What Makes People Commit Benefit Fraud?

What Makes People Commit Benefit Fraud?IntroductionBenefit subterfuge is, according to mostwhat members of the giving medication and slightly media sources, committed by untrusty mint and is a blight on our nation which sucks up huge amount of m whizy that could otherwise be used for the improvement of national services. Another perspective might argue that eudaimonia fraud is a symptom and reflection of our unequal society. The offset view bleeds to place the belt on the psyche while the latter hightail its to place the blame on society. The attitude that a textual source adopts towards this questions can provide some insight into the federal agency in which they construct the issue.Social psychology has analysed the way in which we flummox got finishs near why something happens in terms of attrisolelyions. grunter Vaughan (2002) explain that attributions in favorable psychology describe how throng make decisions about the actions of other peck specifical ly what is it that motivates their actions? One of the most well-kn give(a) of these models of attributions was put forward by Kelley (1967, 1973). Within this model, plentys demeanour is either attributed to extraneous campaigns or to internal causes on the basis of how their behaviour varies with the following factors its distinctiveness, its accordance and the consensus.ascription theory has been further extended by the work of Weiner (1986) which breaks buck how attributions argon made into three categories. The introductory is the locus of control this refers to the point of accumulation amid internal and external causes. The second is stability this refers to the extent to which the cause is capable of change. The third is the controllability this refers to how much control a person is perceive to have over their future performance.The way in which the examined texts make attributions about peoples behaviour, in this case eudaimonia fraud, should show their attit udes towards those types of people. For this study, four extracts from The defender melodic theme were used. The protector is traditionally a politically left-leaning publication. The hypothesis for this study was that The Guardian newspaper, in its implicit explanations of the reasons people commit realise fraud, would tend to underline those reasons that focussed on the effects that society has on individuals rather than on individual factors such as personal deviance. In terms of attribution theory, and then, the attributions made for benefit fraud would tend to be external to people, would tend to be permanent and beyond peoples control.MethodContent analysis is a type of qualitative research method that involves counting the instances of words and then making inferences from these figures. Thematic analysis, however, is a related procedure that involves looking at a text in order to discover the themes that emerge from it, but it does not have the same emphasis on word f requencies. From this discrimination it can be seen that a thematic analysis aims to understand the selective information rather than know it.The procedure used for this thematic analysis was to articulate the extracts relating to benefit fraud and to make notes in the margin as themes arose in the coding. The themes that arose from all the extracts were then examined in total and any potential connections between the themes were analysed in terms of friendly mental theories.In carrying out this analysis, unrivaled of the most important factors was maintaining a state of reflexivity. Marks Yardley (2004) point to both important components of reflexivity in this type of study. The first is a friendly critique this means examining how the themes relate to power structures in society. The second is the police detective considering their own attitudes towards the subject being investigated.ResultsFrom the analyses of four excerpts from The Guardian, the following three themes emerged. report card 1 The Catch 22 Administrative ComplexityThe first theme accents the idea that there be often high levels of administrative demoralise involved in applying for benefits. Davies (2005) for example emphasised the amount of form-filling involved for people and how complicated the process isMany () disquietude endless form-filling while paltry off benefits, into tax credits and then, heaven forbid, reapplying for benefits if work falls finished hoping that between the Inland Revenue, job centre and the housing office, no one misplaces their form. (Davies, 2005)This focus on the complications of the process can likewise be seen in Tickles (2006) article which focuses on the difficulties of the system. In particular for one 19-year old assay to put himself through the education system in order to develop A-levels so that he can get a degree, the benefits system seems to be working against him. Not only that but the administrative system has him caught in a C atch 22According to the benefit rules, if you turn 19 and are homeless, the education game changes. You are no longer suitable for income support, which in turn entitles you to housing benefit. This benefit requires vociferationants to have an income. Instead, you must claim jobseekers allowance (JSA), which means declaring yourself available for work, and eventually attending government-approved New come up to training. This depart very likely have nothing to do with your studies, or those you might like to begin. (Tickle, 2006)According to this account, the man in this article has clearly been caught in the administrative complexities of the situation, something for which he cannot be personally blamed.Theme 2 Social HardshipA strong theme throughout these articles emphasises the hassle of the sight of many of the people that may be involved in benefit fraud. The young man described by Tickle (2006) had been laboured to move out from the family home because of problems the re and had moved into homeless accommodation. These points are further highlighted in the letters page of The Guardian which points to some of the complaisant circumstances of those who might be claiming benefits fraudulently. Serwotka (2005) points out thatWe also see from estimates describe to the public accounts committee that while benefit fraud is declining, errors in payments are on the increase. As the union representing the workers who have to implement these tough conditions, PCS does not believe that getting tough is the best way of helping some of the most vulnerable in society to obtain and keep jobs. (Serwotka, 2005)This places benefit questions within a wider context of lowering rates of fraudulent behaviour and the implicit persecution of those who are the most vulnerable.Theme 3 Fraud scorn LabellingA consistent way in which the writers in The Guardian lectureed about benefit fraud was in reference to the banish effects of labelling. The entailment of this was that while reasons for benefit fraud might include social circumstances and administrative complexity, as discussed above, fraud was carried out despite the strong negative connotations attached to it by the government and others. Davies (2005), for example, points out that many people ascertain targeted and blamed for anti-social behaviour, benefit fraud, scrounging on stupidity benefit. They fear being punished for their childrens school attendance, accused of bad parenting and having their children put into care. (Davies, 2005).A culture of fear is emphasised by Beresford (2005) in that vulnerable people are consistently bombarded by messages that fraud should be avoided. Reporting on a incision of Health study it was free-base thatOne of the strongest messages from the study is the real lading of many people who have been written off as dependant to make a contribution to their community. But this is hindered by official talk of benefit cheats of getting a million people o ff incapacity benefit a preoccupation with paid employment and an often sturdy and unsupportive labour market. (Beresford, 2005)Implicit within this analysis is the idea that people who do commit benefit fraud must have a good reason for doing so because the social pressure created by the government not to carry out fraud is so great.DiscussionThe themes found in this textual analysis of why people commit benefit fraud points to the involvement of a number of established social psychological theories. Each of the themes examined clearly shows how social and systemic reasons were seen, by these articles in The Guardian, to be at the root of why people commit benefit fraud.The first theme of administrative complexity tended to attribute the causes for fraudulent benefit claims to administrative dilemmas and catch-22 problems. This clearly places the reasons for behaviour outside a persons locus of control and implicitly places the cause for the behaviour onto the system. As the syste m is being blamed this go away tend to be a relatively stable factor that will continue into the future. Finally, administrative factors are largely beyond the control of the individual as they are decisions made by the state.The second theme of social hardship is not quite as clear-cut as the first but there are similar tendencies in the analysed attributions. Here social hardship is seen to act as an external force but the decision of the man discussed in this case to commit benefit fraud is seen, to some extent, to be internal. The reasons given for this, however, are external in that it is the system, again, and its complexities and apparent loopholes, that has force him to take this decision.The final theme did not fit easily into the ideas provided by attribution theory, but, is better suited to those of conformity. Asch (1952) posited that people tend to form the norms for their own behaviour by looking at those around them and come to a conclusion about how they should act based on this. What was clear from Aschs (1952) experiments is that people are highly affected by other peoples behaviour. The third theme, therefore, tends to emphasise the stigma attached to benefit fraud. It follows that people who do commit benefit fraud must have very good reasons for doing so as they are fighting against the normalising pressure of what is generally considered right.Taking a ill-use up in level of analysis, the way that The Guardian makes attributions about people committing benefit fraud can be examined in terms of in-group and out-group attributions. Researchers have found that when making in-group attributions, people tend to display a self-seeking bias (Hewstone, 1989). It is assumed that The Guardian newspaper, as it has been traditionally considered a politically left-wing newspaper, is likely to view itself as at least sympathetic to those committing benefit fraud. This would be explained in the ideas of intergroup attribution theory as a self-servi ng in-group bias.In general then, the hypothesis that textual extracts from The Guardian would tend to defend those committing benefit fraud was supported. This was analysed in terms of attributions with the results showing that they tended to be outside a persons locus of control, tended to be ongoing and permanent. Through these attributions the causes, or even blame, for peoples actions tended to be situated externally. From the perspective of power structures, the idea that The Guardian should defend those who are most vulnerable in society was also consistently supported.ReferencesAsch, S. (1952) Social psychology. New York Prentice dormitory.Beresford, P. (2005) No-win situation. Guardian online 19 October. Available from http//society.guardian.co.uk/secondopinion/ stratum/0,,1594942,00.html Accessed 29 March 2006Davies, M. (2005) Stop blaming the poor. Guardian online 4 April. Available from http//www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1451473,00.html Accessed 29 March 2006Hews tone, M. (1989) Causal Attribution From Cognitive Processes to Cognitive Beliefs, Oxford Blackwell.Hogg, M. A., Vaughan, G. M. (2002) Social Psychology, Third Edition, London Prentice HallKelley, H. H. (1967) Attribution in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192-238.Kelley, H. H. (1973) The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-128.Marks, D., Yardley, L., (2004) Research methods for clinical and health psychology. Sage, London.Serwotka, M. (2005) Blunketts branding of benefit claimants (Letters to the editor). Guardian online 13 October. Available from http//www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1590682,00.html Accessed 29 March 2006Tickle, L. (2006) Between a rock and a hard place. Guardian online 10 January. Available from http//education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,1682421,00.html Accessed 29 March 2006Weiner, B. (1986) An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York Springer-Verlag.