LITERATURE REVIEW

Literature Review

Literature Review

Introduction

From 1997 to 2002 losses resulting from fraudulent behavior in the UK exceeded 600 million pounds per annum (Tonglet, 2002). The lifetime prevalence of fraudulent behavior in the UK population is 11.3% (Blanco et al., 2008). Day, Maltby, Giles, and Wingrove (2000) describe fraudulent behavior as an offence committed by persons too timid to take other criminal risks, whereas Schnieder (2005) regards fraudulent behavior as part of a broader pattern of offending - a view substantially supported by Blanco et al.'s observations (op cit). Other retail-oriented offences also involve the dishonest acquisition, use and disposal of goods and services (Callen & Ownbey, 2003), for example, changing price tags, fraudulent refunds, or ignoring laws related to intellectual property (Muncy & Vitell, 1992). Dishonest activity hurts the consumer, as retailers raise prices to cover losses and the cost of increased commercial security (Tonglet, 2002). The current study seeks to examine which general personality traits predict attitudes to fraudulent behavior and unethical consumer behaviour in an opportunistic sample of British shoppers.

Early research in this field described particular clusters of shoplifters, for example 'boosters' (criminals specialising in fraudulent behavior) and 'snitches' (occasional shoplifters) (Cameron, 1964). Such work assumes too much specificity in offenders, and more prosaic factors - youth, lower socio-economic status, being female - are often more explanatory ([Baumer and Rosenbaum, 1984], [Klemke, 1992] and [Krasnovsky and Lane, 1998]). For example, Cox, Cox, and Moschis (1990) found 30-40% of adolescents had shoplifted in the previous year. Fraudulent behavior significantly decreases with age (Klemke, 1978), reiterating general patterns of age-related decline in crime. Unethical consumer behaviour is akin to fraud. Muncy and Vitell (1992) devised a questionnaire with 27 consumer behaviour statements, which collapsed into four factors. The first was proactively benefiting at the expense of the seller (which refers to benefit that the customer receives due to their own actions, for example, returning merchandise to a store after you have damaged the item, then asking for a refund). The second was passively benefiting at the expense of the seller (where the customer receives benefit through no actions of their own, for example getting too much change). The third was deceptive practices (in which the consumer deceives the seller, for example, being economical with the truth on an income tax return). The last was defined as 'no harm/no foul' (where nobody is directly harmed by the act, e.g., recording music instead of buying it). A UK student sample found younger adults more accepting of unethical behaviour than older adults, and females less accepting of the behaviour than males (Callen & Ownbey, 2003).

Individual differences in personality and attitude

Individual differences in personality and attitude generally drive offending (Miller & Lynam, 2001), and Tonglet (2002) found attitudes the main predictor of fraudulent behavior intentions for UK respondents; as is generally the case, attitudes are effective predictors of intent (Goles et al., 2008). Recent shoplifters were more accepting of fraudulent behavior behaviour, rationalising the economic benefits, and seeing the risks of apprehension as low compared to ...