SHAMING, SHAME AND RECIDIVISM: A Test of Reintegrative Shaming Theory in the White-Collar Crime Context

Abstract

Despite the popularity of reintegrative shaming theory in the fi eld of criminology, only a small number of studies purporting to test it have been published to date. The aim of the present study, therefore, is to provide an empirical test of Braithwaite's (1989 ;Braithwaite and Braithwaite 2001) theory of reintegrative shaming in the white-collar crime context. The data on which the study is based came from survey data collected from a group of 652 tax offenders. Consistent with predictions, it was found that feelings of reintegration/stigmatization experienced during an enforcement event were related to reoffending behaviour. Those taxpayers who felt that their enforcement experience had been reintegrative in nature were less likely to report having evaded their taxes two years later. Consistent with Braithwaite and Braithwaite's (2001) hypotheses, shame-related emotions were also found to partially mediate the effect of reintegration on subsequent offending behaviour. Implications for the effective regulation of white-collar offenders are discussed.

Shame in regulatory settings

“…Positive shame management, characterised by shame acknowledgement, predicted a lower prevalence of bullying. Murphy and Harris (2007) found a similar result in the context of white-collar crime. In this study, unacknowledged shame (or shame displacement) predicted recidivism, and the relationship between shame acknowledgement and recidivism was mediated through feelings of remorse.…”

“…The significance of shaming to regulatory intervention has been explored in a variety of domains, including school bullying (Ahmed and Braithwaite 2006;Morrison 2006), workplace bullying (Ahmed and Braithwaite 2011;Braithwaite et al 2008;Shin 2005), sexual offenders (McAlinden 2005), tax evasion (Braithwaite 2009;Murphy and Harris 2007), nursing home regulation (Braithwaite et al 2007) and business regulation (Braithwaite and Drahos 2002). However, the most extensive application has been in the development of restorative justice programs, which expanded rapidly in the 1990s and are now found in criminal justice, child protection, schools and prison systems in many parts of the world.…”

Explaining the Undeclared Economy in Bulgaria: an Institutional Asymmetry Perspective

“…Indeed, amendments to the Labour Code enacted in 2006 and 2008 merely extended the powers of control and introduced harsher penalties and fines (Loukanova andBezlov 2007, Daskalova 2013a). The problem with using this disincentives approach, however, is that tougher sanctions and improving detection decreases voluntary compliance because it undermines respect for the fairness of the system and leads to greater rather than less undeclared work (Chang and Lai 2004, Murphy 2005, Murphy and Harris 2007.…”

Tackling Entrepreneurship in the Informal Sector: An Overview of the Policy Options, Approaches and Measures

“…Instead, it increases non-compliance, not least due to a breakdown of trust between the state and its citizens (Ayres and Braithwaite, 1992;Murphy and Harris, 2007;Tyler et al, 2007;Williams, 2001). Indeed, the most telling rebuttal of the use of deterrents is the finding that many voluntarily comply even when the level of penalties and risks of detection would suggest that they should not if they were truly rational economic actors (Murphy, 2008).…”