College and Research Libraries ALLYNE BEACH and KAYE CAPEN Library Book Theft: A Case Study This article summarizes an investigation of the dimensions, possible motivations, and plausible solutions to book theft in an academic library and is based on an analysis of questionnaires returned by 380 students at Ohio State University. The results indicate students think that book theft is a spontaneous and individual act; that the primary . motivation is material deprivation; and that while people feel book theft's harm is serious, the punishment should be confined to the academic realm. A MAJOR lMPEDIMENT TO EFFICIENT LI- BRARY VSE is library book theft. As a result of such theft, libraries are forced to spend their funds on replacing stolen books rather than on expanding their collections. A 1963 report estimated that the national cost of such thefts was $5,000,000 each year.l A worse conse- quence, in the opinion of librarians and library patrons, is the denial of books to other users. 2 In response to the serious nature of the problem and the lack of empirical data, a study of students at the Ohio State University was undertaken. The study was concerned with investigating the dimensions, possible motivations, and the plausible solutions to book theft in a university library setting. The purpose of this article is to summarize the findings of the study and to suggest how the results may be used in ways that would lessen this problem. Allyne Beach is a graduate student in the Sociology Department, University of Chica- go. Kaye Gapen is head vf QUE (Quick Editing) in the Ohio State University Li- braries, Columbus. This article is based on data gathered for Ms. Beach, s honors thesis in the Department of Sociology, Ohio State University, and the full report is available as an ERIC publication (ED 125572). 118 I BACKGROUND FOR THE STIIDY Because evidence concerning library book theft has been scanty, the study was designed to explore the total prob- lem rather than a specific explanation of book theft. The review of the literature which formed the conceptual basis of the study thus included literature from many areas. Not only did a survey of different sources make the study more complete, it also provided the study more conti- nuity with other research. 8 The literature reviewed consisted of information and opinions compiled by librarians, university administrators and educators, security experts, and social scientists. In addition, literature dealing with theft and the social environment of the university was included to deter- mine the effects which the university community may have on library book theft. The · ideas of security systems analysts provided insights into ways in which businesses perceive and handle losses of their merchandise. Finally, the social science literature contributed analyses of the structural constraints and criminal behavior in a university setting. In the absence of a precise model, the researcher divided the ideas and findings available in the literature into four parts: ( 1) library factors, ( 2) bureaucratic factors, ( 3) university fac- tors, and ( 4) a vocational crime factors. Within those areas the researcher for- mulated hypotheses from which the questionnaire was developed. The s.uc- ceeding paragraphs present the hypothe- ses and, when necessary, supporting literature. A predominant means of deterring crime suggested by criminologists is en- vironmental design. 4 Librarians have used this concept by suggesting and im- plementing modifications in policy and library structure. According to hypothe- ses stemming from the literature, librarians can curb book theft by main- taining more photocopy machines, fin- ing book thieves, conducting publicity campaigns, employing electronic devices, or utilizing security guards.5 However, one article in this field did suggest the expense of photocopying as a motiva- tion for book theft. 6 Consideration of bureaucratic and political factors influenced the develop- ment of a second set of hypotheses. These hypotheses were derived from the results of Oliner and Manuel's study on student theft. 7 They found that while students may steal for material need, they are also stealing more and more as a protest against big business. Oliner and Manuel's work gave rise to the hy- pothesis that students steal books in pro- test against big libraries, which they think resemble "big business.'' The re- search of Stern, which indicated that students do not feel their interests are considered in decision-making by facul- ty and administrators, suggested that bureaucratic factors may be related to book theft. 8 Smigel's research, which suggested that big business is preferred over gov- ernment and small business as a victim of theft, resulted in the hypothesis that books are more likely to be stolen from a large library than from a small one. 9 Book Theft I 119 In addition, the purpose of the library may affect the location of the theft. For example, an engineer may feel more comfortable stealing from the main library than from the engineering library, which may seem. more his or her "own." The results of two studies by Poland and Lunden of theft in a col- lege environment prompted the hy- pothesis that book thieves steal for kicks, that they learn methods of steal- ing from their friends rather than de- veloping methods themselves, and that they view rightness or wrongness of book theft as their friends do.1o Of all the areas of literature re- viewed, that on avocational crime seemed to deal most completely with the methods, the type of group support, the motivations, the definition of the crime by society, and the typical handling of the crime by the criminal justice system. Geis has defined an avocational criminal as a person who does not view him or herself as a criminal, whose major source of income is derived from activi- ties other than crime, and who can be deterred by the prospect of being stig- matized as a criminal. Most avocational crimes are committed against property .11 One aspect of avocational crime is white collar crime. Sutherland initially defined the concept of white collar crime in the 1940s.12 His treatise on white collar crime illuminated the con- trast in the way that those who have re- sources and those who do not are pro- cessed by the criminal justice system. His work demonstrated that, despite the enormous financial and moral cost of businesspeople committing fraud and embezzlement, the sanctions are limited to fines. Cressey has explained the white collar. criminal's behavior as a response to unshareable problems.13 Quinney has submitted that professionals regulate their behavior with regard to occupa- tional (as opposed to moral) con- straints.14 120 I College & Research Libraries • March 1977 · Another facet of avocational crime is shoplifting. Cameron has described the shoplifter as . one who is motivated to possess specific goods but does not have the means to attain them. She has also described shoplifters as receiving group support for their actions and in- group instruction in techniques.15 ·Beca~se ·the a vocational crime per- spective has proved useful in analyzing these types of criminal activity, the re- searcher investigated its use in the de~ scription of book theft. The funda- mental premise was that students are of a middle Class background. Second, the researcher examined the terms 'in which the university community defines book theft. More specifically, the researcher hypothesized that people were unsure if book theft is right or wrong and that sanctions chosen for such theft would not severely affect life chances. Third, the researcher explored the motivations of book thieves. Just as the white collar crime perspective suggests that there is pressure from status inconsistency which motivates white collar criminals to trespass the law, many librarians have suggested that library book theft is a re- sponse to academic pressure.16 The research tested the pressure by in- vestigating whether students steal books to ensure better grades, to deal with stiff competition from their peers, to have books for their personal collections, or because they cannot afford to purchase the books. Grade point, class rank, and field of study were cross-tabulated to determine their relationship to the types of pressure. Fourth, the researcher used the shoplifting tactics proposed by Cameron to shape the hypotheses that stealers learn methods from their friends and that friends of thieves think book theft is legitimate. Because the avocational crime per- spective stimulated many hypotheses pertinent to library book theft, the framework developed to study avoca- tiona! crime formed the principal con- ceptual foundation for the study. As such, library book theft was defined as the intentional removal of books from the library in an unauthorized man- ner.17 Library book theft appears to be a type of avocational crime. Finally, such theft may be inhibited by publicly labeling it as a crime.1s METHODOLOGY As in most exploratory studies, the case study method was employed. A uni- versity was chosen as the site of the study because theft is a problem for academic libraries and because data can be collected easily. In an overview study of this sort, in which a number of hy- potheses are being explored, it is desir- able to obtain a heterogeneous sample. The ·library system · at the Ohio State University ( OSU) provided a good en- vironment since the system has a wide variety of library materials and security systems and since the student popula- tion provides heterogeneity in respon- dents. To obtain a heterogeneous sample, enrollment records of all classes in the fall quarter of 197 4 were examined. Classes were selected using class rank and college as guides in order to provide a variety of people within each college. The ten classes yielded a · sample size of 446 students, and, of the 446 question- naires distributed and returned, only 66 questionnaires ( 14 percent) were un- usable because they were answered in a haphazard manner or were incomplete. Thus the study was based on a total of 380 usable questionnaires. Undoubtedly, a major factor in the library loss rate is employee theft. In fact, Cameron in her works on shoplift- ing estimates the loss rate due to em- ployee theft at 67 percent.19 Moreover, instances of library employees stealing books have been cited in the library lit- erature. 20 Some of these concern em- ployees abusing their check-out privi- leges; others deal with stealing from rare book collections. Bond, in his arti- cle on book store security, suggests that rapid turnover leads to theft. 21 At OSU the turnover rate for both student part- time employees and civil service equiva- lent employees is 25 percent per year. 22 Because of time and monetary limita- tions and because the researcher suspect- ed that the self-reporting rate would not be as valid among library employees, this study was limited to an examination of students. The rough draft of the questions for the questionnaire was developed following a review of the literature and a discussion with the OSU libraries' fac- ulty who were also researching bo~k theft. 23 Two pretests resulted in the questionnaire that was finally adminis- tered. Following coding and keypunch- ing, the results were processed by the - computer software program Statistical Package for the Social Science ( SPSS ) . In the study the self-reporting tech- nique was used to distinguish book thieves from those who had not stolen books from the library. That is, one question asked students how many books they had stolen from the OSU libraries. This technique was perfected in 1957 by Nye and Short24 and it has been used extensively since then. 25 The most serious problem is likely to be ex- aggeration, which may be compounded by a person's interpretation of the ques- tion. 26 In the following discussion those respondents who admitted having stolen books are described with the term "thieves"; those who did not, with the term "non-thieves." FINDINGS As detailed results of the study are now available through ERIC, only gen- eral findings will be discussed here.27 First, what can we say about the sample itself? Second, what are the demograph- ic variables for thieves and non-thieves? Third, how do the findings for thieves Book Theft I 121 and non-thieves relate to the four sets of perspectives: ( 1) book theft in re- sponse to library structure and policy; ( 2) book theft as a protest against bu- reaucracy; ( 3) book theft as "kicks" or gang behavior; and ( 4) book theft as avocational crime? Student Sample A general examination of the results shows that the student sample was in- deed heterogeneous on the demographic variables and was diverse with regard to fields of study. Furthermore, the sample was almost equally divided between males and females, and the class stand- ing of the students was skewed toward more advanced students. The social-eco- nomic background of the sample was skewed toward the middle class. Finally,_ the principal uses respondents made of the library were for study and reference with 53 percent of the sample using the library one to three times a week and 33 percent of the sample not using the li- brary at ·an. Demographic Characteristics For the most part, the demographic characteristics and opinions of those who admitted to book theft ( 5 percent of the sample) did not differ markedly from those who reported no theft. No time boundaries were given for the question on whether or not a respon- dent had _ stolen a book from the univer- sity library. Consequently, students could have meant that they stole a cer- tain number of books in one year or in their entire experience at OSU. While occupation and education were significantly related to each other, only the relationship between occupation alone and those who steal books was significant. In general, fewer of the principal wage earners in the families of those who admitted to book theft were major · professionals, and more were unskilled, unemployed, or receiv- ing some type of government benefit. 122 f College & Research Libraries • March 1977 Accordingly, the income of these fam- ilies was lower, but not significantly low- er than that of the total sample. For e;ample, 42 percent of the thieves' fam- ilies earned $10,000 to $14,999 annually, as compared to 27 percent of the non- thieves' families. Concurrently, only 6 percent of the thieves' families earned $25,000 or more a year, while 26 percent of the non-thieves' families earned that much. Other relationships are of interest. For example, a greater percentage of the thieves did not receive help from their parents to meet their current edu- cational expenses. Book thieves came most frequently from the arts and the humanities, though they did not seem to come from a particular class rank. A greater proportion of the thieves used the library for leisure reading and study during midterms and finals, although the frequency of library use did not seem to differ between the two groups. Finally, although Poland hypothesized that men steal more frequently than women,2s in this study a comparable proportion of 53 percent of the men and 47 percent of the womeri reported book theft. Book Theft in Response to Library Structure and Policy The respondents did not indicate an important motive for book theft was in not having enough time to use books in the library; and of all the motives investigated, the expense of photocopy- ing material was commonly held to be the single most important cause of book theft. Of the several alternatives pro- posed by librarians for curbing book theft, installation of electronic devices or enforcement of library fine policies received the most vigorous support. A q1ajority of students felt that having more photocopy machines, student se- curity guards, and publicity campaigns were somewhat effective. Book Theft as a Protest _Against Bureaucracy OSU was viewed by most students as bureaucratic. Although 7 4 percent liked the OSU educational system and 46 per- cent felt that the university administra- tion seemed to care about the rights and privileges of students, only 10 percent felt that there was little red tape at OSU, and only 12 percent felt that they had a say in university policy. Book thieves liked the OSU ·educational sys- tem less than those who did not report having stolen. Thus the only significant measure dealing with bureaucratic fac- tors was whether or not students think they have a say in university policy. This measure is similar to Stem's mea- sure of "low student dignity ."29 Furthermore, while Smigel's hypothe- sis about "least risk" was supported by the opinions of the total sample, thieves were equally divided on the issue. Only 21 percent of the total sample felt that stealing from the main library would result in more guilt feeling than steal- ing from a department library, and 31 percent of the thieves felt there was a difference in guilt. It seems, therefore, that students did not think protest against OSU as a "big business" was a strong motivation for book theft. Although people perceive OSU as bureaucratic, this is not felt to be .a factor stimulating book theft. Book Theft as "Kicks'' or Gang Behavior Few respondents in the total sample and even fewer of the thieves felt "kicks" to be a motivation for book theft. Similarly, the hypothesis that book theft is a gang type of behavior was unsupported in this research. De- spite the fact that thieves and non- thieves view book theft as wrong, a greater proportion of those who had not stolen felt that the act is illegal and should be punished. Furthermore, thieves were uncertain about how their friends view book theft. The strongest indication that the hypothesis about gang behavior is inappropriate is the fact that only 25 percent of the thieves said that they had learned methods for stealing from their friends. Book Theft as A vocational Crime People who admitted they stole books came from a slightly lower middle-class background compared to the middle- class background of the total sample. This relationship is logical from the avocational crime perspective that ma- terial deprivation is a principal pressure motivating people to steal. A significant relationship existed between those who perceived material deprivation as a rea- son to steal books and those who were less severe in punishing the person rep- resented in the appropriate hypothetical vignettes provided in the questionna,ire. Both thieves and non-thieves felt li- brary book theft is wrong. But fewer thieves felt the act is illegal and de- serves punishment. The occupation of the parent was significantly related to a person's perception of the severity of book theft. Respondents whose parents were ranked as medium and small pro- fessionals were less severe. In addition, the perception of the crime was signifi- cantly related to .the perceived opinion of family and friends. A greater pro- portion of the thieves were uncertain about the opinions of their friends and felt that their parents' opinion was not so negative as that of the entire sample. In particular, the fact that the attitude of the "best friend" was uncertain and that the thief developed methods of stealing on his or her own makes the comparison between book theft and shoplifting not as strong as hypothe- sized. Cameron has indicated that in- . group instruction and group support are essentials of shoplifting. 30 SuMMARY This research has clarified the motiva- Book Theft I 123 tions leading to, methods of, and ways to curb library book theft. It has dem- onstrated that the total sample per- ceived library book theft as wrong. In fact, almost one-half of the sample felt the act is illegal and should be pun- ished. As expected, thieves did not de- fine book theft as negatively as did non-thieves. There was revealed a discrepancy be- tween thieves' and non-thieves' estimates of dollar loss each year to the university due to library book theft. The average estimate made by the total sample was $56,000, while the average estimate made by thieves was $18,000. Both thjeves and non-thieves did agree, how- ever, that book theft is wrong principal- ly because it hinders the academic achievement of their fellow students. Students felt that library book theft deserves punishment, but the .majority of these students chose a punishment which would hinder specifically the aca- demic pursuits rather than the entire life of the book thief, for example, taking away library privileges for a_ year. The choice of punishment by the stu- dents combined with the fact that stu- dents perceive the harm done by book theft as deprivation of the academic community of its resources indicates that students view book theft as an aca- demic crime only. This study does indicate that material deprivation is the major motive for stealing books. Neither thieves nor non- thieves were very supportive of the motivation derived from Oliner and Manuel's hypothesis that book theft is done in protest against the university's bureaucracy and resemblance to "big business," nor from Lunden's hypothe- sis that it is done for kicks. Poland's hypothesis that theft among college stu- dents resembles gang behavior seems in- appropriate with regard to book theft, principally because it is thought to be a spontaneous act, using a method 124 I College & Research Libraries • March 1977 which the thief develops alone. In this study, bureaucratic factors did not influence book theft. The total sam- ple felt there was less risk in stealing from a large library than from a small one, but thieves were divided on the is- sue. Furthermore, perception of guilt did not seem to play a major role in choice of location for library theft. When a difference in guilt was perceived by the respondents, the thieves, unlike those in the total sample, perceived less guilt in stealing from department li- braries than from the main library. Occupation of parents and use of the library were the demographic variables which yielded a significant difference be- tween thieves and non-thieves. More thieves were in the lower portion of the middle-class categories than non-thieves. Such a fact tends to support the expla- nation that material deprivation or "rel- ative deprivation" is a major motivation for book theft. Although the relation- ship is not significant, more of the thieves were dependent on themselves to meet current educational expenses. The demographic variables of class rank or field of study did not signifi- cantly affect the amount of .academic pressure. Parenthetically, a greater por- tion of thieves were in the field of arts and humanities. However, a greater number of juniors said that the pres- sures of good grades and stiff competi- tion were a motivation for book theft. A greater number of social and be- havioral science, professional, and busi- ness administration students felt that stiff competition was a motivation for book theft. Social and behavioral sci- ence students felt the pressure of good grades more than those in other fields. That electronic devices represent an effective means of curbing book theft · was felt by 51 percent of the total sam- ple and by 68 percent of the thieves. The effectiveness of electronic devices was supported not only by the opinion - of respondents but by actual fact in the OSU libraries. The OSU commerce li- brary conducted an inventory in 1973 and found 4 percent of the year's new books to be missing. A second inventory in 1974, after the installation of elec- tronic devices, revealed that the loss rate had dropped to .65 percent. Publicity campaigns were not thought to be effective for the most part by the students. Publicity campaigns have been shown to be effective only during the period in which they are being conduct- ed. Although both thieves and non- thieves thought books are taken by hid- ing them in clothing or putting them in a satchel or purse, student security guards were not thought tb be an effec- tive means of limiting book theft. Given the factors affecting book theft, it seems apparent that the avoca- tiona! crime perspective yields the best tool for analysis of this phenomenon. The fact that the thieves perceive their "best friends" as uncertain rather than as approving of book theft weakens the analogy with shoplifting, but the defini- tion of the crime and the motivation of material deprivation suggest that the avocational crime perspective is appro- priate. As with any study, results depend on the conceptualization of the questions .asked. Because the literature dealing with book theft is rudimentary, such conceptualization is necessarily frag- mentary and the resulting questions may also be unrefined and imprecise. While the small number of reported thieves may be an accurate index of participants in book theft, the small sample size does make any generaliza- tions less firm. The technique of the study is another limitation. Because the ques- tionnaire method does not allow in- depth investigation, some aspects of this study may require more thorough atten- tion. Finally, it is unknown whether the students who comprised this case study are representative of patrons of other university libraries or other non-academ- ic libraries. Despite such limitations, the results did clarify some elements of book theft, and the concluding section dis- cusses tP.e implications of several alter- natives suggested by this research: ( 1) redefine book theft in legal and crim- inal terms; ( 2) invest in duplicate and replacement copies; and ( 3) invest in an electronic book theft detection sys- tern. ALTERNATIVES Book Theft as a Crime Although the parallels between shop- lifting and book theft are not as strong as hypothesized, this research suggests that the motivations, the direction of group support, and the tone of the defi- nition of library book theft by other members of the community resemble what researchers have found to be characteristic of shoplifting. Since the act of book theft and the severity of its definition are similar to shoplifting, perhaps the methods which have been suggested to curb shoplifting are appli- cable here. Because of the ambiguous sentiments that some people hold about the legali- ty of shoplifting, many authors have advised that proprietors and law en- forcement officials be more rigid and harsh in their treatment of shoplifters. Individuals from various areas and dis- ciplines have counseled that security guards be given power to arrest shop- lifters and that shoplifters be prosecut- ed. 31 If book theft and shoplifting are analogous, perhaps viewing book theft as a violation against the state as well as against university rules and regulations would be effective. In view of the fact that the value of a stolen book would generally be less than $150 (a misdemeanor in Ohio), one might question if police would give high priority to such a crime. In gener- Book Theft I 125 al, thefts of items of lesser value have higher clearance rates than others.32 Still, police officials may wonder if book theft-a crime which even to the aca- demic community has not been worthy of being criminalized-is worth the time that they would have to take from their other responsibilities for court at- tendance or completing necessary paper- work. . Just as the police may be hesitant in processing library book theft, so may the library administration be hesitant in spending the money and time neces- sary to prosecute the criminal. A study by Stark and Cohen, which examined who is prosecuted and why, indicates that the shoplifters prosecuted are those who have stolen the most valuable _arti- cles and those who are unemployed. 33 Would the library prosecute someone who stole an average book that, includ- ing processing cost, would be worth $37? Replacement and Duplicate Copies A study undertaken in the OSU li- braries in 1972 indicated that of missing books in the collections other copies of the same title were available for 58 per- cent, other editions of the same title were available for 9 percent, and no other copies or editions were available for 33 percent. 34 If one assumes that the current loss rate is 6 percent of each year's acquisitions, then in 1975-76 in the OSU libraries 3,050 volumes of the total acquired ( 50,830 volumes) would be lost. Of this group there would be no duplicate copies or editions for 1,006 volumes ( 33 percent). The estimated cost in the library in 1976--77 for a monograph is $22, plus a processing fee of $15. Thus it would be necessary to expend $37,222 to replace only those monographs for which no other copies or editions are available. Replacement of the entire group of 3,050 missing volumes would cost an es- timated $112,850. There is also the possibility of initial- 126 I College & Research Libraries • March 1977 ly providing duplicate copies. In 1975- 76, for example, the OSU libraries added 8,880 duplicate copies to the col- lections. The estimated cost of these duplicates (at $15 per volume) was $133,200. Additionally, the libraries spent $5,000 to $10,000 for the replace- ment and duplication of high-use ma- terials. Before theft, therefore, the libraries have invested more than $138,- 000 in attempting to provide sufficient copies for the system's users. Electronic Theft Detection Systems A third alternative is an electronic theft detection system. The OSU li- braries, as a case in point, have installed electronic theft detection systems in the main library, the commerce library, the fine arts library, the music library, and the education library. The initial cost for these five systems (including sensi- tized materials for insertion in 205,000 volumes) was $81,328, or $20,607 per year, if prorated for each of the first five years. Very rough estimates were made for staff time spent in conjunction with this detection system, including time for in- serting sensitized material in books, sen- sitizing and desensitizing them, and dealing with library users when the alarm sounds. Costs (using the mini- mum student hourly wage of $2.20) were estimated at $39,000 per year. For each of the first five years of op- eration, therefore, the detection system would cost $20,607 for equipment and material and $39,000 for personnel ac- tivities, or a total cost of $59,607. Ap- proximately one-third of the OSU libraries are thus covered, and to protect the entire library system, $178,821 would be required. After an amortization period of five years, the detection system for the five libraries presently covered would cost each year an estimated $3,822 for the sensitized material and $39,000 (without allowance for wage increases ) for per- sonnel activities, a total of $42,822. The annual cost for the total library system on this basis would be approximately ·$128,466. Although the alternatives of a detec- tion system or replacement and duplica- tion of copies are amenable to cost analysis, there are limitations to this analysis. First, time estimates and costs are not firm, with many of the figures · estimates based on rough samples or opinions. Second, it is difficult to know which figures to compare. While theft detection systems are initially expensive, the operation of a book theft detection system could cost less than the replace- ment of stolen copies or the purchase of multiple copies. In addition, staff costs to support electronic systems might be considered equal to the staff time presently being spent on searching for stolen copies, rather than calculated as an additional cost. Third, the analysis of neither of these alternatives takes into consideration the time spent or the frustration felt by library users who are trying to locate books which have been stolen. Protagonists of electronic theft de- tection devices believe that, regardless of the cost, the devices at least ensure a book on the shelves (or a circulation record) when a user of the library re- quests a certain title. Protagonists of re- placements and duplicate copies may ar- gue that money spent on theft detection systems could better be spent on acquisi- tions important to build up the collec- tion. CoNCLUSION The results of this study are a begin- ning step in understanding what moti- vates people to steal books from aca- demic libraries. Because the problem has not been analyzed exhaustively, librari- ans continue to face the dilemma of - what they can do to prevent book theft. As with any research, the results of this project can be used in establishing li- brary policy and in planning future re- search concerning academic libraries and book theft. The study did demonstrate, however, that library book theft is a spontaneous and individual act. Furthermore, the re- sults suggest that the primary motiva- tion for book theft is material depriva- tion. While respondents to the question- naire felt that the harm was serious, the punishment, they believed, should be confined to the academic realm. The possibility of defining book theft as a public crime might involve more prob- Book Theft I 127 lems than libraries and colleges and uni- versities would wish to face. The analysis of the other alternatives -duplication and replacement of copies or a theft detection system-is in some ways incomplete. For example, the analysis did not include the cost of staff time presently expended in attempting to locate stolen books, the effects of a book theft detection system on the minds and emotions of users, or a change in circulation patterns before and after the installation of an elec- tronic detection system. REFERENCFS 1. Protecting the Library and its Resources: A Guide to Physical Protection and Insur- ance. Report on a Study Conducted by Gage-Babcock & Associates, Inc. (Chicago: Library Technology Project, American Li- brary Assn., 1963), p.21. 2. Maxine Reneker, "Book Theft in Academic Libraries" (Master's thesis, University of Chicago, 1970): Allyne Beach, "Library Book Theft: A Case Study" (Undergrad- uate honors thesis, Dept. of Sociology, Ohio State University, 1976). Available in ERIC database: ED 125572. 3. For a discussion on constructing hypotheses in a new area of research, see Frank Wes- tie, "Toward Closer Relations Between Theory and Reason: A Procedure and an Example," American Sociological Review 22:150-54 (Spring 1957). 4. Oscar Newman, Defensible Space (New York: Macmillan, 1972); Jeffery C. Ray, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1971). ~ 5. Reneker, "Book Theft"; Ernest A. Savage, "Buy, Borrow, or Steal: Thieves' Methods," Library Journal 84:141-45 (1959); Mary · · Quick, "A Proposed Program for Reducing Book Losses" (Master's thesis, Western Michigan University, 1964); Barbara L. Feret, "Point of Sale," Wilson Library Bul- letin 47:46-47 (1972); John N. Berry, "To Catch a Thief," Library Journal 90: 1617-21 (1965); Perry D. Morrison, "Lost Book Campaign in Sacramento," Wilson Li- brary Bulletin 40:526-29 (1966). 6. Robert F. Clark and G. Haydee, "Your Charging System: Is It Theft-Proofr' Li- brary Journal 91:642-43 (1966). ~ 7. S. P. Oliner and Maurice Manuel, "Student Theft: Crime or Protest," Humboldt Jour- nal of Social Relations, p.27-35 (1973). ·· 8. George G. Stern, ''Studies of College En- vironments" (ERIC Document Reproduc- tion Services, ED 010647, 1966). ' 9. Erwin Smigel, "Attitudes Towards Stealing Related to Size of Victim Organization," in Erwin Smigel and H. Lawrence Ross, eds., Crime Against Bureaucracy (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1970), p.15-27. · 10. Stephen G. Poland, "Characteristics, Be- havior, and Attitudes of Male College Stu- dents Who Have Committed Theft" (Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University, 1971); Walter A. Lunden, "Shoplifting Among College Students" (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University of Science and Technol- ogy, 1966). 11. Gilbert Geis, ''Avocational Crime," in Daniel Glaser, ed., Handbook of Criminol- ogy (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1974), p.273. 12. Edwin H. Sutherland and Donald R. Cres- sey, Principles of Criminology (7th ed., Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1966). 13. Donald R. Cressey, Other People's Money: A Study in the Social Psychology of Em- bezzlement (Glencoe: Free Press, 1953). 14. Earl R. Quinney, "Occupational Structure and Criminal Behavior: Prescription Vio- lation by Retail Pharmacists," Social Prob- lems 2:179-85 (1963). 15. Mary Owen Cameron, The Booster and the Snitch: Department Store Shoplifting (New York: Free Press, 1964). 16. Reneker, "Book Theft"; Rita A. Schefrin, "The Barriers to and Barriers of Library Se- curity," Wilson Library Bulletin 45:870-78 \ (1971); Norman Vinnes, "A Search for Meaning in Book Theft," Scholastic Li- - brarian 18:25-27 (1969); Lee Zimmer- man, "Pilfering and Mutilating Books," Bookmark 13:5-9 (1960). 128 I College & Research Libraries • March 1977 17. H. Green, "Analysis of Literature Dealing With Vandalism as Indexed in Library Lit- erature 19F;)3-63'' (Master's thesis, Atlanta University, 1964). 18. Geis, "Avocational Crime," p.273. 19. Cameron, The Booster and the Snitch. 20. "ALA Asks Victimized Libraries to Contact Special Committee," Library Journal 89: 1574 (1965); "Librarians Guilty of Steal- ing, Purloining and Converting Federal Property on Loan to Library," Library Journal 94:2400 (1969). 21. William Bond, "Eleven Steps Can Lead You to Curtailing Inventory Losses and Crime in the Campus Bookstore," College and University Business 54:53 (1973). 22. Interview with Rita Hirshman, Personnel Office of the Ohio State University Librar- ies, 1975. 23. "Book Losses in Libraries, a Pilot Opinion Survey," a study in progress by Kaye Ca- pen, Nancy Keller, Susan Miller, and Rob- ert Daugherty, the Ohio State University Libraries. ' 24. F. Ivan Nye and James F. Short, "Scaling Delinquent Behavior," American Sociolog- ical Review 22:325-31 (1957). 25. Savera Trangri and Michael Schwartz, "Delinquency Research and Self-Concept Variable," Journal of Criminal Law, Crim- inology, and Police Science 58:182-90 (1967); John P. Clark and Larry L. Tift, "Polygraph and Interview Validation of Self-Reported Deviant Behavior," America~ Sociological Review 31:51~23 (1966); Leroy C. Gould, "Who Defines Delinquen- cy: A Comparison of Self-Reported and Officially Reported Indices of Delinquency for Three Racial Groups," Social Problems 16:325-26 (1969). 26. Roger G. Hood and Richard Sparks, Key Issues in Criminology (New York: Mc- Graw-Hill, 1970), p.4~ 70. 27. Beach, "Library Book Theft: A Case Study." 28. Poland, "Characteristics, Behavior, and At- titudes.'' 29. Stem, "Studies of College Environments." 30. Cameron, The Booster and the Snitch. 31. Ibid.; Bond, "Eleven Steps," p.53. 32. Jonathan Rubinstein, City Police (New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 1973; Ballantine Books, 1973), p.363 . . 33. L. E. Cohen and R. Stark, "Discriminatory Labeling and Five Finger Discount: An Empirical Analysis of Differential Shoplift- ing Dispositions," Journal of Research in Crime and Del·inquency 11:25-39 (1974). 34. "A Computer-Aided Analysis of Lost Books at the Ohio State University Libraries" (Columbus: Ohio State University Librar- ies, 1972).