Can Situational Action Theory Explain the Gender Gap in Adolescent Shoplifting? Results From Austria

• Author: Kyle Treiber,Helmut Hirtenlehner
• DOI: 10.1177/1057567717690199
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Date: 01 September 2017
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Can Situational Action Theory

Explain the Gender Gap in

Adolescent Shoplifting?

Results From Austria

Helmut Hirtenlehner

1

and Kyle Treiber

2

Abstract

Although shoplifting is one of the crimes with the smallest gender gap among all offense types, most

studies still conclude that males steal from shops more frequently than females. The roots of the

gendered distribution of shoplifting have not yet been satisfactorily explained. This work investigates

whether situational action theory (SAT) can account for males’ greater involvement in shoplifting

compared to females and if the propensity–exposure interaction that is at the heart of the theory

applies to both genders. Results from a large-scale student survey conducted in Austria suggest that

SAT generalizes to both genders and that it is well suited to explain why males are more likely to

shoplift than females.

Keywords

situational action theory, shoplifting, juvenile delinquency, gender

Key Research Questions

One of the few robust findings of decades of criminological research is that crime is committed

more frequently by males than by females and that this gender gap increases with the seriousness of

the offense (Junger-Tas, Ribeaud, & Cruyff, 2004; Moffitt, Caspi, Rutter, & Silva, 2001; Steffens-

meier & Allan, 1996).

1

Compared to more serious property or violent crimes, higher proportions of

female offenders are associated with milder forms of property crime, such as shoplifting (Bamfield,

2012; Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996). Indeed, shoplifting is often seen as a “pink-collar crime,” an

offense committed predominantly by females. This is consistent with the stereotype that shopping is

a female pursuit (or leisure activity) in many segments of society. However, contrary to this

assumption, most studies report higher rates of shoplifting among male s than among females

(Bamfield, 2012; Blanco et al., 2008; Farrington, 1999; Klemke, 1992; Krasnovsky & Lane,

1

Centre for Criminology, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Linz, Austria

2

Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Helmut Hirtenlehner, Centre for Criminology, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Altenberger Strasse 69, A-4040 Linz, Austria.

Email: helmut.hirtenlehner@jku.at

International CriminalJustice Review

2017, Vol. 27(3) 165-187

ª2017 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1057567717690199

journals.sagepub.com/home/icj

1998; Piquero, Gover, MacDonald, & Piquero, 2005; Tonglet, 2002; Wittenberg, 2009). Nonethe-

less, some evidence suggests that this gender gap may be shrinking: Several recent studies have

reported nearly equivalent shoplifting rates for males and females (Enzmann, 2010; Killias, Aebi,

Herrmann, Dilitz, & Lucia, 2010; Marshall & He, 2010), while others even indicate that, especially

in younger cohorts, rates among females may be beginning to surpass those among males (Wikstro¨m

& Butterworth, 2006; Wikstro¨m, Oberwittler, Treiber, & Hardie, 2012).

Along with violence and vandalism, shoplifting is one of the most common forms of adolescent

offending in contemporary European societies (Junger-Tas, 2012; Stummvoll, Kromer, & Hager,

2010; Wikstro¨m et al., 2012). It is therefore astonishing that it remains so vastly underresearched

(Wittenberg,2009). This, coupled withthe fact that shoplifting appearsto be on the rise in recent years,

renders it an important topic for criminological inquiry. Although individual acts cause little harm

2

(Bamfield,2012), they are so prevalent that overallshoplifting generates considerable economic harm.

According to theGlobal Retail Theft Barometer(The Smart Cube: Checkpoint Systems, 2015) during

2014/2015, shoplifting cost the global retail market approximately US$47 billion (0.5%of total sales)

and the European market approximately US$17 billion (0.4%of total sales). Just prior to this study—

during 2010/2011—Austrian retailers suffered losses from shoplifting amounting to US$310 million

(0.6%of total sales; Centre for Retail Research,2011). This rose to US$539 million (or 0.7%of total

sales) by 2014/2015 (The Smart Cube: Checkpoint Systems, 2015).

Shoplifting is of course not just a European issue. The United States, for example, experienced a

similar cost of shoplifting to the European market: US$13 billion in 2014/2015 (0.5%of total sales;

The Smart Cube: Checkpoint Systems, 2015). And across 30 different countries, the International

Self-Report Delinquency Study (ISRD-2; 2005–2007) showed that shoplifting was by far the most

common self-reported property crime among 12- to 15-year-olds, with 17.3%of youths reporting

having shoplifted at least once in their previous life (Marshall, 2013).

The lack of empirical attention to shoplifting, despite it being one of the most common crimes and

associated with such large financial costs (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weiss, 1981; Klemke, 199 2),

means that the overrepresentation of females among shoplifters compared to other types of offenders

has received little empirical scrutiny (for an exception, see Hirtenlehner, Blackwell, Leitgo¨b, &

Bacher, 2014, or Piquero et al., 2005). It has also been neglected in theoretical reflections and

therefore remains largely unexplained, consistent with more general criminological shortcomings

in explaining the gender dynamics of crime.

Scholars studying the relationship between gender and crime typically draw on the major crim-

inological perspectives (e.g., control theories, ge neral strain theory, differential association and

social learning theories, routine activity theory, etc.; see, e.g., Alarid, Burto n, & Cullen, 2000;

Broidy & Agnew, 1997; Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998; LaGrange & Silverman,

1999; Piquero & Sealock, 2004).

3

Most of these theories have been developed with male offenders

in mind but assume that the causes of offending are the same for males and females. Available

research generally supports this assumption, indicating that traditional theories apply equally well to

male and female offending and the same factors predict male and female crime involvement

(Agnew, 2009; Hubbard & Pratt, 2002; Moffitt et al., 2001; Wong, Slotboom, & Bijleveld,

2010). However, some studies report these factors have slightly differe nt effects on males and

females. For instance, some family and peer variables appear to be more closely related to female

offending, whereas some individual and school variables appear more closely associated with male

offending (Agnew, 2009; Steketee, Junger, & Junger-Tas, 2013; Svensson, Pauwels, Weerman, &

Bruinsma, 2016; Wong et al., 2010). This is not surprising given the complexity and interactive

nature of crime causation and the fact that many relevant factors are not evenly distributed between

males and females.

For a theory to be gender adequate, it must not only explain crime equally well for males and

females (the generalizability problem) but also explain why males commit more crime than females

166 International Criminal Justice Review 27(3)