Increased Frontal Lobe Volume as a Neural Correlate of Gray-Collar Offending

• DOI: 10.1177/0022427818802337
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Date: 01 March 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Increased Frontal

Lobe Volume as a

Neural Correlate of

Gray-Collar Offending

Shichun Ling

1

, Adrian Raine

2

, Yaling Yang

3

,

Robert A. Schug

4

, Jill Portnoy

5

,

and Moon-Ho Ringo Ho

6

Abstract

Objectives: A process model of white-collar crime postulates that the etiol-

ogy of this form of crime is incomplete without consideration of individual

differences in neurobiology. Based on prior research, this study tests the

primary hypothesis that “gray-collar crime” (GCC; offending on the margin

of more serious white-collar crimes) would be associated with increased

frontal lobe volume. Secondary analyses explored which frontal subregions,

if any, would be associated with gray-collar offending. Method: Gray-collar

1

Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

2

Departments of Criminology, Psychology, and Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania,

Philadelphia, PA, USA

3

Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles, University of Southern

California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

4

School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Emergency Management, California State Uni-

versity, Long Beach, CA, USA

5

School of Criminology and Justice Studies, University of Massachusetts–Lowell, Lowell, MA,

USA

6

Division of Psychology, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore City, Singapore

Corresponding Author:

Shichun Ling, Department of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locust Walk, Suite

483, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.

Email: lings@sas.upenn.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2019, Vol. 56(2) 303-336

ªThe Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022427818802337

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

offending and blue-collar criminal offending were assessed in 129 commu-

nity males. Total frontal lobe, anterior cingulate, superior frontal, middle

frontal, inferior f rontal, and orbitofr ontal volumes were as sessed using

magnetic resonance imaging. Results: Increased frontal volume was associ-

ated with increased gray-collar offending. Frontal volume remained signifi-

cant after controlling for ethnicity, age, intelligence, whole brain volume,

and blue-collar crime covariates, explaining 4.6 percent of the variance in

GCC. Within the frontal lobe, findings were localized to superior frontal

and anterior cingulate cortex, both before and after controlling for

covariates. Conclusions: Findings provide preliminary evidence of increased

frontal volume as a neural correlate of gray-collar offending and support a

process model which hypothesizes that frontal lobe volume may provide

some individuals with an advantage in perpetrating criminal offenses in

occupational and avocational settings.

Keywords

white collar, gray collar, crime, brain, frontal lobe

White-collar crime has been broadly defined as economic offenses com-

mitted using fraud, deception, collusion, or a combination of these methods

(Wheeler, Weisburd, and Bode 1982). Although white-collar crime has

traditionally been understood as criminal offending by members of the

upper-class or elite (Coleman 1989), there has been debate about the most

appropriate definition of white-collar offending. In particular, as technology

has evolved, the marketplace has also shifted to provide more opportunities

for lower-status individuals to be entrusted with opportunities that could

prompt white-collar crimes that were traditionally limited to higher-status

individuals (Menard et al. 2011). Recent research has suggested that some

white-collar offenders (e.g., occupational offenders; Holtfreter 2005) are

middle to lower-middle class, do not specialize in one form of crime, and

also perpetrate conventional crimes (Raine et al. 2012; Weisburd, Waring,

and Chayet 2001). Scholars have now identified at least two subtypes of

white-collar crime (Friedrichs 2009): organizat ional or corporate crime

(criminal acts by individuals to promote corporate interests) and occupa-

tional crime (crimes committed by individuals on their own behalf within

their occupation). There are some crimes that are related to white-collar

offending and may have a white-collar flavor but are not at the core of what

would traditionally be considered white-collar offenses (Menard et al.

304 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 56(2)

2011). These crimes have been referred to as crimes of trust (Menard et al.

2011). These crimes of trust include occupational crimes (e.g., embezzle-

ment, employee theft) and avocational crimes (e.g., credit card fraud, check

fraud, forgery, insurance fraud, tax evasion). For this study, these crimes of

trust will be referred to as “gray-collar crimes(GCCs),” as they may be

considered marginal forms of white-collar crimes that seem to exist in a

gray area between white-collar and conventional crimes.

In contrast to conventional (i.e., blue-collar [BCCs]) crimes, white-collar

crime has been viewed as instrumental offending (Friedrichs 2009) where

offenders engage in a careful calculation of costs and benefits of offending

(Paternoster and Simpson 1993). In explaining white-collar crime, crimin-

ologists have focused on organizational norms, culture, managerial leader-

ship, decision-making, compensation, and incentives (Langton and Piquero

2007). This conceptualization stems from the predominant theory of white-

collar crime, which is sociological in nature and focuses on macrol evel

influences on individual behavior. In the first introduction to the notion

of white-collar crime, Sutherland (1940) described it as a crime committed

by an individual of respectability and high social status during the course of

his or her occupation. Although his original conceptualization emphasized

individual characteristics (e.g., respectability, high social status), his white-

collar research focused on sanctions against corporations, and sociological

and macrolevel influences such as criminogenic corporate cultures have

been the predominant explanations for white-collar criminality, while per-

sonality and individual differences have been less emphasized (Friedrichs

2009; Perri 2013; Perri, Lichtenwald, and Mieczkowska 2014). However,

there have been efforts to demonstrate that, in addition to the traditionally

studied cultural and opportunistic factors of white-collar offending, person-

ality traits and individual differences are important to consider in the etiol-

ogy of white-collar offending (Collins and Schmidt 1993; Piquero, Exum,

and Simpson 2005; Simpson 2013). Unlike their blue-collar counterparts,

white-collar offenders are thought to generally behave more rationally and

are not characterized by lack of self-control (Piquero, Schoepfer, and Lang-

ton 2010; Reed and Yeager 1996; Simpson and Piquero 2002). White-collar

offenders have been identified as having distinctive psychological charac-

teristics (Chibnall and Sanders 1977; Stotland 1977) such as lack of a moral

sense (Ross 1977). While the literature on individual differences for white-

collar offending is growing (Benson and Manchak 2014; Levi 2013), there

continues to be a gap in the literature particularly with respect to biological

correlates.

Ling et al. 305