Explaining Why Cybercrime Occurs: Criminological and Psychological Theories

Several criminological and psychological theories and their empirical support for explaining cybercrime are reviewed. Social learning theory, self-control theory, and subcultural theories have garnered much empirical attention and support. Lack of moral qualms, association with deviant peers and neutralizations have consistently been associated with a wide range of cyber-offending. From routine activities theory, increased visibility is associated with higher cyber-victimization and cyber-offending across many offenses. Integrating social learning and self-control concepts, research has found that effects of low self-control on cybercrime are mediated through association with deviant peers and beliefs that the behaviors are not morally wrong. Research in the tradition of subcultural theories have discovered the norms underlying memberships in deviant groups of persistent digital pirates, hackers, and regular participants in the online illicit sex trade. Limited research has examined deterrence theory, general strain theory, or differential reinforcements in social learning theory. Future research is needed to integrate the perceived characteristics of cyberspace with the formation of attitudes and beliefs supportive of perpetration of cybercrimes, and to address the dearth of knowledge about the nature of social interactions in cyberspace and how such interactions shape real world interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 117.69 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 147.69 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Similar content being viewed by others

Unique Offender, Unique Response? Assessing the Suitability and Effectiveness of Interventions for Cyber Offenders

Cybercrime, Differential Association, and Self-Control: Knowledge Transmission Through Online Social Learning

Deviant Instruction: The Applicability of Social Learning Theory to Understanding Cybercrime

References

• Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30, 47–87. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Agnew, R. (2006). General strain theory: Current status and directions for further researches. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 121–123). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers. Google Scholar
• Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont: Wadsworth. Google Scholar
• Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence and the moral life of the Inner City. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Google Scholar
• Bachmann, M. (2007). Lesson spurned? Reactions of online music pirates to legal prosecutions by the RIAA. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1(2), 213–227. Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Google Scholar
• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Barlett, C. P., & Fennel, M. (2016). Examining the relation between parental ignorance and youths’ cyberbullying perpetration. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 7(1), 444–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.009. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Barlett, C. P., & Gentile, D. A. (2012). Attacking others online: The formation of cyberbullying in late adolescence. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(2), 123–135. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Barlett, C. P., & Helmstetter, K. M. (2017). Longitudinal relations between early online disinhibition and anonymity perceptions on later cyberbullying perpetration: A theoretical test on youth. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000149. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Barlett, C. P., Chamberlin, K., & Witkower, Z. (2017). Predicting cyberbullying perpetration in emerging adults: A theoretical test of the Barlette Gentile Cyberbullying Model. Aggressive Behavior, 43, 147–154. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Barlett, C. P., Gentile, D. A., & Chew, C. (2016). Predicting cyberbullying from anonymity. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(2), 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/ppm0000055. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bayraktar, F., Machackova, H., Dedkova, L., Cerna, A., & Sevcikova, A. (2015). Cyberbullying: The discriminant factors among cyberbullies, cybervictims, and cyberbully-victims in a Czech adolescent sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(18), 3192–3216. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626051455006. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Beaver, K. M., & Wright, J. P. (2007). The stability of low self-control from kindergarten through first grade. Journal of Crime and Justice, 30(1), 63–86. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Beccaria, C. (1764). On crimes and punishment (H. Paolucci, Trans.). Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill. Google Scholar
• Bossler, A. M., & Burruss, G. W. (2011). The general theory of crime and computer hacking: Low self-control hackers. In T. J. Holt & B. H. Schell (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology-driven crime (pp. 38–67). Hershey: IGI Global. ChapterGoogle Scholar
• Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400–420. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986213507401. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bossler, A. M., Holt, T. J., & May, D. C. (2012). Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth Society, 44(4), 500–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X11407525. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Brenner, S. W. (2012). Cybercrime and the law: Challenges, issues and outcomes. Lebanon: Northeastern University Press. Google Scholar
• Burruss, G. W., Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2012). Assessing the mediation of a fuller social learning model on low self-control’s influence on software piracy. Crime & Delinquency, 59(8), 1157–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712437915. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Chen, L., Ho, S. S., & Lwin, M. O. (2017). A meta-analysis of factors predicting cyberbullying perpetration and victimization: From the social cognitive and media effects approach. New Media & Society, 19(8), 1194–1213. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Choi, K. S. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 308. Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. K., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rates: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 214–241. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• DeLisi, M., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). New frontiers in criminal careers research, 2000–2011: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.05.001. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Donner, C. M., Marcum, C. D., Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E., & Banfield, J. (2014). Low self-control and cybercrime: Exploring the utility of the general theory of crime beyond digital piracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.040. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Felson, M. (1998). Crime & everyday life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press. Google Scholar
• Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence. New York: Elsevier. Google Scholar
• Giordano, P. C., Johnson, W. L., Manning, W. D., Longmore, M. A., & Minter, M. D. (2015). Intimate partner violence in young adulthood: Narratives of persistence and desistance. Criminology, 53(3), 330–365. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
• Grabosky, P. M. (2001). Virtual criminality: Old wine in new bottles? Social & Legal Studies, 10(2), 243–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/a017405. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Grabosky, P. N., & Smith, R. G. (2001). Digital crime in the twenty-first century. Journal of Information Ethics, 10(1), 8–26. Google Scholar
• Gunter, W. D. (2008). Piracy on the high speeds: A test of social learning theory on digital piracy among college students. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 3(1), 54–68. Google Scholar
• Harris, L. C., & Dumas, A. (2009). Online consumer misbehavior: An application of naturalization theory. Marketing Theory, 9(4), 379–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593109346895. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Henson, B., Swartz, K., & Reyns, B. W. (2017). #Respect: Applying Anderson’s code of the street to the online context. Deviant Behavior, 38(7), 768–780. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1197682. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Higgins, G. E. (2005). Can low self-control help understand the software piracy problem? Deviant Behavior, 26, 1–24. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Higgins, G. E., & Makin, D. A. (2004). Does social learning theory condition the effects of low self-control on college students’ software piracy? Journal of Economic Crime Management, 2(2), 1–30. Google Scholar
• Higgins, G. E., & Marcum, C. D. (2011). Digital piracy: An integrated theoretical approach. Raleigh: Carolina Academic Press. Google Scholar
• Higgins, G. E., Fell, B. D., & Wilson, A. L. (2006). Digital piracy: Assessing the contributions of an integrated self-control theory and social learning theory using structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice Studies, 19(1), 3–22. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Higgins, G. E., Fell, B. D., & Wilson, A. L. (2007). Low self-control and social learning in understanding students’ intentions to pirate movies in the United States. Social Science Computer Review, 25(3), 339–357. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., & Marcum, C. D. (2015). Music piracy and neutralization: A preliminary trajectory analysis from short-term longitudinal data. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(2), 324–336. Google Scholar
• Hinduja, S. (2008). Deindividuation and internet software piracy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 391–398. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0048. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hinduja, S., & Ingram, J. R. (2009). Social learning theory and music piracy: The differential role of online and offline peer influences. Criminal Justice Studies, 22(4), 405–420. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701457816. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. In R. Baumeister & K. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 537–552). New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar
• Hollinger, R. C., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1988). The process of criminalization: The case of computer crime laws. Criminology, 26(1), 101–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9124.1988.tb00834.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J. (2007). Subcultural evolution? Examining the influence of on- and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 28, 171–198. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2008). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory of cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620701876577. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2013). Examining the relationship between routine activities and malware infection indicators. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(4), 420–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986213507401. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2014). An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship. Deviant Behavior, 35(1), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.822209. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J., & Copes, H. (2010). Transferring subcultural knowledge on-line: Practices and beliefs of digital pirates. Deviant Behavior, 31(7), 625–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620903231548. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J., & Turner, M. G. (2012). Examining risks and protective factors of on line identity theft. Deviant Behavior, 33, 308–323. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & May, D. C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9117-3. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Holt, T. J., Freilich, J. D., & Chermak, S. M. (2017). Exploring the subculture of ideologically motivated cyber-attackers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 33(3), 212–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986217699100. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Irdeto (2017). Infographic: When it comes to piracy – The world needs a tutor. Downloaded on March 3, 2018 from: https://irdeto.com/index.html.
• Jang, H., Song, J., & Kim, R. (2014). Does the offline bully-victimization influence cyberbullying behavior among youths? Application of general strain theory. Concepts in Human Behavior, 31, 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.007. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kigerl, A. C. (2009). CAN SPAM act: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(2), 566–589. Google Scholar
• Kigerl, A. C. (2015). Evaluation of the CAN SPAM act: Testing deterrence and other influences of e-mail spammer legal compliance over time. Social Science Computer Review, 33(4), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314553913. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Kranenbarg, M. W., Holt, T. J., & van Gelder, J. (2017). Offending and victimization in the digital age: Comparing correlates of cybercrime and traditional offending-only, victimization-only, and the victimization-offending overlap. Deviant Behavior, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1411030.
• Leukfeldt, E. R., & Yar, M. (2016). Applying routine activities theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1012409. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Li, C. K. W., Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & May, D. C. (2016). Examining the mediating effects of social learning on the low self-control- cyberbullying relationship in a youth sample. Deviant Behavior, 37(2), 126–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2014.1004023. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Lowry, P. B., Zhang, J., Wang, C., & Siponen, M. (2016). Why do adults engage in cyberbullying on social media? An integration of online distribution and deindividuation effects with the social structure and social learning model. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 962–986. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Maimon, D., Alper, M., Sobesto, B., & Cukier, M. (2014). Restrictive deterrent effects of a warning banner in an attacked computer system. Criminology, 52(1), 33–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12028. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2011). Examining the intersection of self-control, peer association and neutralization in explaining digital piracy. Western Criminology Review, 12(3), 60–74 Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228458057_Examining_the_Intersection_of_Self-control_Peer_Association_and_Neutralization_in_Explaining_Digital_Piracy. Google Scholar
• Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Ricketts, M. L., & Wolfe, S. E. (2014). Hacking in high school: Cybercrime perpetration by juveniles. Deviant Behavior, 35(7), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2013.867721. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• McQuade, S. C. (2006). Understanding and managing cybercrime. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. Google Scholar
• Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2006). The stability and resiliency of self-control in a sample of incarcerated offenders. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 432–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705280586. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Moon, B., McCluskey, J. D., & Perez McCluskey, C. (2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 767–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.003. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Moore, R., & McMullan, E. C. (2009). Neutralizations and rationalizations of digital piracy: A qualitative analysis of university students. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 441–451 Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229020027_Neutralizations_and_rationalizations_of_digital_piracy_A_qualitative_analysis_ of_university_students. Google Scholar
• Morris, R. G. (2010). Computer hacking and the techniques of neutralization: An empirical assessment. In T. J. Holt & B. Schell (Eds.), Corporate hacking and technology-driven crime: Social dynamics and implications (pp. 1–17). New York: Information Science Reference. Google Scholar
• Morris, R. G., & Higgins, G. E. (2009). Neutralizing potential and self-reported digital piracy: A multitheoretical exploration among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice Review, 34(2), 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016808325034. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Morris, R. G., Johnson, M. C., & Higgins, G. E. (2009). The role of gender in predicting the willingness to engage in digital piracy among college students. Criminal Justice Studies, 22(4), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010903358117. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activities theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778019922181149. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century: A review of the evidence. Carnegie Mellon University Research Showcase. Downloaded on April 4th, 2018 from: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c788/48cc41cdc319033079c69c7cf1d3e80498b4.pdf. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773–793. Google Scholar
• O’Neill, M. E. (2000). Old crimes in new bottles: Sanctioning cybercrime. George Mason Law Review, 9, 237. Google Scholar
• Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2011). Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth Society, 43, 727–751. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2008). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 367–396). New York: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar
• Pratt, T. C., Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. D. (2010). Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 267–296. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Raskauskas, J., & Stoltz, A. D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 564–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.3.564. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activities theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811425539. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Roberts, J. V., & Stalans, L. J. (1997). Public opinion, crime, and criminal justice. Boulder: Westview Press. Google Scholar
• Seto, M. C. (2013). Internet sex offenders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. BookGoogle Scholar
• Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. Oxford: Appleton-Century. Google Scholar
• Skinner, W. F., & Fream, A. M. (1997). A social learning theory analysis of computer crime among college students. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(4), 495–518. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (2016a). Defining and predicting pimps’ coerciveness toward sex workers: Socialization processes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516675919.
• Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (2016b). Consulting legal experts in the real and virtual world: Pimps’ and johns’ cultural schemas about strategies to avoid arrest and conviction. Deviant Behavior, 37(6), 644–664. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1060810. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Stalans, L. J., & Finn, M. A. (2016c). Introduction to special issue: How the internet facilitates deviance. Victims and Offenders, 11(4), 578–599. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Stewart, E. A., & Simons, R. L. (2010). Race, code of the street, and violent delinquency: A multilevel investigation of neighborhood street culture and individual norms of violence. Criminology, 48(2), 569–605. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Van Wilsem, J. (2013). Hacking and harassment- Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(4), 437–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986213507042. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Vazsonyi, A. T., Machackova, H., Sevcikova, A., Smahel, D., & Cerna, A. (2012). The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(2), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2011.644919. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Vazsonyi, A. T., Mikuska, J., & Kelley, E. L. (2017). It’s time: A meta-analysis on the self-control-deviance link. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.10.001. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wall, D. S. (1998). Catching cybercriminals: Policing the Internet. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 12(2), 201–218. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wilson, T., Maimon, D., Sobesto, B., & Cukier, M. (2015). The effect of a surveillance banner in an attacked computer system: Additional evidence for the relevance of restrictive deterrence in cyberspace. The Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(6), 829–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815587761. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Wong-Lo, M., & Bullock, L. M. (2014). Digital metamorphosis: Examination of the bystander culture in cyberbullying. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 418–422. ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of ‘cybercrime’: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427. ArticleGoogle Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Psychology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Loretta J. Stalans
2. Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Christopher M. Donner

1. Loretta J. Stalans