1.097*** 0.236 −0.102 −0.131 0.256 −0.352 −0.338
(0.220) (0.418) (0.228) (0.493) (0.252) (0.382) (0.356) (0.462) (0.318) (0.379) (0.335) (0.451)
Victim of white-collar crime
−0.129 0.310 0.329 −0.082 0.577* −0.368 0.106 −0.562 −0.076 0.253 −0.550 −0.085
(0.235) (0.469) (0.243) (0.544) (0.337) (0.522) (0.483) (0.657) (0.432) (0.511) (0.452) (0.622)
Victim of street crime
−0.102 0.920** −0.126 0.412 0.006 0.151 0.044 0.438 0.165 0.034 0.155 0.310
(0.188) (0.368) (0.194) (0.427) (0.253) (0.384) (0.358) (0.470) (0.328) (0.388) (0.343) (0.461)

407
(continued)
408
Table 2. (continued)

Ponzi Embezzlement Corporate

Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress
White
0.022 −1.088** 0.740*** −1.114** 0.054 −0.836** 0.251 −0.171 0.407 −1.127*** −0.162 −1.054**
(0.244) (0.463) (0.252) (0.547) (0.252) (0.378) (0.352) (0.456) (0.363) (0.429) (0.379) (0.509)
College
−0.066 −0.226 −0.537*** 0.223 −0.253 −0.032 −0.501 0.092 −0.575** −0.083 −0.432 −0.274
(0.189) (0.366) (0.196) (0.425) (0.218) (0.335) (0.311) (0.407) (0.272) (0.323) (0.285) (0.386)
Age
0.019** −0.036** 0.009 −0.054*** 0.015* −0.016 −0.012 −0.025* 0.004 0.022* −0.008 −0.006
(0.007) (0.015) (0.008) (0.017) (0.008) (0.012) (0.011) (0.015) (0.011) (0.013) (0.012) (0.016)
Constant
6.229*** 4.390*** 6.820*** 8.115*** 4.256*** 7.577*** 6.522*** 5.558*** 6.735*** 2.529* 8.982*** 6.166***
(0.835) (1.619) (0.863) (1.886) (0.961) (1.447) (1.348) (1.764) (1.248) (1.478) (1.307) (1.758)
Observations
128 123 128 125 136 129 131 128 134 133 133 131
R2
.166 .193 .196 .230 .084 .177 .064 .065 .112 .109 .077 .127

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
 Table 3. Ordinary Least Squares Regression of Perceptions on Respondent’s Gender for Street Crime Scenarios.

Ponzi Embezzlement Corporate

Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress
Male respondent
−0.385 −0.692 −0.566 −0.410 −0.255 1.056** −0.061 0.979* −1.423*** −0.512 0.187 −0.076
(0.380) (0.436) (0.575) (0.595) (0.309) (0.441) (0.509) (0.538) (0.478) (0.433) (0.484) (0.537)
Male offender
−0.087 −0.966** −0.064 −0.636 −0.136 1.016** −0.035 0.777 −0.229 −0.455 −0.046 −0.064
(0.362) (0.413) (0.544) (0.561) (0.295) (0.420) (0.481) (0.507) (0.417) (0.387) (0.419) (0.471)
Male Respondent × Male Offender
0.686 0.815 0.798 0.560 0.375 −1.194** 0.302 −1.087 1.412** −0.028 0.415 −0.197
(0.509) (0.585) (0.771) (0.799) (0.423) (0.602) (0.692) (0.730) (0.677) (0.621) (0.687) (0.763)
Never married
−0.150 −0.067 −0.639 0.560 −0.896*** 0.486 −1.233** 0.667 −0.281 0.438 −1.379*** 0.948*
(0.380) (0.429) (0.566) (0.599) (0.333) (0.472) (0.540) (0.570) (0.503) (0.460) (0.507) (0.568)
Divorced
−0.380 −0.477 0.607 0.239 −0.139 0.631 0.270 0.630 0.478 0.084 0.973** 1.008**
(0.338) (0.390) (0.509) (0.525) (0.271) (0.387) (0.452) (0.477) (0.435) (0.408) (0.439) (0.489)
Employed
0.299 0.046 −0.163 −0.317 0.039 −0.310 −0.559 −0.114 0.184 0.250 0.446 −0.041
(0.276) (0.316) (0.416) (0.431) (0.253) (0.359) (0.412) (0.435) (0.400) (0.369) (0.403) (0.452)
Victim of white-collar crime
−0.182 0.795** 0.284 0.240 −0.380 0.235 −0.826** 0.319 −0.471 −0.944** 0.830 0.064
(0.305) (0.344) (0.453) (0.476) (0.237) (0.337) (0.388) (0.410) (0.520) (0.473) (0.555) (0.601)
Victim of street crime
0.086 −0.315 0.030 −0.196 0.407 0.369 −0.317 0.763* −0.035 0.257 0.423 −0.153
(0.292) (0.340) (0.448) (0.463) (0.259) (0.368) (0.421) (0.445) (0.355) (0.324) (0.361) (0.404)

409
(continued)
410
Table 3. (continued)

Ponzi Embezzlement Corporate

Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress Serious Remorse Greed Stress
White
−0.092 −0.130 0.130 0.115 0.257 −1.158*** 0.197 −0.804 0.205 0.647 0.726 0.873
(0.316) (0.366) (0.474) (0.489) (0.289) (0.410) (0.469) (0.495) (0.464) (0.422) (0.468) (0.536)
College
−0.226 −0.462 −0.019 −0.411 0.051 −0.444 −0.509 0.323 0.247 0.464 −0.861*** 0.091
(0.265) (0.310) (0.402) (0.421) (0.213) (0.305) (0.349) (0.368) (0.323) (0.295) (0.326) (0.365)
Age
0.007 0.023** −0.015 −0.012 −0.020** 0.003 −0.007 −0.037** −0.014 −0.018 −0.039*** −0.022
(0.009) (0.011) (0.014) (0.015) (0.009) (0.013) (0.014) (0.015) (0.014) (0.013) (0.014) (0.015)
Constant
5.946*** 1.722 6.028*** 5.790*** 7.240*** 2.578** 8.842*** 4.326*** 6.113*** 4.525*** 1.850 5.244***
(1.121) (1.238) (1.633) (1.684) (0.913) (1.302) (1.487) (1.570) (1.578) (1.445) (1.645) (1.813)
Observations
139 136 137 136 140 138 137 137 142 140 141 141
R2
.050 .130 .056 .066 .131 .173 .127 .144 .113 .133 .190 .091

Note: Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
Dodge et al. 411

Table 4. Logistic Regression of Incarceration Support on Respondent’s Gender by Scenario.

White Collar Crimes Street Crimes

Ponzi Embezzlement Corporate Auto Theft Burglary Prostitution

Male respondent
0.670 0.347* 0.277** 1.544 1.082 0.635
(0.527) (0.204) (0.175) (1.009) (0.774) (0.431)
Male offender
1.641 0.727 0.915 3.260* 0.835 0.732
(1.378) (0.439) (0.605) (2.271) (0.533) (0.421)
Male Respondent × Male Offender
1.638 2.245 2.549 0.497 1.962 2.410
(1.971) (1.836) (2.246) (0.486) (1.935) (2.265)
Never married
0.239* 0.812 1.690 1.233 0.446 0.272*
(0.180) (0.455) (1.092) (0.869) (0.324) (0.202)
Divorced
1.101 1.265 0.639 1.965 1.285 1.277
(0.979) (0.799) (0.348) (1.367) (0.842) (0.752)
Employed
0.122* 1.026 1.215 1.520 0.581 0.796
(0.139) (0.519) (0.583) (0.765) (0.368) (0.418)
Victim of white-collar crime
1.297 2.508 0.925 1.374 1.200 1.862
(0.953) (1.613) (0.649) (0.763) (0.653) (1.561)
Victim of street crime
3.014* 0.587 0.987 0.968 0.421 2.389
(1.896) (0.299) (0.516) (0.562) (0.294) (1.365)
White
0.641 3.273** 0.746 1.306 4.544*** 0.472
(0.572) (1.641) (0.423) (0.736) (2.620) (0.268)
College
3.225* 0.670 0.930 1.194 1.304 1.341
(2.048) (0.298) (0.392) (0.617) (0.644) (0.598)
Age
0.969 0.971* 1.019 0.999 1.002 0.958**
(0.024) (0.015) (0.018) (0.017) (0.021) (0.019)
Constant
89.659 2.499 1.426 0.444 10.217 0.463
(277.188) (4.735) (2.849) (0.881) (22.522) (1.077)
Observations
108 125 123 131 136 132

Note: Results displayed as odds ratios. Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .10. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
412 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29(3)

In short, the results of these analyses suggest that there are not systematic differ-
ences among how respondents perceived white-collar crimes versus street crimes.
Two key observations emerge from our findings. First, respondents were generally
tougher on offenders of their same gender. Female respondents viewed corporate
crime and prostitution more seriously when a female offender undertook them.
Likewise, male respondents viewed corporate crime and prostitution as more serious
when it was a male rather than female offender. Female respondents also viewed
female burglars as less remorseful than male burglars. A second key finding is that
male responders were less likely than females to suggest incarceration for two white-
collar offenses: embezzlement and corporate crimes. The gender of the offender was
insignificant. This finding hints that males may be more lenient than females on white-
collar offenders.

Conclusions
The results of the current research show that the general public perceives certain types
of white-collar crimes as very serious and some (e.g., Ponzi schemes) as more serious
than some street crimes. Among the six crime scenarios presented, Ponzi and embez-
zlement schemes were viewed as more serious compared to burglary, auto theft, and
prostitution. The findings suggest that public perceptions of white-collar crime have
changed, perhaps because of increased media attention and the high visibility of
numerous Ponzi schemes in the last 10 years. Additionally, public perceptions indi-
cated that white-collar offenders would likely be viewed as more remorseful about
their actions and more driven by greed compared to street criminals. This finding
raises interesting questions about perceptions of why people engage in crime and may
indicate distinct differences between perceptions of greed and need—an area ripe for
further investigation.
These results also suggest that the general public might be willing to support devot-
ing greater resources to fighting white-collar crime. As noted by Holtfreter, Van Slyke,
Bratton, and Gertz (2008), “although financial losses from white-collar crime continue
to exceed those of street crime, the criminal justice system has traditionally focused on
the latter” (p. 50). The focus for policy makers in crime-fighting efforts must include
allocating more resources toward prevention, identification, investigation, and prose-
cution of white-collar crime. Despite recent regulatory efforts and what appear to be
harsher sentences, white-collar crime remains a complex and often neglected area in
the criminal justice system. Overall, governmental response to white-collar crime
appears to be shifting through formal and informal responses, and the likelihood of
prosecution and harsh sentences is now a reality (Benson, Cullen, & Maakestad, 1990;
Higgin, 1999; Pontell, Rosoff, & Goode, 1994).
The men in this study were no more likely than the women to support incarceration
for white-collar offenders despite evidence that the former were less forgiving of
white-collar offenders and viewed white-collar offending more seriously than the
females did. Little consensus is found in the literature on whether men hold more puni-
tive views toward punishment, and a need exists for further research. As noted by most
Dodge et al. 413

researchers, punitive attitudes may depend on the type of crime (Holtfreter et al.,
2008). Our findings suggest a complicated reality in which gender differences in the
perceptions of white-collar crimes and criminals do not translate to more punitive
attitudes. Moreover, support for harsher sentences may be influenced by the gender of
the offender. Although respondents who were given a white-collar scenario were not
systematically more likely than those given a street offense scenario to suggest incar-
ceration as an appropriate punishment, respondents were generally more likely to sug-
gest incarceration for male offenders than female offenders.
A number of potential limitations exist in the present study. First, the use of crime
scenarios limits the number of variables that can be controlled for in any one study. In
this case, the amounts of financial loss and psychological or physical harms were
excluded. Only the type of crime (presented without great detail) and the gender of the
offender were varied across scenarios. Also, the brief description of the crime types
may have limited participants’ understanding of the nature of the offense, particularly
for the more ambiguous “corporate crime” scenario. Respondents’ interpretations of
what may or may not have transpired in the incident are unknowable. Public opinion
on perceived seriousness is known to vary according to the harm inflicted, status of the
victim, moral judgments, and offender characteristics (Brown, Esbensen, & Geis,
2007). Second, the geographic location in which this research was conducted includes
a high number of current and ex-military personnel. Whether this influenced the results
is unknown. Third, although the sample was drawn from a randomly selected jury
pool, respondents may have self-selected to participate based on any number of char-
acteristics and may not generalize to other populations.
Important to future research endeavors is further explanation of the shift of public
perceptions over time related to the seriousness of white-collar crime and what may be
an increased number of women involved. Easily proffered explanations include
increased media attention, widespread victimization, and the economic meltdown
from 2008 to 2010, but explanations for what sways public opinion and white-collar
crime remain vexing. Additionally, further research efforts exploring demographic
changes in the public education and generational differences may offer new insight
into understanding gender and crime.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
414 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 29(3)

Benson, M. L., Cullen, F. T., & Maakestad, W. J. (1990). Local prosecutors and corporate
crime. Crime & Delinquency, 36, 356-372.
Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context
(6th ed.). Newark, NJ: Anderson.
Cullen, F. T., Clark, G., Link, B., Mathers, R., Niedosial, J., & Sheahan, M. (1985). Dissecting
white-collar crime: Offense type and punitiveness. International Journal of Comparative
and Applied Criminal Justice, 9, 16-27.
Cullen, F. T., Clark, G. A., Mathers, R. A., & Cullen, J. B. (1983). Public support for punishing
white-collar crime: Blaming the victim revisited? Journal of Criminal Justice, 11, 481-493.
Cullen, F. T., Link, B. G., & Polanzi, C. W. (1982). The seriousness of crime revisited: Have
attitudes toward white-collar crime changed? Criminology, 20, 83-102.
Dodge, M. (2009). Women and white-collar crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., & Dubeck, P. J. (1993). Public perceptions of corporate crime. In
M. B. Blankenship (Ed.). Understanding corporate criminality (pp. 85-114). New York:
Garland.
Friedrichs, D. O. (2010). Trusted criminals: White collar crime in contemporary society (4th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Geis, G. (1973). Deterring corporate crime. In R. Nader, & M. J. Greed (Eds.), Corporate crime
in America (pp. 182-197). New York: Grossman.
Grabosky, P. N., Braithwaite, J., & Wilson, P. R. (1987). The myth of community tolerance
toward white collar crime. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 20, 33-44.
Green, S. P., & Kugler, M. B. (2012). Public perceptions of white collar crime culpability:
Bribery, perjury, and fraud. Law and Contemporary Problems, 75, 33-59.
Hauber, A. R., Toonvliet, L. C., & Willemse, A. M. (1988). The perceived seriousness of white
collar crime and conventional crime. Corruption and Reform, 3, 41-64.
Higgins, M. (1999). Sizing up sentences. American Bar Association Journal, 85, 42-47.
Holland, R. C. (1995). Public perceptions of white collar crime seriousness: A survey of an
Australian sample. International Journal of Comparative & Applied Criminal Justice, 19,
91-105.
Holtfreter, K., Van Slyke, S., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2008). Public perceptions of white-collar
crime and punishment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 50-60.
Isenring, G. L. (2008). Perception of seriousness and concern about white-collar crime: Some
results of an opinion survey among Swiss banks. European Journal of Crime Policy
Research, 14, 371-389.
Kane, J., & Wall, A. D. (2006). The 2005 National Public Survey on White Collar Crime.
Fairmont, WV: National White Collar Crime Center.
O’Connell, M., & Whelan, A. (1996). Taking wrongs seriously. British Journal of Criminology,
36, 299-318.
Payne, B. K., Gainey, R., Triplett, R., & Danner, M. (2004). What drives punitive beliefs?
Demographic characteristics and justifications for sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice,
32, 195-206.
Pontell, H. N., Rosoff, S. M., & Goode, E. (1994). White-collar crime. In E. Goode (Ed.),
Deviant behavior (pp. 345-371). Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Piquero, N. L., Carmichael, S., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). Assessing the perceived seriousness of
white-collar and street crimes. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 291-312.
Rebovich, D. J., & Jiandani, J. (2000). The National Public Survey on White-Collar Crime.
Richmond, VA: National White Collar Crime Center.
Dodge et al. 415

Rebovich, D. J., & Kane, J. L. (2002). An eye for an eye in the electronic age: Gauging pub-
lic attitudes toward white-collar crime and punishment. Journal of Economic Crime
Management, 1, 1-19.
Rosenmerkel, S. P. (2001). Wrongfulness and harmfulness as components of seriousness of
white-collar offenses. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17, 308-327.
Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E., & Berk, R. E. (1974). The seriousness of crimes: Normative
Structure and individual differences. American Sociological Review, 39, 224-237.
Schoepfer, A., Carmichael, S., & Piquero, N. L. (2007). Do perceptions of punishment vary
between white-collar and street crimes? Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 151-163.
Schrager, L.S., G. Geis, E. Stotland, & Short, J.F., Jr. (1980). How serious a crime? Perceptions
of organisational and common crimes. In G. Geis & E. Stotland (Eds.), White-collar crime:
theory and research (pp. 14-31). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. New York: Wiley.
Simon, R., & Ahn-Redding, H. (2005). The crimes women commit, the punishment they receive
(3rd ed.). New York: Lexington Books.
Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Author Biographies
Mary Dodge earned her doctorate in 1997 in criminology, law, and society from the School of
Social Ecology at the University of California, Irvine. She is a professor and the director of the
master of criminal justice program at the University of Colorado Denver in the School of Public
Affairs. Her articles have appeared in the International Journal of the Sociology of Law, Police
Quarterly, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, and Women & Criminal Justice. She and
Gilbert Geis coedited the book Lessons of Criminology and share authorship on the book
Stealing Dreams: A Fertility Clinic Scandal. Her book Women and White-Collar Crime was
published in 2009. Her research and writing interests include women in the criminal justice
system, white-collar crime, policing, prostitution, and courts.
Stacey J. Bosick earned her doctorate in 1999 from the Department of Sociology at Harvard
University. She is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology, with a secondary
appointment to the School of Public Affairs at the University of Colorado Denver. She is also a
research associate at the Institute for Behavioral Science at the University of Colorado Boulder.
Her work has won awards from the American Society of Criminology and the American
Academy of Criminal Justice and has appeared in Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Criminal
Justice, and the American Journal of Criminal Justice. Her research interests are in crime,
inequality, and the life course.
Victoria Van Antwerp is a lecturer for the School of Public Affairs at the University of
Colorado Denver. She is a graduate of the master of criminal justice program at the University
of Colorado Denver. Her research interests include white-collar crime and gender. Her forth-
coming work includes entries in the Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice on
Frank Scarpitti and Jeremy Bentham.