Do cyber-birds flock together? Comparing deviance among social network members of cyber-dependent offenders and traditional offenders
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370819849677 |
| Author | Jean-Louis Van Gelder,Stijn Ruiter,Marleen Weulen Kranenbarg |
| Date | 01 May 2021 |
| Published date | 01 May 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
849677EUC0010.1177/1477370819849677European Journal of CriminologyWeulen Kranenbarg et al.
research-article2019
Article
European Journal of Criminology
2021, Vol. 18(3) 386 –406
Do cyber-birds flock together?
© The Author(s) 2019
Comparing deviance among
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
social network members of
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370819849677
DOI: 10.1177/1477370819849677
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
cyber-dependent offenders
and traditional offenders
Marleen Weulen Kranenbarg
Vrije Universiteit (VU) Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Stijn Ruiter
Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement, The Netherlands
Jean-Louis Van Gelder
University of Twente, The Netherlands
Abstract
The distinct setting in which cyber-dependent crime takes place may reduce the similarity in the
deviance of social network members. We test this assumption by analysing the deviance of the
most important social contacts of cyber-dependent offenders and traditional offenders in the
Netherlands (N = 344 offenders; N = 1131 social contacts). As expected, similarity in deviance
is weaker for cyber-dependent crime. Because this is a strong predictor of traditional offending,
this has important implications for criminological research and practice. Additionally, for both
crime types the offending behaviour of a person is more strongly linked to the deviance of social
ties if those ties are of the same gender and age, and if the offender has daily contact with them.
Implications and future criminological research suggestions are discussed.
Keywords
Cyber-dependent crime, cybercrime, ego-centred social networks, comparison traditional
crime, social learning
Corresponding author:
Marleen Weulen Kranenbarg, Department of Criminology, Faculty of Law, Vrije Universiteit (VU)
Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, The Netherlands.
Email: m.weulenkranenbarg@vu.nl
Weulen Kranenbarg et al.
387
Introduction
The expansion of the internet has created many new opportunities, including opportuni-
ties for cybercrime. Some traditional crimes, such as fraud, can now also be committed
using IT systems. Such crimes are called ‘cyber-enabled’ or ‘cyber-assisted’ crime. New
forms of crime, so-called ‘cyber-dependent’ crime, such as illegal hacking, defacing
and taking control of IT systems, have also emerged (Levi et al., 2017; McGuire and
Dowling, 2013; Wall, 2001). These crimes cannot be committed without using IT sys-
tems and therefore completely take place in an anonymous digital context where there
are no physical social interactions (for example, Jaishankar, 2009; Suler, 2004; Yar,
2005, 2013) and offending requires IT skills and knowledge about how to use those
skills illegally (Holt et al., 2010). These conditions challenge the extent to which crimi-
nological theories and established research findings also apply to these cyber-dependent
crimes (for example, Jaishankar, 2009; Suler, 2004; Yar, 2005, 2013). Nevertheless,
apart from some exceptions, most cybercrime research with a social learning perspec-
tive has focused on cyber-enabled or cyber-assisted deviant behaviour such as bullying,
harassment, fraud, sexual deviance or piracy (for reviews, see Holt and Bossler, 2014;
Jansen et al., 2017; Weulen Kranenbarg et al., 2017b) rather than on cyber-dependent
offending.
Established empirical findings for traditional crime demonstrate a strong relationship
between a person’s criminal behaviour and attitude, and the criminal behaviour and atti-
tudes of that person’s social network (for example, Haynie and Kreager, 2013; Pratt
et al., 2009; Warr, 2002; Weerman and Smeenk, 2005; Young and Rees, 2013). Research
on cyber-dependent offending has shown that, compared with non-offenders, cyber-
dependent offenders also more often have cyber-dependent deviant social contacts (for
example, Holt et al., 2012a; Holt et al., 2010; Marcum et al., 2014; Morris, 2011; Morris
and Blackburn, 2009; Rogers, 2001). Nevertheless, it is unclear if the digital context has
an impact on the strength of this association. Is cyber-dependent crime different from
traditional crime as regards the extent to which there is similarity in deviance among
social network members? To date, this question has remained unanswered.
In order to examine this question, this article will empirically compare cyber-
dependent offending with all other types of offending, which we refer to as ‘traditional
offending’. These traditional offences include but are not limited to cyber-enabled and
cyber-assisted offences. Because almost all traditional offences may include a digital
component, cyber-enabled and cyber-assisted offences are less clearly distinguishable
from traditional offline crime than cyber-dependent offences. Furthermore, cyber-
dependent offences cannot be committed without using IT systems and, consequently,
these heavily rely on the digital and anonymous context of these systems. Therefore,
our arguments for less similarity in cyber-dependent deviance in social networks, pro-
vided later in this article, are most applicable to these cyber-dependent offences. Hence,
these offences are our focus.
We use self-report data from an online survey among adult former crime suspects –
traditional and cyber-dependent – in the Netherlands. In this survey, respondents reported
not only on their own cyber-dependent deviant behaviour but also on the characteristics
and behaviour of their most important social ties. We compare the relationship between
388
European Journal of Criminology 18(3)
cyber-dependent offending and cyber-dependent deviant network members with the rela-
tionship between traditional offending and traditional deviant network members. In addi-
tion, the structure of the data allows us to explore whether the relationship is stronger for
contacts who are contacted daily and who are identical in age and gender.
Empirical similarity in behaviour of social ties for traditional and cyber-
dependent crime
For traditional crime, numerous studies have found evidence for similarity in the deviant
behaviour of social ties (for reviews, see Haynie and Kreager, 2013; Pratt et al., 2009;
Warr, 2002; Young and Rees, 2013). Most studies focus on youth but, although the influ-
ence and time spent with friends decreases in adulthood (for example, Steinberg and
Monahan, 2007), romantic partners may be of greater importance for adults. Further,
adults have more freedom to select their own network members, which may result in
more homogeneous networks (for example, Young and Rees, 2013). Longitudinal
research on Dutch adults found support for the association in adult social networks
(Rokven et al., 2017; Rokven et al., 2016). Additionally, it indicated that not all contacts
show equivalent similarity in deviance, because similarity is stronger for more important
social contacts, that is, those who are contacted daily.
For cyber-dependent crime, quantitative research has revealed that, in general, this
type of offending is also more frequent if a person has friends who show cyber-depend-
ent deviant behaviour or attitudes (Bossler and Burruss, 2011; Donner et al., 2014; Holt,
2007; Holt et al., 2012a; Holt et al., 2010; Holt and Kilger, 2008; Hu et al., 2013; Marcum
et al., 2014; Morris, 2011; Morris and Blackburn, 2009; Rogers, 2001). In addition, qual-
itative studies disclosed that cyber-dependent offenders exchange IT knowledge, infor-
mation on criminal opportunities, and neutralization techniques with online and offline
friends and on forums (for example, Holt, 2007, 2009; Holt et al., 2012b; Hutchings,
2014; Hutchings and Clayton, 2016).
Underlying mechanisms of similarity in deviance
Despite the goal of this article being to test the strength of the above-mentioned similar-
ity in cyber-dependent deviance of social ties, understanding the underlying theoretical
mechanisms of this association is also important. Most cybercrime-related research uses
a social learning perspective in explaining this association. From this perspective, dif-
ferential association with delinquent peers will increase a person’s likelihood of offend-
ing by imitation, adopting deviant definitions or attitudes, and differential reinforcement.
Similarly, association with non-deviant social contacts can do the opposite and reduce
offending, since these contacts disapprove of criminal behaviour (for example, Akers,
1998; Hirschi, 1969; Pratt et al., 2009; Sampson and Laub, 1993; Sutherland, 1947).
However, as discussed by Felson (1994, 1998), it is not only others’ bad influence that
could explain the association between the deviant behaviour of peers. Committing crimes
in a group may be easier and more exciting than committing crimes on one’s own, and
when crimes are committed together it is the responsibility of the group instead of the
individual. Individuals may therefore commit crimes in groups that they would not
Weulen Kranenbarg et al.
389
commit alone. In addition, this may stimulate an individual to select new social ties
showing similar deviant behaviour (for example, Hirschi, 1969; Kalmijn, 1998;
McPherson et al., 2001) because these ties can be a source of information, resources and
accomplices. Moreover, deviant ties will be less likely to disapprove of criminal behav-
iour, which reduces the risk of negative social reactions and contacts reporting crimes to
the police. In addition, social networks become even more homogeneous as daily activi-
ties generally...
To continue reading
Request your trial