Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

A little information goes a long way: Expertise and identity theft

Lynne M. Vieraitis a, Heith Copes b,⁎, Zachary A. Powell c, Ashley Pike c

a University of Texas at Dallas, Criminology Program, 800 W. Campbell Rd, GR31, Richardson, TX 75080, United Statesb University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1201 University Boulevard; Suite 210, Birmingham, AL 35040, United Statesc University of Texas at Dallas, United States

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 205 975 9489.E-mail address: jhcopes@uab.edu (H. Copes).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.12.0081359-1789/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 24 November 2014Accepted 5 December 2014Available online 12 December 2014

Keywords:Identity theftExpertiseCriminal decision-making

Experts have a way of seeing the world in ways that differ from novices. Research on offenders suggests that asthey develop expertise in their chosen crimes they become better skilled at recognizing opportunities andevading detection. The bulk of research emphasizes the role of criminal experience on offenders' abilities toquickly assess situations and commit crimes at that moment but little has been done to examine how expertiseinfluences crimes that cannot be committed on the spot. Our aim is to examine the importance of expertise on thecommission of identity theft (a crime that requires time to commit).Wehighlight the roles of both legitimate andillegitimate experiences in developing skills to be successful. In addition, we show how expertise not only effectscrimina\l event decisions but criminal involvement decisions (specifically persistence).

© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102. Aims of article . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113. Overview of Identity Theft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3.1. Obtaining information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123.2. Converting information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Expertise and criminal persistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125. Developing a portfolio of skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.1. Practical skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135.2. Social skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155.3. Cognitive skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Discussion and conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Introduction

A fundamental question of criminology askswhether crime requiresspecialized skills or is simply a low skilled endeavor committed withlittle thought or planning. Answers to this question have importantimplications for both theory and prevention. On one side of the debate,scholars argue that the spontaneity surrounding crime evidencesthe fact that limited skills are required to be successful (see forexample Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This argument highlights thefact that much crime seems to be unplanned and inspired primarily byopportunity. Those on the other side argue that quick decisions do not

necessarily indicate lack of forethought or skills. These scholars arguethat with growing expertise, criminals (like all people) learn to assesssituations and discern opportunities, which then permits them to actquickly. Thus, while the spontaneous nature of some criminal behaviorappears to reflect a lack of foresight and planning, it may in fact be theresult of rapid decision-making borne from in-depth knowledge.Decades of research on the role of expertise in decision making inother areas such asmedicine, sports, computer programming, and avia-tion supports this claim that the better someone is at a given task thequicker they can respond (Ericsson & Charness, 1994; Hoffman, 1996;Klein & Hoffman, 1993; Wheatley & Wegner, 2001).

As interest in the importance of criminal decisionmaking and exper-tise has increased, a sizeable body of literature has developed thatsupports the claim that expert criminals “see” the world differently

1 Exceptions include predatory sexual crimeswhere the time fromdecision to offend toenactment is more similar to frauds such as identity theft (Bourke et al., 2012).

11L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

than do novice ones (Bourke, Ward, & Rose, 2012; Carroll & Weaver,1986; Garcia-Retamero & Dhami, 2009). Generally, this researchsuggests that experienced criminals canmore easily recognize opportu-nities, assess and respond to risks, and remember features of anenvironment that are conducive (or unfavorable) to crime than cannovices (Cherbonneau & Copes, 2006; Logie, Wright, & Decker, 1992;Moore, 1984; Nee & Meenaghan, 2006; Nee & Taylor, 2000; Weaver &Carroll, 1985; Wright & Decker, 1994).

Scholars have devised various innovative quasi-experimentaldesigns to assess the role of experience in criminal decision making.One of the first examinations of the role of expertise in decision makingwas Logie et al.'s (1992) study of incarcerated burglars. The researchersfound that offenders weremore aware of cues (i.e., occupancy, security,access and relative wealth) favorable for burglary than were a controlgroup of homeowners and police officers. Moreover, when comparedto non-burglary offenders, burglars were more effective at recognizingburglary-related cues and changes in their surroundings, suggestingthat their heightened level of awarenesswas the result of their expertisewith burglary rather than a by-product of general offending (Logie et al.,1992). These findings imply that offenders' active learning experiencescommitting offenses (burglary in this case) are instrumental in theirability to identify opportunities and assess situations conducive tocrime. Thus, the burglars studied by Logie et al. (1992) displayed aheightened awareness of situational cues and were able to respondmore efficiently and effectively than non-burglars because they had de-veloped the ability to “chunk” or group these cues in long termmemory.Nee & Ward (2015) point out that, as people become experienced in abehavior (in this case burglary), they learn to recognize which cuesare relevant to a successful outcome and which cues are not. Overtime this knowledge develops into cognitive schema that allows the of-fender to respond automatically, thereby simplifying decision making.Further support for the use of expertise in decisionmaking is that expertburglars described the search of a home in terms consistentwith anoth-er key feature of expertise—automaticity (Nee & Meenaghan, 2006).Automaticity is the ability to perform a behavior without engaging ina step-by-step or conscious deliberation of each detail of the behavior(Wheatley & Wegner, 2001). Actions occur automatically in responseto a situation or set of stimuli and while the behavior may appear tosome to be spontaneous and devoid of premeditation, it is the resultof learning, repetition, and practice (Wheatley & Wegner, 2001).For example, offenders classified as “alert opportunists” act on opportu-nities they see in their daily lives that are “too good to pass up”(Cherbonneau & Copes, 2006; Topalli & Wright, 2013). Such rapiddecision making gives the impression that crime is serendipitous(Jacobs, 2010). Rather than acting on a premeditated or prolongeddecision to commit crime, alert opportunists can easily recognize goodopportunities for theftwith relative ease, evenwhen they are not direct-ly looking for opportunities. These are often opportunities non-expertssimply do not recognize.

Research on expertise also shows that to be successful and avoiddetection by law enforcement, offenders need to keep an ongoingassessment of risks by developing a situational awareness of their envi-ronment. As offenders learn to “automatically attend to and prioritizemeaningful cues” they increase their ability to recognize, encode, andstore information that may be relevant to future decisions (Nee &Ward, 2015). As this information builds in their long termmemory, ex-perienced offenders develop the ability to instantly evaluate a situationfor its potential rewards as well as risks. Although offenders face manyrisks, research indicates that experienced offenders develop a set ofspecialized skills designed to avoid detection from law enforcement(e.g., Cherbonneau & Copes, 2006; Holt, Blevins, & Kuhns, 2014;Jacobs, 1999; Jacques & Reynald, 2012; Wright & Decker, 1997). Theo-retically, this branch of research is consistent with work on restrictivedeterrence and examines the risk reduction and arrest avoidance strat-egies of offenders (Gallupe, Bouchard, & Caulkins, 2011; Jacobs, 1993,1996; Jacques & Allen, 2014). A key idea from this research is that

offenders do not passively accept risk. For example, expert shopliftersuse a range of techniques to reduce the risks associated with theircrimes, including timing their thefts with employee breaks and shiftchanges, using disguises or false identification, and constructing elabo-rate stories to escape capture (Weaver & Carroll, 1985). In addition,whereas the presence of security is typically enough to dissuade noviceshoplifters, the presence of security stimulates experts to find waysaround the security (Carroll & Weaver, 1986). In contrast, noviceshoplifters focus on specific aspects of their theft but fail to incorporatethe aggregate amount of information that factors into professionalshoplifters' decisions to steal.

Similarly, experienced drug dealers report using a number ofobservational skills (e.g., examining a buyer's physical appearance,listening for verbal clues, and testing customers by forcing drug use onthe spot) to determine whether a potential buyer is an undercover offi-cer (Jacobs, 1996). For the most part, experienced dealers believe thatyears of trafficking have given them the ability to distinguish undercoveragents from “true dope fiends” (Jacobs, 1996, p. 293). Overall, researchon restrictive deterrence suggests that offenders use experientiallylearned strategies to reduce their risks of formal detection. As offendersbecomemore proficient in their particular crimes, they develop the abil-ity to execute themautomatically and thus become free to attend to cuesthat indicate risk. In essence, they become excellent at multi-tasking,i.e., carrying out their crimes while at the same time being alert to therisks.

2. Aims of article

The notion of expert decision making has been demonstrated inempirical studies on a variety of offender types including burglars,auto thieves, robbers, drug dealers and shoplifters to name a few. Allsupport the claim that expert criminals enact their crimes differentlythan novice ones and these differences are largely due to their posses-sion of experience driven cognitive, emotional, and behavioral compe-tences. Although the literature on expertise in offending is growing,the majority of research focuses on street crimes. For the most part,offenders who commit street crimes do so relatively quickly; that is,they can recognize an opportunity, commit the offense, and escape de-tection within a matter of seconds or minutes. To date, little researchhas focused on the role expertise plays in crimes that require moretime and planning to complete successfully.1 This is important becauseaspects of expertise (e.g., automaticity, chunking, multi-tasking, and sit-uational awareness)will likely differ based on how the crime is enacted.Additionally, the learning and experience that leads to expertise instreet offending is almost solely based on the learning of, and priorexperience with illegal behavior. Thus, the commission of successivecriminal acts is necessary to become a better criminal. Such is not thecase for many frauds, where experience in the legitimate work worldprovide both opportunities and know how.

In light of these limitations in the offender expertise research, ouraim is to examine the role expertise plays in the commission of identitytheft. The crime of identity theft differs from street crime in two impor-tant ways: (1) the time required to successfully complete identity theft,including the acquisition of information and the conversion of that in-formation, is longer and (2) identity thieves learn their skills throughprior experience in legitimate as well as illegitimate work. Through aqualitative content analysis of research on identity theft (and fraudmore generally) we seek to pinpoint the broad skills they develop tobe successful and relate them to more general expertise concepts.Doing so allows us to elaborate on theways that expert identity thievessee the world differently than do novices. It also allows us to encouragefurther avenues of research on experience and decision-making.

12 L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

3. Overview of Identity Theft

The Identity Theft Assumption and Deterrence Act (ITADA), passed in1998 in the USA, states that identity theft occurs when a person “know-ingly transfers, possesses or uses, without lawful authority, a means ofidentification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid orabet, or in connection with, any unlawful activity that constitutes a vio-lation of Federal law, or that constitutes a felony under any applicableState or local law.” The term “means of identification” is defined as“any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction withany other information, to identify a specific individual.” Because identi-ty theft involves two separate elements, the theft of information and thefraudulent use of that information, schemes range from the simple tothe complex, may be committed by offenders working alone orin groups, and are committed by an array of offenders, includingemployees of legitimate businesses to common street offenders.2

Moreover, although identity fraud cannot occur without identity theft,identity theft is not always followed by identity fraud; the two compo-nents may be committed by separate offenders with different skillsdepending on the complexity of the crime.

3.1. Obtaining information

There are a number of techniques and strategies that identity thieveshave developed to steal victims' personal identifying informationincluding low tech (offline) and high tech (online) methods (Copes &Vieraitis, 2012). Offenders obtain this information from wallets, purses,homes, cars, offices, and businesses or institutions that maintain cus-tomer, employee, patient, or student records. Social security numbersprovide instant access to a person's personal information and arewidelyused for identification and account numbers by insurance companies,universities, cable television companies, military identification, andbanks.3 The thief can steal a wallet or purse, work at a job that affordshim/her access to credit records, purchase the information from some-one who does (e.g., employees who have access to credit reporting da-tabases commonly available in auto dealerships, realtors' offices, banks,and other businesses that approve loans), or find victims by stealingmail, sorting through the trash, or by searching the Internet (Duffin,Keats, & Gill, 2006; Gill, 2007). Organized rings may “plant” an employ-ee in a mortgage lender's office, doctor's office, or human resourcesdepartment to access information (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012). Otherthieves have reported buying information from other offenders suchas prostitutes, burglars, drug addicts, and other street hustlers (Copes& Vieraitis, 2012; Duffin et al., 2006).

Some offenders create elaborate schemes to dupe victims into re-vealing their personal information both on and offline. For example,Copes & Vieraitis's (2012) interviews with identity thieves found thatsome of them constructed sophisticated ploys to induce victims to re-veal personal information such as setting up fake employment sites orbusinesses, while others simply convinced a friend or relative to helpthe offender out of a difficultfinancial situation.Onlinemethodsmay in-clude hacking into businesses that maintain information legitimately orthrough the use of phishing, which involves spam email campaigns thatsolicit information from would-be victims. Underground websites andforums sell stolen information (e.g., credit card and bank accountnumbers) for relatively cheap prices (Holt & Lampke, 2010). Othertechnology-based approaches include pharming—hackers installingma-licious code to redirect victims to fraudulent websites—and smishing inwhich thieves use text messages to lure consumers to websites or

2 Identity theft occurs when an offender steals a victim's personal identifying informa-tion, such as a social security number, birth certificate, or driver's license, whereas identityfraud occurs when an offender uses the stolen information to open credit card accounts,bank loans, or to deposit counterfeit checks andmakewithdrawals from the victim's bankaccount (Koops & Leenes, 2006).

3 Increasingly, businesses and educational institutions have discontinued the use of so-cial security numbers as a means of identification but some still maintain the practice.

phone numbers. Offenders are seemingly adept at developing newmethods as they adapt to target hardening by consumers andbusinesses and as they identify new sources of data containing valuableinformation (Vieraitis & Shuryadi, forthcoming).

3.2. Converting information

Once an identity thief is in possession of a victim's information thereare a number ofways inwhich itmay be used to gain cash and/or goods.Some thieves use the information to order new credit cards or toconvince the credit card agency to issue a duplicate card on an existingaccount. They use credit cards to buymerchandise for their ownpersonaluse, resell the purchased merchandise to friends and/or acquaintances,or to return the merchandise for cash (Copes & Vieraitis, 2009a, 2009b,2012; Duffin et al., 2006). Offenders also use the checks that are routinelysent to credit card holders to deposit in the victim's account and thenwithdraw cash or open new accounts. Additionally, identity thieveshave been known to apply for credit cards at department and home im-provement stores using a stolen identity. Other common strategies forconverting information into cash or goods include producing counterfeitchecks, opening new bank accounts to deposit checks, withdrawingmoney from an existing account, or applying for and receiving loans(e.g., home mortgage and car loans) (Copes & Vieraitis, 2009b, 2012;Duffin et al., 2006). In addition, some offenders use information to securegovernment benefits such asMedicare/Medicaid and Social Security andDisability (Copes & Vieraitis, 2009a, 2009b, 2012). There are numerousmethods that offenders can rely on to steal and convert information forfraudulent purposes, many of which require a degree of skill to accom-plish successfully.

4. Expertise and criminal persistence

Muchof the theoretical research on expertise and crime is consistentwith research using a rational choice framework (e.g., Clarke & Cornish,1985; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). The assumption most scholars who ex-amine expertise and crime make is that through deliberate practice(Nee&Ward, 2015) offenders learn to assess and respond to opportuni-ties for crime and then enact their crimes accordingly. They learn torecognize risk, assess rewards, and enact the crime in such a way thatrisks are reduced and rewards are improved (Nee & Taylor, 2000).Consequently, the bulk of this research falls into what rational choicetheorists refer to as criminal event decisions, which include decisionsrelating to target selection, enactment, and disposal.

We believe that in addition to enhancing our understanding ofenactment decisions, research on expertise can provide insights into in-volvement decisions. The concept of involvement decisions is a theoret-ical tool for analyzing the various stages of a person's historywith crime,which consists of three stages: initiation, persistence, and desistance(Clarke & Cornish, 1985; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). When making thechoice to commit crimes, offenders must first decide when they areready to commit a crime (initiation), whether they should continuecommitting crime (persistence), andwhether they should stop commit-ting crime altogether (desistence). Decades of research on involvementdecisions has shown the various background factors and situational in-ducements that attract people to crime, encourage them to persist, andeventually give it up (Blokland & Nieuwbeerta, 2005; Greenberg, 1991;Laub & Sampson, 2003; Piquero, Farrington, & Blumstein, 2007). Inter-estingly, the bulk of this research focuses on the initiation into anddesistence from drug use, crime, and delinquency. Relatively little hasfocused on the middle part of criminal careers—persistence.

Much of our review focuses on the factors that contribute to identitythieves learning to make their crimes financially rewarding and rela-tively risk free. While this has implications for criminal event decisionswe think it has important implications for criminal involvementdecisions as well. We believe the expertise they develop from commit-ting their crimes ultimately encourages them to continue offending

4 The discussion of skills is based on data from interviews with offenders and is there-fore focused primarily on low tech or offline identity thefts. The cyber identity thief hasa different set of practical skills (i.e., hacking into large databases) as well as social skillsbecause they rarely, if ever, come into contact with their victims. The offenders who useinformation from these data breaches may, however, possess similar practical and socialskills of low tech identity thieves (who acquire their information offline), because they al-so convert it in the marketplace and thus come into contact with employees of financialinstitutions and businesses.

13L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

(Copes & Cherbonneau, 2014). We argue that the mental calculation ofcosts and benefits of crime is a subjective process and the relevantvariables are constantly being reassessed. With experience and theresulting expertise, risks that seemed too severe one day can be un-heeded the next day. Correspondingly, rewards that once were viewedas minimal can eventually turn offenders' heads under new circum-stances. Improved professionalism and skills and changing risk assess-ments build identity thieves' confidence in their abilities to besuccessful and increase their commitment to crime.

First, as offenders develop a sense of professionalism and refine theirskills they increase their chances of being successful at any given crime.Knowing how to overcome security devices, enter places withoutattracting attention, and dispose of ill-gotten gains provides offenderswith a perception of invulnerability. For identity thieves the variousarrest avoidance strategies and skills required to acquire and convertinformation are important mechanisms for side-stepping formal detec-tion and the corresponding sanctions (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012). Themastery of their crafts may be why so few offenders express fearabout detection or legal consequences when questioned (Shover,1996; Shover & Honaker, 1992). Indeed, impunity leads to overlyoptimistic views of their potential and continued success as criminals(Cusson, 1993; Paternoster, Saltzman, Chiricos, & Waldo, 1982).Offenders in general, and identity thieves specifically, often believethat they can continue offending without consequence by simply rely-ing on their experientially developed skills (Copes & Vieraitis, 2009a,2012; Duffin et al., 2006). Even those who are arrested and convictedfor their crimes often maintained that they were skilled thieves andthat their arrests were merely due to dumb luck, situational sloppiness,or informants rather than their own failings (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012;Duffin et al., 2006).

Second, as offenders gain a sense of professionalism and develop ex-pertise they are better able to make sense of their crimes, which makesthe commission of crimemore palatable due to the reduction in fear andanxiety that often accompany felonious activities. Interviews withstreet-level offenders of various types show that they often experiencefear and anxiety when contemplating and carrying out their crimes—at least in the early stages of their careers (Hochstetler & Copes, 2003;Lejeune, 1977). These emotions must be managed if offenders aregoing to persist with their crimes, but doing so can be daunting.Undoubtedly, the anxiety, fear, and paranoia that accompany crimeare what deter most people from engaging in this risky behavior. Expe-rience allows expert offenders to purge these emotions from their mindwhen committing crime (Bennett &Wright, 1984;Gill, 2000). To be suc-cessful at identity theft, fraudsters must often walk into banks withfraudulent checks and identification or directly interact with thoseexamining their behaviors. This can cause even the most experiencedoffenders to be overcome with fear and panic and being incapable ofmanaging these emotions means that their careers in crime will beshort-lived. Expertise and the accompanying improved skills and think-ing lead identity thieves (and likely other offenders as well) to viewtheir actions as low risk and gives them the peace of mind that comesfrom having control over a situation.

Finally, many identity related crimes can be complex and often in-volve multiple steps and a wide range of skills. This multi-stage processmeans it takes more time, effort, and know-how to commit than mostother financially motivated crimes. Thus, identity theft likely involvesmore sunk costs into becoming an expert. This extra level of effort,skill and reward act in concert to maintain the behavior, as offendersmay not want to quit to recoup their investment. In the next section,we discuss the skills used by identity thieves to commit their crimes.

5. Developing a portfolio of skills

Regardless of the methods used to commit identity theft, expertisein their chosen style of fraud increases their success at obtainingmoney and avoiding detection. Unlike street crimes, where expertise

is garnered almost exclusively from engaging in illegal behaviors,identity thieves learn their skills from both illegitimate and legitimateactions. Some identity thieves learn their skills through their experi-ences with fraud or other criminal endeavors (such as purse snatchingor counterfeiting identity cards for undocumented workers), whileothers learn their skills through legitimate work experiences as banktellers, credit card customer service representatives, or mortgage loanofficers (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012). For many identity thieves expertisewas developed from working in department stores, mortgage compa-nies, department ofmotor vehicle agencies, and numerous other formalorganizations that dealt regularly with credit and loans. For a range offrauds, employment in legitimate work worlds can provide would-beoffenders with the necessary background and experience to be success-ful (Cressey, 1953; Gill, 2007; Nguyen & Pontell, 2010; Zeitz, 1981).

Though many contemporary criminologists characterize criminalacts as requiring little skill or planning and criminals as impulsive andshort sighted (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), ethnographic research oncon-men, thieves, and hustlers counters such claims (Cressey, 1953;Garcia-Retamero & Dhami, 2009; Nee & Taylor, 2000; Nguyen &Pontell, 2010; Shover, Coffey, & Hobbs, 2003; Shover, Coffey, &Sanders, 2004). This body of research suggests that criminals have aportfolio of skills that they develop and improve with experience andthat this portfolio is different from those who lack criminal proficiency(Steffensmeier &Ulmer, 2005, p. 128). Research on identity thieves sup-ports the claim that they too have a set of skills and expertise that enablethem to handle themselves in situations in which they are portrayingsomeone they are not (i.e., their victim) and the technical know-howthat enables them to profit from their thefts. Learned through employ-ment in the legitimate economy and participation in the illegitimateeconomy, the skills and expertise needed to enact frauds such as identi-ty theft efficiently include: (1) practical skills, (2) social skills, and(3) cognitive skills.4 As shown in Table 1, the skills overlapwith four pri-mary expertise concepts (chunking, automaticity, multi-tasking, andsituational awareness).

5.1. Practical skills

To be successful at identity theft, the culprit must possess a minimallevel of offense related practical skills or have established relationshipswith those who do. These skills include both knowledge of how to stealinformation and knowledge of financial and payment systems such asbanks, mortgage processing, and credit card and check verificationsystems used by stores. The technical knowledge varies by themethodsindividuals choose to use to steal information and convert it into cash orgoods, but it typically includes the ability to produce fraudulentdocuments such as identification cards and checks. Although Lemert(1958, p. 143) claimed that the skills required to pass a bad check are“not of a high order,” modern technological advancements andprevention efforts have made duplication increasingly more difficultand complex (Duffin et al., 2006).

Current security measures have made counterfeiting checks andidentifications more difficult than in the past. Producing identificationcards and fraudulent checks requires offenders to be skilled in securingtheproper equipment and supplies and in replicatingwatermarks,mag-netic strips, and matching ink. When discussing their skills, somefraudsters describe counterfeiting checks as an art form that requirescareful study and practice to be successful (Gill, 2007). This dedicationto their craft is evidenced by the practice they put into developing

Table 1Features of expertise in identity thieves.

Portfolioof skills

ID thieves Elements of general expertise

Practical skills • Knowledge of how to steal information• Knowledge of financial and payment systems• Ability to produce fraudulent documents• Getting proper equipment and supplies for counterfeiting• Knowledge of formal and informal business practices

• Chunking• Automaticity

Social skills • Convincing others of legitimacy and trustworthiness• “Reading” others• Ability to respond to problems when they arise• Verbal and nonverbal control of the situation• “Fitting in” to the environment

• Automaticity• Situational Awareness & Selective Preconscious Attention• Multi-tasking

Cognitive skills • Intuitive knowledge of opportunities to offend• Knowing where good information can be found• Recognizing potential problems before they happen

• Automaticity• Chunking• Situational Awareness & Selective Preconscious Attention• Multi-tasking

5 This knowledge network is similar to the way sexual predators discuss their skillsamong each other, expanding their personal knowledge base (Bourke et al., 2012).

14 L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

their skills (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012, p. 112). Over time, offendersbecome adept at producing a range of documents needed to commitfraud. Without a doubt, identity thieves need abilities and skills to rep-licate official looking documents and identification. With the properequipment, and persistence, expert fraudsters have mastered the artof counterfeiting documents, at least to the degree needed to foolmost people. Though anti-counterfeiting measures have made someitemsmore difficult to counterfeit (e.g., currency) other items are easilycounterfeited with the right skills and equipment. As the use of biomet-ric data to secure information becomes more widespread, however, itremains to be seen how offenders will adapt and whether new skillswill be developed to overcome these target hardening measures.

After acquiring information and converting it into the documentsneeded to complete fraud, identity thieves still need a working knowl-edge of how various commercial, financial, and governmental institu-tions work to cash in on their crimes. Depending on what they wantto do with the stolen information (e.g., receive medical benefits, applyfor store credit, cash checks, or buy a home) the offender needs toknow how stores, banks, credit agencies, mortgage companies, andother businesses and agencies work. Early studies of embezzlers foundthat offenders usually committed their crime once they had establishedthemselves as a reliable and honest worker within the workplace(Peterson, 1947). Because of their position within an institution oftrust, embezzlers were inherently aware of what needed to be done todisguise their offending from investigation (Benson, 1985; Cressey,1953; Schuchter & Levi, 2013; Zeitz, 1981). The offenders interviewedby Benson (1985) described their deviant behavior as “followingestablished and necessary industry practices,” indicating that priorexperience within a legitimate field aids in the commission of white-collar crime (or is at least justified as such). Similarly, check forgers pos-sess knowledge of local bankpractices and hours to target specific bankswhen security lapsed into a relaxed level of awareness (Lemert, 1958).By working within a legitimate field, offenders are able to identifywhere funds can be dug up, suggesting that their theft would not be de-tected by outsiders (Willot, Griffin, & Torrance, 2001). This ability toidentify lucrative opportunities is found in the research on Medicarefraud, where physicians may order unnecessary and costly tests andtreatments to extract a larger payment from the government (Pontell,Jesilow, &Geis, 1982). It is from their in-depth knowledge fromworkingwith the system that they are able to exploit vulnerabilities. Nguyen andPontell's (2010) study of mortgage fraudsters also found that offenders'deep knowledge of industry practices enabled them to pass question-able loan applications through lending institutions. Such findingsreinforce the idea that much of the expertise of identity thieves iscultivated through legitimate work experience.

For some identity thieves, their personal experiences openinglegitimate accounts, such as checking accounts, applying for creditcards, and opening utilities was enough for them to have an adequate

level of knowledge to be successful. In other cases, a higher level of skillswas needed to commit fraud. According to identity thieveswho commitmortgage fraud with stolen client information, it is important tounderstand how title companies, funding agencies, and banks function(Copes & Vieraitis, 2012).

Experienced identity thieves also learn formal (and informal)business practices so that they can better exploit vulnerabilities. Theylearn bank policies for depositing checks and withdrawing money. Forexample, knowing the maximum amount of money a check could becashed for without managerial approval aids their success. They learnwhich stores will accept checks without identification andwhich storeswill not. They also learn which places grant credit with minimal back-ground checks. The process of learning the practical skills associatedwith the successful completion of identity theft enables them to buildexpertise in their crime. As offenders learn the business practices offinancial institutions and retail establishments, they become more pro-ficient at recognizing important patterns (e.g., a cashier at a particularretail chain is required to ask for identification if the transaction is great-er than a specific amount). Offenders begin to chunk or groupmemoriesof these policies in long termmemory, which enables them to develop ageneralized pattern of how to deal with specific businesses or financialinstitutions. Knowing this information allows offenders tominimize therisks and at the same time maximize the potential financial gains oftheir crimes. By building the practical skills associated with identitytheft, the offender develops the ability to respond automatically whenenacting their crimes. Identity thieves often target specific departmentand grocery stores because they know which ones are the least likelyto follow protocols or which will give cash back with little hassle. Thisdegree of knowledge of local stores is important and is passed aroundamong thieves5 or is learned through routine business transactions. Ex-pert identity thieves recognize the importance of knowing the systemsthey are defrauding. For example, in a grocery store an offender mayspend a lot on groceries, but ask for only a small amount of cash backon the transaction to obtain money without drawing attention from acashier. Such practices of changing the way they enact the frauds areconsistent with research on risk reduction and arrest avoidance strate-gies, which are developed based on experience and expertise (Jacobs,1993, 1996).

Unlike most street offenders, identity thieves do not necessarily acton the spur of the moment as the crime typically involves more timeand planning to commit. The exception is the offender who steals iden-tifying information as part of another crime. For example: the burglarwho in addition to cash, guns, and jewelry, also steals a victim's driver'slicense, social security card, or other similar documents found in thehome. Such offenders may sell the information to others who may in

15L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

turn use it to produce additional identifying documents or to commitother types of fraud. Thus, while the experienced burglar may be dem-onstrating a level of expertise in the crime of burglary, the theft of infor-mation requires no additional expertise or knowledge of identity theftper se just the knowledge that other items such as drivers' licenseshave value. Identity thieves who steal information from their place ofemployment or those who steal from mailboxes or trash cans displayskills through their ability to recognize valuable information whenthey see it as in the case of an employee with legitimate access, orknow where to find it as is the case with “dumpster divers” (i.e., thosewho search for identifying information that has been disposed).

5.2. Social skills

In addition to practical skills, most identity thefts and frauds requirethe ability to present oneself as someone he or she is not (e.g., an ac-count holder at a bank or the card holder in a store) and in doing somust possess certain social skills. Identity thieves have reported that en-tering businesses to commit fraud is one of the most stressful parts inthe enactment of crime and the expert offender is able to regulatetheir emotions and maintain a calm demeanor (Copes & Vieraitis,2012). The offender's capacity to regulate their emotional state allowsthem to give the appearance of being “normal” (Bourke et al., 2012;Ward, 1999). In other words, when the identity thief is beingquestioned before or during a transaction, their skill in emotional regu-lation is crucial to a successful outcome (Bourke et al., 2012; Ward,1999). These skills include the ability to convince others through wordor deed that the fraudster is honest and trustworthy and the ability toread others and respond to problems that arise when others becomesuspicious. The ability to manipulate the social situation through verbaland non-verbal communication is perhaps one of the most importantskills that identity thieves must master. At the most basic level, identitythieves possess the ability to pass as regular customers in stores andbanks and be the person they claim to be. If they are toward off unwant-ed suspicion and resistance, they must be able to construct a larcenoussituation as real and remove any doubts about its legitimacy. Thieveslearn to adapt to changing situations by using deference and respect,being chatty and friendly, acting naive or puzzled, or exhibiting confi-dence and assertiveness depending on how the situation unfolds—anddoing so under stressful conditions. When interacting with bank andstore employees identity thieves need to be adaptable and appear au-thoritative in any situation (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012). As an identitythief interacts with an increasing number of people within financialand retail institutions, it is important to produce a cover, meaning thatone should act as if nothing suspicious or illegal is occurring. Overtime, the identity thief develops a body of experience in these types ofsituations and can easily adapt and respond quickly. This ability to re-spond quickly in any number of situations likely involves a considerableamount of automaticity (Nee &Ward, 2015; Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977).Someoffenders report switching their demeanor and appearance on thefly to blend into their environment to avoid detection and suspicion(Copes & Vieraitis, 2012, p.114).

Social skills take on even more importance in situations in whichconflict arises and offenders often describe the importance of beingable to manipulate people and situations with both verbal and nonver-bal behaviors. Offenders note that alterations as small as adding anaccessory or wearing makeup are important details that they mightuse to “look the part” and take command of the situation (Copes &Vieraitis, 2012).

The use of social skills by identity thieves to perpetrate their crimesis similar to the skills used by the con men described by Maurer (1940)and others (Cressey, 1950, 1953; Nguyen & Pontell, 2010; Shover et al.,2003, 2004; Zeitz, 1981). In this sense identity thieves fit portrayals ofcon men who “cultivated the social side more than any other criminalgroup. They are able to fit in unobtrusively on any social level”(Maurer, 1940, p. 186). Because of the interactions typically required

of someone of high social status, it becomes important for the individualto establish an image of a trusted and social individual. Doing so alsoassists in displacing any suspicion of wrong doing directed towardthem and thus delays detection of criminal activity.

Many fraudsters describe feeling excited and charged wheninteractingwith other people, whether they are trying to sell invaluablegemstones over the phone (Shover et al., 2003; Shover et al., 2004), pro-cess a loan with fraudulent information (Nguyen & Pontell, 2010), orcash checks from another person's account (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012).In each of these scenarios, the offender performs an interview,displaying themselves to their victims as a trusted individual. The of-fender must appear to be trustworthy, reliable, and friendly, key factorswhen establishing a relationship with new people. As they continue totalk with their victims, each offender is selling his or her personality.Without the development of this image, it becomes difficult for an of-fender to sell their fraudulent goods and services; they must learn tosell themselves first. Indeed, one of themost important skills of identitythieves is their ability to fit in wherever they go and to be the peoplethey claim to be.

5.3. Cognitive skills

Possessing the social skills necessary to fit in and respond to a varietyof situations also involves a heightened sense of sensitivity and aware-ness of one's surroundings. Continued commission of crime typicallyleads offenders to develop a change in the way they think about andprocess opportunities for crime. The development of situational aware-ness is one such change in which an offender may semiconsciouslycollect and analyze crime-relevant cues in their surroundings to beused at a later date (Nee &Ward, 2015). This appears to be true for iden-tity thieves as well (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012). Experienced identitythieves often claim that they possess an intuitive ability to be sensitiveto and aware of their surroundings (in regards to identity theft) that ismore developed than the average person. That is, they develop the abil-ity to “be observant and sensitive to circumstances and opportunitiesfor illicit gain, and know when to take advantage of them and when todesist” (Steffensmeier, 1986, p. 190). This intuitive ability for crime isreminiscent of other similar abilities such as court sense for basketballplayers and a coup d'oeil among military generals. For criminals thisability has been given many names including larceny sense, griftsense, or intuitive sense (Faupel, 1986; Maurer, 1940; Sutherland,1937).

Experienced fraudsters often claim that they have the ability to“know”where good personal information (e.g., account numbers, socialsecurity numbers, and drivers' licenses) can be found, which employeescan be taken advantage of, and intuit trouble prior to its occurrence. Anidentity thief interviewed by Duffin et al. (2006) described his rule ofthumb when withdrawing money from his victims' bank accounts: “ifyou were being kept waiting for more than twominutes you had suspi-cions that you were being checked—you would be in the nearest taxiand be gone—never go back to the bank again.” Identity thieves also dis-cuss gut feelings when committing their crimes (Copes & Vieraitis,2012). Listening to their gut feelings is a benefit gained from the abilityto multi-task. Thus, expertise in identity theft allows the offender todirect automatically the bank transaction while at the same timeconscious attention can be paid to the many situational factors such asthe mood of the bank teller, the time it took process a transaction, andplanning, if cues indicate, a quick escape. The general belief is thatonce someone has engaged repeatedly in identity theft they learn to“sense” when something is not right or too risky.

Despite the lack of obvious warning signs of impending danger, ex-perienced fraudsters often believe that their intuitive senses will keepthem safe when getting information, finding reliable partners, walkinginto banks, and avoiding security. In fact, it is not uncommon forconvicted offenders to claim that if they had paid closer attention to

16 L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

their premonitions theywould not have been caught (Copes & Vieraitis,2009a, 2012).

While most thieves are unable to articulate fully what they mean byintuition, when pressed it appears that it is the ability to assess risk andrecognize opportunity based on experience.6 Their prior dealings withthefts are thought to give them the ability to read situations and actaccordingly. This is consistent with Bargh's (1994) conceptualizationof automaticity and the argument that behavior triggered by environ-mental cues that are strongly associated with risks or rewards seem tobe “chronically accessible.”However, even thosewho are adept in socialsituationsmay falter in themidst of anxiety caused by being in stressfulsituations. It is in these situations that practice and experience, coupledwith a natural demeanor, help alleviate anxiety and allows many ofthese seasoned thieves to present themselves as legitimate customers.Doubtless, those who continuously play high stake games are betterable to keep their bearings and monitor surroundings than those whoare criminal novices.

6. Discussion and conclusion

Our aim was to contribute to the growing body of literature on therole of expertise in crime by examining the ways that expertise influ-ences the decisions made by identity thieves. The bulk of research onexpertise in offending is concentrated on street crime and highlightsthe fact that experts enact their crimes and see opportunities and risksdifferently from non-experts. However, crimes such as identity theftand fraud differ from most street crimes (e.g., burglary, robbery, andauto theft) in ways that affect the role of expertise in decision making.First, the time required to successfully complete identity theft is longerthan most street crimes, which are committed relatively quickly. Thelength of time it takes to complete identity theft (from deciding to com-mit crime, to obtaining information, to converting said information)means that cognitive processes such as automaticity may be lessrelevant for frauds than for street crimes. However, this may dependon how the theft of information and fraudulent use of the informationare accomplished. Expert identity thieves have the ability to respondquickly or automatically in situations in which their legitimacy isbeing questioned (e.g., a bank teller asks for additional identification).Thus, while some aspects of identity theft suggest that certain elementsof expertisemay not come into play, other features suggest that they arerelevant. Second, identity thieves learn their skills through their priorexperience in legitimate as well as illegitimate work whereas streetoffenders typically learn exclusively through their experience throughthe latter. Although it is true that some street offenders learn to stealcars or get past security systems from employment in the legitimateeconomy, it is relatively rare when compared to skills learned to com-plete identity theft. These two factorsmake identity theft an interestingcrime to examine in the context of expertise and decision-making.

The research on identity thieves is limited as of this writing and ourreview draws heavily on thework of Copes and Vieraitis (2009a, 2009b,2012), Duffin et al. (2006), and Gill (2000) for evidence of expertise inthe decision making process. Although our findings are consistentwith research on other fraudsters (Cressey, 1953; Nguyen & Pontell,2010; Zeitz, 1981) and street offenders (Copes & Cherbonneau, 2006;Jacobs, 1993, 1999; Logie et al., 1992; Nee &Meenaghan, 2006), we rec-ognize that the limitations in the data on identity thievesmake drawingsolid conclusions difficult (for a full discussion of the data limitations ofidentity theft and identity thieves, see Copes & Vieraitis, 2012; Vieraitis,Copes, & Birch, 2013; Vieraitis & Shuryadi, forthcoming).We do, howev-er, offer some insight into the role that experience in legitimate andillegitimate economies plays in the development of the practical, social,and cognitive skills offenders develop and how these skills foster their

6 Other researchers have also demonstrated that once cognitive processes become au-tomatic and stored in long-term memory, they become more difficult to articulate(Logan, 1988; Nee & Meenaghan, 2006).

continued participation, or persistence, in identity theft. To date, mostresearch on expertise focuses on criminal event decisions of offendersand neglects the role that it plays in involvement or persistence deci-sions. Both types of decision making are important for understandingwhy offenders act as they do and for developing policies designed tocontrol crime.

Our review of the basic methods of obtaining information andconverting it into cash or goods demonstrates the wide range of skillsrequired to accomplish the crime successfully. Depending on themethods chosen by the offender, the commission of identity theft canbe relatively easy or quite complex. However, regardless of the chosenmethod, all require a certain degree of skill. Unlike for most streetoffenders, these skills are learned through both the identity thieves' par-ticipation in the legitimate economy and in the illegitimate economy.Their participation as consumers or employees of banks, credit cardagencies, and mortgage companies contributes to their developmentof practical skills. The knowledge they gain about financial institutions,stores, and governmental agencies gives them the know-how to perpe-trate their frauds.Many identity thieves come to the crimewith a devel-oped portfolio of skills that they improve quickly and easily with theirparticipation in fraud. Thusmany decisionsmade during the enactmentof identity theft are readily available to the offender; they have beenlearned and practicedmany times, albeit during legitimate transactions.The difference here is being able to do so in a new and likely stressfulsituation (i.e., during an illegitimate transaction).

Unlikemany other acquisitive crimes, identity theft differs in severalways that may explain persistence in the identity thief. The higher de-gree of investment in the time and effort in learning the practical andsocial skills required to accomplish identity theft may lead to higherlevels of commitment on the part of the offender. Unlikemany other ac-quisitive crimes, identity theft involves two steps—the theft of identify-ing information and the fraudulent use of the information—and thusmay involve more time and skill than most other acquisitive crimes.Moreover, depending on themethods of acquisition and conversion se-lected by the offender, these skills have been learned through legitimateand illegitimate work experiences and thus, offenders may be morecommitted to identity theft and persist. It is this extra level of effortand skill required that may lead to an offender's persistence inoffending. The higher the level of investment in time and effort in learn-ing the practical and social skills required to accomplish identity theftmay lead to higher levels of commitment on the part of the offender.

The knowledge of financial systems and businesses is not necessarilya sufficient skill for the commission of identity theft. With the exceptionof online identity theft and fraud, most offenses also necessitate that of-fenders possess a degree of social skills. Some thieves employ socialskills to convince victims to give their personal identifying informationunder the guise of a legitimate transaction, while others rely on theirability to generate sympathy among victims who willingly lend infor-mation to help the offender out of a difficult situation. These skills aredeveloped through prior employment in banks, credit agencies, stores,mortgage companies and other financial institutions and for some of-fenders they are learned from prior experience in street hustling.Thus, many offenders know how to complete a banking transactionand what to do when a teller begins to inquire about the legitimacy ofa transaction, because they have been previously employed as tellersor held similar occupations at bank or financial institutions.

As identity thieves gain experience and develop their craft, theirgrowing expertise begins to affect the decisions they make aboutwhether to continue committing identity theft. Typically, research fo-cuses on criminal event decisions made by offenders (i.e., the specificmethods used to commit the crime) but expertise also influences anoffender's persistence in criminal activities. The decision to continue en-gaging in crime is influenced by their increasing skill and expertise.These improved skills reduce the fear and anxiety associated withoffending as offenders take steps to reduce the risk of detection by theauthorities, and at the same time lead many to believe that they are

17L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

simply too good to get caught (Copes & Vieraitis, 2009a, 2012; Duffinet al., 2006). The growing confidence in their abilities to commit theircrimes undetected coupled with the ability to sense when things arenot right may lead offenders to regard situations once deemed to betoo risky as new opportunities and thereby encourage continuedoffending (Bennett & Wright, 1984; Gill, 2000). These two factors—reduction of perceived risk and decreased fear—act in concert to createa situation in which identity thieves choose to continue engaging incriminal activity with the self-assuredness that what they are doing isacceptable and safe.

One challenge facing policymakers lies in the treatment and rehabil-itation of identity thieves. Many of the skills used by identity thieveslend themselves to practical use in the corporate world, including, butnot limited to, interpersonal skills, a knowledge of banking systemsand practices, and potential security risks. Given the nature of theircrimes, employers may be reluctant to hire former offenders due totheir intimate knowledge of obtaining identity information andcovering their tracks. As a result of their offending, identity thievesmay experience a “knifing off” of opportunities to successfully reinte-grate into society. The prospects for a felony offender to obtain gainfulemployment are already dampened; identity thieves may face evengreater challenges than common street offenders may face, due to thesensitivity and gravity of their offending. Therefore, rehabilitation ex-perts must develop a way for identity thieves to reintegrate into societythat yields the best prospects for success while using their developedskill set. Part of this rehabilitation may require focusing on resistingthe intrinsic rewards of identity theft (the thrill and excitement ofgetting over on people).

The current review draws from the available research on identitythieves to examine the ways in which they develop skills and come torely on their experience to enact their crimes as well as persist inthem. Our review of the available literature on decision-makingamong identity thieves suggests that some features of expertise havedifferent importance for fraudsters than they do for street thieves.Some features of identity theft do involve expertise, including automa-ticity, chunking, multi-tasking, and situational awareness. For example,althoughmany identity thieves seldomneed tomake instantaneous de-cisions acrossmultiple stages of the crime, automaticity plays an impor-tant role for frauds requiring interpersonal interaction with others.Thus, evidence of their expertise is found primarily in the ways theycarry out their crimes. The ability to recognize opportunities, skillfullycraft fraudulent documents, and navigate bureaucracies is what sepa-rates the expert from the novices. Additionally, identity thieves comeby their skills from multiple arenas—both legitimate and illegitimate.These findings suggest that researchers interested in expertise andcrime should be aware of how specific crimes are committed whenexamining differences in decision-making. Indeed, the skills neededand developed for one crime likely are not the same for another. The im-portance of being crime-specific is a mainstay among those workingwith a rational choice framework and supported by our findings(Cornish & Clarke, 1986).

Without a doubt there remains much to be learned about the deci-sionmaking processes of identity thieves including the role of expertisein their decisions. The evidence reviewed here suggests that, like otherstreet offenders, as identity thieves gain expertise, they too becomemore efficient and successful in perpetrating their crimes. Moreover,their experiences also serve to increase their confidence in being suc-cessful and subsequently increase the likelihood they will persist incriminal activity regardless of the risks. However, much of the researchon identity thieves reviewed here was not designed specifically toinvestigate the role of expertise in decision making. And although thisresearch has informed our understanding of how expertise plays arole in identity theft, research designed with experimental methodswill further our understanding. Future research would need to examineboth how offendersmake decisions regarding how information is stolenand how information is converted into cash and goods. In addition,

some identity thieves work alone, some work through a legitimateplace of business, and others work in large groups. Researchers wouldneed to take into account the various methods of acquisition and con-version as well as the different ways in which offenders organize(i.e., as loners, occupational teams, or street level identity theft rings)to commit their crimes (Copes & Vieraitis, 2012). It is possible that stud-ies could bemodeled after those conductedwith burglars, sex offendersand other types of offenders (Logie et al., 1992; Nee & Meenaghan,2006; Nee & Taylor, 2000) to simulate how offenders make decisionsin situations simulating exposure to information atwork or on the streetand simulations of transactions between bank tellers, store employeesand other employees in financial institutions where identity thievescommit their frauds. Perhaps, it would be fruitful to determine howidentity thieves see banks, department stores, and credit agencies. Dothey quickly recognize vulnerabilities or do they need trial and error?Do fraudsters look for different types of people who work at registersor bank windows? Can they recognize people who are more easily ma-nipulated than those not looking to defraud? We believe that expertidentity thieves do in fact process the world around them differentlythan non-expert identity thieves. However, more research designedwith examining the nuances of precisely how they differ is still needed.This makes for the possibility of exciting new research.

References

Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency,and control in social cognition. In R. Wyer, & T. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of socialcognition. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Bennett, T., & Wright, R. (1984). Burglars on burglary: Prevention and the offender.Aldershot: Gower.

Benson, M. (1985). Denying the guilty mind: Accounting for involvement in a white-collar crime. Criminology, 23, 583–607.

Blokland, A., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2005). The effects of life circumstances on longitudinaltrajectories of offending. Criminology, 43, 1203–1240.

Bourke, P., Ward, T., & Rose, C. (2012). Expertise and sexual offending: A preliminaryempirical model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2391–2414.

Carroll, J. S., & Weaver, F. (1986). Shoplifters' perceptions of crime opportunities: Aprocess-tracing study. In D. Cornish, & R. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Ratio-nal choice perspectives on offending (pp. 25–42). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Cherbonneau, M., & Copes, H. (2006). Drive it like you stole it: Auto theft and the illusionof normalcy. The British Journal of Criminology, 46, 193–211.

Clarke, R. V., & Cornish, D. (1985). Modeling offenders' decisions: A framework forresearch and policy. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice (pp. 147–185).Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Copes, H., & Cherbonneau, M. (2006). The key to auto theft: Emerging methods of autotheft from the offender's perspective. The British Journal of Criminology, 46, 917–934.

Copes, H., & Cherbonneau, M. (2014). The risks and rewards of motor vehicle theft: Impli-cations for criminal persistence. In B. Leclerc, & R. Wortley (Eds.), Cognitions andcrime: Offender decision making and script analyses (pp. 48–69). London: Routledge.

Copes, H., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2009a). Bounded rationality of identity thieves: Usingoffender-based research to inform policy. Criminology and Public Policy, 8, 237–262.

Copes, H., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2009b). Understanding identity theft: Offender's accounts oftheir lives and crimes. Criminal Justice Review, 34, 329–349.

Copes, H., & Vieraitis, L. M. (2012). Identity thieves: Motives and methods. Boston:Northeastern University Press.

Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. V. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal. New York: Springer.Cressey, D. R. (1950). The criminal violation of financial trust. American Sociological

Review, 15, 738–743.Cressey, D. R. (1953). Other people's money. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.Cusson, M. (1993). Situational deterrence: Fear during the criminal event. In R. Clarke

(Ed.), Crime prevention studies (pp. 55–68). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.Duffin, M., Keats, G., & Gill, M. (2006). Identity theft in the UK: The offender and victim

perspective. Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International Ltd.Ericsson, K. A., & Charness, N. (1994). Expert performance: Its structure and acquisition.

American Psychologist, 49(8), 725–747.Faupel, C. E. (1986). Heroin use, street crime, and the ‘Main Hustle’: Implications for the

validity of official crime data. Deviant Behavior, 7, 31–45.Gallupe, O., Bouchard, M., & Caulkins, J. P. (2011). No change is a good change? Restrictive

deterrence in illegal drug markets. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 81–89.Garcia-Retamero, R., & Dhami, M. K. (2009). Take-the-best in expert-novice decision

strategies for residential burglary. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 163–169.Gill, M. (2000). Commercial robbery. London: Blackstone Press Limited.Gill, M. (2007). Learning from fraudsters: Reinforcing the message. Perpetuity Research and

Consultancy International Ltd.Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, California:

Stanford University Press.Greenberg, D. F. (1991). Modeling criminal careers. Criminology, 29, 17–45.Hochstetler, A., & Copes, H. (2003). Managing fear to commit felony theft. In P. Cromwell

(Ed.), In their own words: Criminals on crime (pp. 87–98). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

18 L.M. Vieraitis et al. / Aggression and Violent Behavior 20 (2015) 10–18

Hoffman, R. R. (1996). How can expertise be defined? Implications of research from cog-nitive psychology. In R. Williams, W. Faulkner, & J. Fleck (Eds.), Exploring expertise(pp. 81–100). University of Edinburgh Press.

Holt, T. J., Blevins, K. R., & Kuhns, J. B. (2014). Examining diffusion and arrest avoidancepractices among johns. Crime & Delinquency, 60, 261–283.

Holt, T. J., & Lampke, E. (2010). Exploring stolen data markets online: Products andmarketforces. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law and Society, 23, 33–50.

Jacobs, B. A. (1993). Undercover deception clues: A case of restrictive deterrence.Criminology, 31, 281–299.

Jacobs, B. A. (1996). Crack dealers and restrictive deterrence: Identifying narcs.Criminology, 34, 409–431.

Jacobs, B. (1999). Dealing crack: The social world of streetcorner selling. Boston, MA:Northeastern University Press.

Jacobs, B. (2010). Serendipity in robbery target selection. British Journal of Criminology, 50,514–529.

Jacques, S., & Allen, A. (2014). Bentham's sanction typology and restrictive deterrence: Astudy of young, suburban, middle-class drug dealers. Journal of Drug Issues, 44,212–230.

Jacques, S., & Reynald, D. M. (2012). The offenders' perspective on prevention: Guardingagainst victimization and law enforcement. Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency, 49, 269–294.

Klein, G. A., & Hoffman, R. R. (1993). Seeing the invisible: Perceptual-cognitive aspects ofexpertise. In M. Rabinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive science foundations of instruction(pp. 2003–2226). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Koops, B. J., & Leenes, R. (2006). Identity theft, identity fraud and/or identity-relatedcrime. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit, 30, 553–556.

Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives. Delinquent boys toage 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Lejeune, R. (1977). The management of a mugging. Urban Life, 6, 123–147.Lemert, E. (1958). The behavior of the systematic check forger. Social Problems, 6, 141–149.Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review,

95(4), 492–527.Logie, R. H., Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. (1992). Recognition memory performance and

residential burglary. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 6, 109–123.Maurer, D. (1940). The big con: The story of the confidence man. Indianapolis, Indiana:

Bobbs-Merrill Company.Moore, R. H. (1984). Shoplifting in middle America: Patterns and motivational correlates.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 28, 53–66.Nee, C., & Meenaghan, A. (2006). Expert decision making in burglars. British Journal of

Criminology, 46, 935–949.Nee, C., & Taylor, M. (2000). Examining burglars' target selection: Interview, experiment

or ethnomethodology. Psychology, Crime & Law, 6, 45–59.Nee, C., Ward, T. (2015). Review of expertise and its general implications for correctional

psychology and criminology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 20, 1–9.Nguyen, T. H., & Pontell, H. N. (2010). Mortgage origination fraud and the global economic

crisis: A criminological analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 591–612.Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L., Chiricos, T., & Waldo, G. (1982). Perceived risk and

deterrence: Methodological artifacts in perceptual deterrence research. Journal ofCriminal Law and Criminology, 73, 1238–1258.

Peterson, V. W. (1947). Why honest people steal. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,38, 94–103.

Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career re-search: New analyses of the Cambridge study in delinquent development. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Pontell, H. N., Jesilow, P. D., & Geis, G. (1982). Policing physicians: Practitioner fraud andabuse in a government medical program. Social Problems, 30, 117–125.

Schuchter, A., & Levi, M. (2013). The fraud triangle revisited. Security Journal, http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/sj.2013.1.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information pro-cessing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.

Shover, N. (1996). Great pretenders: Pursuits and careers of persistent thieves. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.

Shover, N., Coffey, G., & Hobbs, D. (2003). Crime on the line: Telemarketing and thechanging nature of professional crime. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 489–505.

Shover, N., Coffey, G., & Sanders, C. R. (2004). Dialing for dollars: Opportunities, justifica-tions, and telemarketing fraud. Qualitative Sociology, 27, 59–75.

Shover, N., & Honaker, D. (1992). The socially bounded decision making of persistentproperty offenders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 276–293.

Steffensmeier, D. J. (1986). The fence: In the shadow of two worlds. Lanham, Maryland:Rowman & Littlefield.

Steffensmeier, D. J., & Ulmer, J. T. (2005). Confessions of a dying thief: Understandingcriminal careers and illegal enterprise. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine Transaction.

Sutherland, E. (1937). The professional thief. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Topalli, V., & Wright, W. (2013). Dubs and dees, beats and rims: Carjackers and urban vi-

olence. In D. Dabney (Ed.), Crime types: A text reader (pp. 170–186). New York:Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Vieraitis, L. M., Copes, J., & Birch, I. (2013). Identity theft. In G. Bruinsma, & D. Weisburd(Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 2419–2429). Springer.

Vieraitis, L. M., & Shuryadi, A. (2014g). Identity theft. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Oxford handbooksonline. New York: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).

Ward, T. (1999). Competency and deficit models in the understanding and treatment ofsexual offenders. Journal of Sex Research, 36(3), 298–305.

Weaver, F. M., & Carroll, J. S. (1985). Crime perceptions in a natural setting by expert andnovice shoplifters. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 349–359.

Wheatley, T. P., & Wegner, D. M. (2001). Automaticity in action. In N. J. Smelser, & P. B.Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences(pp. 43–65). Menlo Park, CA: American Association for Artificial Intelligence.

Willot, S., Griffin, C., & Torrance, M. (2001). Snakes and ladders: Upper middle-class maleoffenders talk about economic crime. Criminology, 39, 441–467.

Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1994). Burglars on the job: Street life and residential burglary.Boston, Massachusetts: Northeastern University Press.

Wright, R., & Decker, S. (1997). Armed robbers in action. Boston, MA: NortheasternUniversity Press.

Zeitz, D. (1981). Women who embezzle or defraud: A study of convicted felons. New York:Praeger.