A growing body of research has revealed that the financial cost and physical harmfulness of elite deviance overshadow the impact of street crime on society (Knowlton et al., 2011; Landrigan et al., 2002; Leigh, 2011; Lynch & Michalowski, 2006; Herbert & Landrigan, 2000; Rebovich & Jiandani, 2000; Reiman & Leighton, 2010). However, despite such discrepancies, crimes of the poor continue to outshine white-collar offenses in the news media (Barak, 1994; Barlow & Barlow, 2010; Ericson et al., 1991; Lynch & Michalowski, 2006; Lynch, Nalla & Miller, 1989; Lynch, Stretesky & Hammond, 2000), the criminal justice system (Calavita, Tillman, & Pontell, 1997; Maddan et al., 2011; Payne, Dabney, & Ekhomu, 2011; Tillman & Pontell, 1992) and even academia (Lynch, McGurrin & Fenwick, 2004; McGurrin, Jarrell, Jahn & Cochrane, 2013). Surprisingly, scholarly efforts that have investigated societal response to crimes of the powerful have limited their field of inquiry to public opinions about white-collar crime (e.g., Huff, Desilets, & Kane, 2010; Kane & Wall, 2006; Rebovich et al., 2000; Schoepfer, Carmichael & Piquero, 2007, etc.). While these studies have provided valuable empirical evidence of a growing concern among Americans regarding the danger posed by elite offenses, their failure to include a valid measure of lay knowledge about white-collar crime significantly limits our ability to infer the extent to which the public is familiar with the scope and magnitude of this social issue. The present study seeks to address such limitation by providing the first measure of public knowledge about elite deviance. Four hundred and eight participants completed an online questionnaire that comprised measures of respondents' knowledge and sentiments (i.e., perceived seriousness and punitiveness) about white-collar crime. Results of statistical analyses revealed that participants were not sufficiently informed about elite deviance and suggest the existence of popular "myths" about white-collar crime; more specifically, a substantial number of subjects were not inclined to acknowledge hard-earned empirical evidence such as the greater physical harmfulness of elite deviance over street crime and to recognize that some elite offenses - which they admit are common in underdeveloped nations (e.g., human trafficking) - can be committed in the United States with little to no legal repercussion for the perpetrators. Further, less knowledgeable subjects and "myth" adherers (including men, those with higher income levels, more politically conservative subjects, Republicans, conservative Protestants, and those who believed that white-collar offenders see no wrong in their actions) were often more lenient in their attitudes towards elite deviance, both in terms of perceived seriousness and punitiveness, compared with street crime. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are thoroughly discussed.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between differing stated causes of deviant behavior which is commonly labelled mental illness, and the perceived seriousness of these behaviors in determining judgments of the degree of responsibility attributed to described deviant individuals. This was accomplished by having subjects rate four different vignettes as to degree of perceived seriousness and degree of responsibility for behavior. The subjects were 76 undergraduate students enrolled in either introductory psychology and/or introductory anthropology. The subjects were divided into four groups. Each group of 19 subjects received the same four vignettes. Each vignette gave a behavioral description which was characteristic of one of four categories of mental illness: paranoid schizophrenic, simple schizophrenic, depressed neurotic, and phobic compulsive. Each group received a different stated cause for the described behavior. These causes were biological, social learning, unknown, and both biological and social learning. The subjects were asked to rate the individual described in each vignette as to how serious they perceived the individual's behavior to be on a scale of 1-4. Subjects were also asked to rate how responsible the described individual was, in their judgment, for his behavior on a scale of 1-5. The specific questions addressed by this study were: (1) Does the degree of responsibility for deviant behavior attributed by normal individuals to various types of described deviant behavior vary as a function of the stated cause of behavior? (2) Does the degree of responsibility for deviant behavior attributed by normal individuals to various types of described deviant behavior vary as a function of the perceived seriousness of the behavior? and (3) Do stated cause and perceived seriousness of behavior interact in determining the degree of responsibility normal individuals attribute to deviant individuals. The results of this study indicated that there is a significant relationship between the perceived seriousness and degree of responsibility attributed to deviant individuals. More specifically, the paranoid schizophrenic individual, rated as the most serious, was seen as significantly less responsible than the less serious depressed neurotic or phobic compulsive individual. No significant main effect was found for the stated cause of behavior and no significant interaction, cause by perceived seriousness, was found. These results provide support for the notion that perceived seriousness contributes more to the determination of attribution of responsibility than does the stated cause of behavior. The implications of these findings as they relate to psychiatric rehabilitation were discussed as were the limitations of this study which included concerns regarding instrumentation and statistical analysis.