It all happens within minutes: a quick glance, a racing heart, quietly pocketing an item and walking out of a store. If you aren’t familiar with it already, shoplifting is a form of petty crime which involves taking merchandise from a store without paying for it, typically by concealing it in a personal bag, clothes, etc. Certainly, it’s not that bad, right? Picking up a pack of gum without paying for it isn’t really the same as robbing a bank, for example. One would assume that a low-stakes crime like shoplifting would not have any ramifications, but, according to Euronews, shoplifting costs the German retail sector almost €3 billion in 2024.
With low barriers to entry, shoplifting can easily be integrated into an offender’s daily life. There are many perspectives explaining shoplifting behaviour. Starting from the most obvious, financial situations such as low income or unemployment are key motivators. It has also been observed that adolescents are more likely to engage in this petty theft. Traditional economic theory suggests that the shoplifter, like any buyer, is a utility-maximising agent, analysing the trade-off between buying and stealing an item. A regular shopper also compares the economic benefit of stealing to the risk of being caught. However, there are many other processes (behavioural, psychological and social) that influence this act, which are not taken into consideration by these theories. The rational schema, which would normally be effective while considering theft, seems to falter given the opportunity of a low-risk, low-cost crime. Morality distorts, and impulse takes hold.
From a psychological angle, some shoplifters have self-reported experiencing hedonic pleasure from consuming and acquiring stolen goods (Ling & Kramer, 2017). The short-term pleasure gained from shoplifting could be used as a strategy to counter one’s sad emotions (Babin & Babin, 1996; Sharma & Scott, 2015). Cognitive dissonance resulting from engaging in such an act leads the partaker to justify their actions (“One small thing won’t hurt the store”, “Big chains overprice anyway”) to maintain self-concept consistency. Additionally, kleptomania, defined as a recurrent failure to resist impulses to steal objects that are not needed for personal use or for their monetary value in the DSM-IV. Notwithstanding, certain research suggests that shoplifting behaviour is not indicative of psychological pathology but rather socially learned processes.
Drawing from strain theory (Merton, 1938), economic disparities create tension between societal goals (for example, consumerism) and the limited means to achieve them, thus leading people to rely on alternative means to achieve status through possession. The rational choice model (Cornish and Clarke, 1986), hypothesises that between the benefits and costs of a crime, the potential offender chooses the one providing the highest utility. This perspective implies that criminal choice is like any other behavioural choice. It is also worthwhile to consider that many view shoplifting as a ‘victimless crime’, since, in most cases, the perpetrator cannot directly witness the impact of their actions. The ‘victim’, in the majority of the scenarios, is an ‘impersonal organisation’, maybe even a large MNC, which might even be used as a justification.
Tonglet (2001) focuses on opportunity and the threat of apprehension. The research’s findings indicate that shoplifters considered the act to be easy and low-risk, with numerous opportunities. If the retail environment does not provide the opportunity to steal an item, then those holding favourable attitudes to the act might end up doing it anyway, even if they had not entered with that intention. Less risk of being caught (i.e., lax security, lenient punishments, one’s own confidence) increases the likelihood of shoplifting. If the shopper does not believe they can get around the risk of getting caught, the threat of arrest and punishment is less likely to deter them. Thus, the incident occurs as a result of the motivated offender and an available opportunity.
Let’s consider prevention models: According to deterrence theory, criminals are less likely to be in theft when these dimensions of certainty and severity are high (Beccaria et al., 2017). (Ferreira & Carvalho, 2008) indicate that prevention techniques should be multidimensional, and take ethical and moral values, and perceived social cost into consideration. Simultaneously, complementary investments in developing new community values with regard to shoplifting would also be beneficial. The fear of negative social reaction instils the idea of a higher perceived social cost, and in turn, inhibits shoplifting behaviour. Nudging can also be considered as a possible counter, which is described as “any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour predictably without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). In this line, nudging that emphasises the chances of being caught proves more effective than that which focuses on the severity of punishment.
Retailers often increase prices to recoup the losses from shoplifting, but paradoxically, the rational response should rather be a decrease in both monitoring and prices (Yaniv, 2009). Strategies that stress the moral and harmful aspects may be ineffective, as petty theft, like shoplifting, is less likely to be considered morally wrong and incite less guilt. Increasing the risk of crime by design changes such as installing CCTVs, electronic tags, better store layouts and employing attentive staff, modern retailers are already trying to stay ahead of the game.
Shoplifting exists at the crossroads between morality, rationality, modern consumer culture and impulsivity. The trivialisation of the act itself to a “five-finger discount” conveys a lot about its general perception. Employing a multifaceted approach to shoplifting is essential to understanding that it is not merely an act of picking up an item without paying, but has deep underlying economic, emotional and ethical processes.
References
Babin, B.J. and Babin, L.A. (1996). Effects of moral cognitions and consumer emotions on shoplifting intentions. University of Southern Mississippi.
Cornish, D.B. and Clarke, R.V. (2002). Analyzing organized crimes. In: Rational choice and criminal behavior: Recent research and future challenges, 32, pp. 41–63.
Euronews. (2024). Shoplifting hits record high in Germany – are criminal gangs behind it? [online].
https://www.euronews.com/business/2025/07/05/shoplifting-hits-record-high-in-germany-are-criminal-gangs-behind-it [Accessed: 20 Nov 2025].
Ferreira, E. and Carvalho, H. (2008). Inhibiting factors in a hypothetical shoplifting situation – a contribution to crime prevention. Current Issues of Business and Law, Vilnius: Vilnius Law and Business College.
Ling, C. (2017). The Effect of Social Exclusion on Shoplifting. (Doctoral dissertation). University of South Carolina. Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/4150
Merton, R.K. (1938). “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological Review, 3 (5), pp. 672–682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
[Accessed: 20 Nov 2025].
Thaler, R.H. and Sunstein, C.R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Reviewed in: Leonard, T.C. (2008). Journal of Economic Literature, 46 (2), pp. 356–360.
Tonglet, M. (1998). “Consumers’ Perceptions of Shoplifting and Shoplifting Behaviour.” In: Gill, M. (ed.) Crime at Work. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377837_8
Yaniv, G. (2009). “Crime, Deterrence, and the Rational Response of Retailers.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 71 (2), pp. 340–346.
B.BIAS 