College and Research Libraries


DANA WEISS 

Book Theft and Book Mutilation in 

a Large Urban University Library 

A questionnaire study of why students in a large urban university steal and 
mutilate library books and periodicals identified psychological and sociological 
motivational factors in the students. Circumstantial reasons for such deviant 
behavior were not significant in this study. The individual student's percep-
tions of pressure for success in the academic world seemed to motivate mutila-
tion and theft regardless of the quality of available library service. Peer ap-
proval for these behaviors was not apparently assumed. 

THis PAPER reports on a study of book theft 
and book mutilation using observed patterns 
of behavior. An attempt was made to identify 
the personal characteristics of students who 
mutilated and/or did not check out library 
books different from student-body members 
who followed normal library-use behavior. 
These results make a statement about those 
who break the rules in the university library, 
about the library itself, and about the struc-
ture of the university. 

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 

A literature search revealed that library 
abuse had been approached from different 
angles. Tyler isolated the history of large-
scale book theft and focused on the mag-
nitude of the problem. 1 Kaske, in conducting 
a library inventory search, found that 13.07 
percent of the library's missing collection 
could have been stolen. 2 

Souter, who interviewed librarians in an at-
tempt to better understand "delinquent 
readers," believed those who mutilated 
and/or stole library materials to be basically 
selfish. Students did not consider their theft 
to be wrong and they behaved in similar ways 
outside of the university. 3 These studies indi-

Dana Weiss, formerly adjunct library associate 
at the Elmer Holmes Bobst Library, New York 
University, is currently a Ph.D. candidate in 
sociology at New York University. 

cate some of the variables involved in the 
problem of book theft and mutilation. 

A survey by Hendrick and Murfin at a state 
university explored some of the social dimen-
sions of those engaging in book mutilation. 4 

Looking for motivation for the mutilation of 
periodicals, they found no outstanding dif-
ferences between those who mutilate peri-
odicals and those who do not. The reasons 
given were circumstantial: the library was 
closing, the copy machine broken, no money 
was available to make a copy, the copy 
machine would not reproduce photographs or 
charts. 5 

This study is based on information in the 
literature that illuminated and described the 
problem. To a limited degree this study rep-
licates Hendrick and Murfin's study on the 
mutilation of periodicals but, in addition to 
examining the behavior of those students ad-
mitting to book mutilation, also includes stu-
dents who removed unchecked books or 
stole them. In addition, this study occurred in 
a different sociocultural time frame. The 
Hendrick and Murfin study was done in 1973 
and this one in 1978. This is an important 
difference for library book abuse because the 
two times compare student activity in the li-
brary before and after the copy machine "rev-
olution." 

METHODOLOGY 
The Procedure 

Using for the most part the issues raised by 

I 341 



342 I College & Research Libraries • july 1981 

Hendrick and Murfin (but considering the 
others mentioned above) , a questionnaire was 
formulated. During the spring semester of 
1978, faculty members known by the author 
administered 100 questionnaires to their 
undergraduate classes. In addition , question-
naires were distributed to students in front of 
the student union building (of which 101 were 
completed and returned). With the exception 
of one student, all in the sample were under-

TABLE 1 

STUDENTS ' POS SIBLE MOTIVATION S 
FOR VIOLATING LIBRARY R ULE S 

Stu( ents' 
Poss ible Motivations 
for Violati ng 
Library Rul es 

Academic Performance 
Very we ll 
All right ; Not 

too badly 
Poorly 
chi- squ are = 6. 7011 , 

df = 2, p< .OS 

Receives Financial 
Aid 

Yes 
No 
chi -sq uare = .9285, 

df = 1, p < .OS 

Holding Down a 
job 

True 
False 
chi -squ are = 1. 3404, 

df = 1, p<. OS 

Feeling Served by 
the Library 

Served well 
Se rvice could be 

improved 
. chi -square = .2663 , 

df = 1, p < .OS 

Cost of Copy 
Machine 

Never too 
expe nsive 

Too expensive at 
least once 

chi-square = . 1935, 
df = 1, p < .OS 

Inconvenienced by 
Broken Copy 
Machine 

Never 
inconvenie nced 

Inconvenienced at 
least once 

chi-square = .1524, 
df = 1, p <. OS 

Violatin g Library Rul es 
Checks Out Sneaks Out 
Books anl Books 
Does Not am /or 
Rip Pages Rips Pages 

22% (37) 42% (14) 

75% (126) 58% (19) 
3% (5) 0% (0) 

60% (95) 
40% (63) 

55% (91) 
45% (75) 

69% (22) 
31 % (10) 

44% (14) 
56% (18) 

37% (61) 33% (11) 

63% (102) 67% (22) 

67% (111) 70% (21) 

33% (55) 30% (9) 

21 % (30) 19% (6) 

79% (115) 81% (25) 

graduates . This analysis is based on the total 
201 respondents. 

Division of the Student Body 

The questionnaire used in this study (ap-
pendix A ) was designed to divide student li-
brary users into two groups. The first con-
sisted of those who admitted that they had at 
least once removed library books without 
checking them out or had ripped a page out of 
a library book or periodical. 

The second group consisted of students 
who said that they had always checked books 
out of the library according to the rules and 
who indicated they had never mutilated 
books. In this paper, this second group's be-
havior is refe rred to as "following library 
rules. " 

Thos e in the rule-violating group consisted 
of 8 perce nt (17 students) of the total sample 
(who sneaked books out of th e library) and 9 
perce nt (18 students) of the total sample (who 
had ripped pages from books or p e riodicals). 
This group comprises a total of 33 students , 
since 2 of the students admitted to both 
sneaking out books and ripping out pages. 
Because of the random nature of th e distribu-
tion of the questionnaire (and promise of 
anonymity on the questionnaire itself) , the 
author believes these numbers to be roughly 
indicative of the size of the problem. 

The sample , for the purpose of this 
analysis , is divided into (1) students who 
check out books and do not rip pages , and (2) 
those who reported to have at least once 
sneaked a book out of the library or torn out a 
page (or to have done both). 

The rule-following group includes 168 stu-
dents , or 84 percent of the total sample , and 
the rule-breaking group include s 33 students , 
or 16 percent of the total sample. 

FINDINGS 
Students' Motivation for 
Violating Library Rules 

Table 1 indicates the motivations of the 
university students who break the rules of the 
library. First, such a student is one who is 
likely to say he or she is doing very well 
academically (p< .05). This student may be 
successful in academic work because of his/ 
her aggressiveness in fighting for grades. The 
motivation to succeed academically , which 
may lead to the rule-breaking behavior, in 



Book Tlz eft I 343 

TABLE 2 

DEC LARING INCONVENIENC E BY THEFT, 
BY A CADEMIC PERFORMAN C E, AND BY VIOLATI NG LIBRARY R ULES 

Acad e mic Pe rform ance 
Very We ll All Ri ght throu gh Poo rl y 

Checks Out Sneaks Out Checks Out Sneaks O ut 
Books and Boo ks Books and Books 

Inco nve ni e nced 
by The ft 

Does Not an d/o r Does Not and/or 
Rip Pages Rips Pages Rip P~ges Rips Pages 

Never 
inconvenienced 

Inconvenienced at 
least once 

27% (10) 

73% (27) 

36% (5) 

64% (9) 

17% (22) 

83% (104) 

16% (3) 

84% (16) 

chi -squar e = .408 
df = 1, p < .05 
ga mm a = - .2 

chi -squ are = .19 12 
df = 1. p< .05 
ga mma= .06 

itself provides an advantage over other stu-
dents who have more limited access to library 
materials since they follow the library rules. 

Alternately , students conceivably could 
steal and mutilate books out of a need for 
money. Financial need was measured by re-
ceipt of financial aid and , though the dif-
ferences between those receiving aid and 
those who do not are not statistically sig-
nificant , there is some evidence that money is 
a motivating factor in student behavior. There 
is also some difference between the samples 
as to students holding jobs. Part-time em-
ployment might mean reinforcement of 
norms that transfers to these students' library 
behavior. 

Students do not, as seen here, steal and 
mutilate books because they do feel not well 
served by the library. There appears to be no 
relationship between attitude toward the li-
brary's services and rule- breaking behavior, 
although it can be seen that approximately 
one-third of the student body feels well 
served while two-thirds do not. In addition, 
Students in this sample did not steal and 
mutilate library books to avoid the expense of 
making a copy or because the copy machines 
broke down frequently. 

Table 2 highlights the relationship between 
breaking library rules and academic perfor-
mance. Here the gamma for doing well 
academically and being inconvenienced be-
cause material wanted has been stolen is 
slightly negative ; doing less well academically 
and being inconvenienced are unrelated . 
Students who break library rules are shrewd-
er. The " cleverness" in these students 
explains both their book-theft behavior and 
their ability to find what they need in the 

library more easily when compared with less 
able students . 

Students' Attitude toward 
Violating Library Rules 

Most students , regardless of library rules, 
take the attitude that there is no danger of 
getting caught mutilating books. However, 
having committed such an act does make the 
student feel it is easier to do successfully 
(p<.05) (table 3). Among students who re-
move books , the feeling is that they will not 
be caught with the book when checked b y 
guards at the exit (p< .05). 

Although most students in the sample indi-
cated that they did not steal things other than 
library materials, others who stole from the 
library were somewhat more likely to steal 
other things. Most students , regardless of 
their following library rules or not , did not 
feel that the majority of their friends stole 
books , but a small percentage of students in 
the sample who violated library rules b e-
lieved most of their friends did also . The data 
obtained from asking if students felt that a 
large proportion of the entire student body 
stole books indicated that students are evenly 
divided on whether more or less of the stu-
dent body steal books. 

The Relationship of 
Stealing and Mutilating Books 

One would expect that before removing a 
book from the library a student might alsc 
have considered doing so in the past, and thi5 
is significant (p< . 05) when isolating those 
that have stolen books . However, among stu 
dents who mutilate books there is also a sig 
nificant difference (p<.05) in this group fo 



344 I College & Research Libraries • july 1.981 

considering sneaking out a book, as seen in 
table 4. 

Students Who Sneak Out and 
Mutilate Books Rate Themselves 

Table 5 indicates the reasons for their be-
havior given by students who violated library 
rules. The most popular answer indicates that 

TABLE 3 

STUDENTS ' ATTITUDE TOWARD VIOLATING RULES 

Students' 
Attitude toward 
Violating Rules 

Ease in Ripping 
Out Pages 

Difficult through 
fairly easy 

Very easy 
chi-square = 2.6369, 

df = l , p<. 05 

Odds Getting Caught 
with an Unchecked-Out 
Book (Only 
for Students 
Sneaking Out Books) 

1 in 10 
1 in 100 
chi-square = 4.2393, 

df = l , p< .05 

Stealing Other Than 
Library Books 

Never 
Yes 
chi-square = 1.4896, 

df = l , p<.05 

Do Friends Steal 
Books? 

No 
Yes 
hi-square = 10.3657, 

df = 1, p< .05 

lfJelieves % Student 
Body Steals Books 

0% or less 
25% or more 
hi-square = .0644, 
df = l, p< .05 

Violating Library Rules 
Checks Out Sneaks Out 
Books and Books 
Does Not and/or 
Rip Pages Rips Pages 

39% (65) 24% (8) 
61% (103) 76% (25) 

71% (126) 44% (7) 
29% (52) 56% (9) 

91% (134) 83% (24) 
9% (13) 17% (5) 

100% (135) 91% (29) 
0% (0) 9% (3) 

53% (82) 
47% (72) 

52% (15) 
48% (15) 

the theft is psychologically, not practically, 
motivated. The sneaking out of books and 
ripping of pages is a bad habit done in an 
impersonal setting by the student thinking 
solely of himself. 

Summary and Discussion 

The bivariate approach used in this study 
was intended to point up the ways those stu-
dents who sneaked books out of the library or 
ripped out pages differed from the students 
who were "like themselves" but followed the 
library expectations for behavior. 

There was significant evidence that those in 
the rule-breaking group are good students 
who steal books independent of peer support. 
The student who will steal or mutilate library 
material thinks about it before attempting it, 
believes it is not difficult, and does not expect 
to be caught. 

Findings of previous studies were con-
firmed regarding the size of the problem and 
the extent of librarv abuse. Kaske had f<mnd 
13.07 percent of a ~ollection missing because 
of theft; the data in this study indicated 8 per-
cent of the student body actively steal books. 

This study, in the context of the study by 
Hendrick and Ylurfin, suggests that stud<•nts 
who mutilate books also consider stealing 
them from the library. 

Students who had mutilated books in the 
Hendrick and Murfin study indicated that the 
copy machines were too expensive. Inter-
views with the · "rip-offs" revealed that if the 
library had not been closing or the students 
had had the right change for the copy 
machine, etc., the mutilation would not have 
taken place (i.e., the act was circumstantial). 
In this sample the cost of making a copy or the 
workability of the machine was not related to 
the ripping out of pages or the sneaking out of 
books. 

If this study had been conducted at the 

TABLE 4 

~onsidering Sneaking 
put a Book 

"lever considered 
~onsidered at 

least once 

SNEAKING OuT A BooK OR RIPPING OuT PAGES, 
BY CoNSIDERING SNEAKiNG OuT A BooK 

Sneaking Out Books 
Checks Out Sneaks Out 

Books Books 

80% (122) 

20% (30) 

. 0% (O) 

100% (17) 

chi-square = 47.86 
df = l, p<.05 

Ripping Out Pages 
Does Not Rips Out 
Rip Pages Pages 

80% (122) 

20% (30) 

39% (7) 

61% (ll) 

chi-square = 14.159 
df = 1, p<.05 



Percent 

45% 
36% 

30% 

27% 

24% 

18% 

TABLE 5 

STUDENTS GIVE REASONS FOR STEALING 
AND MUTILATING LIBRARY BOOKS 

Reason 

Do not consider the needs of others 
Need the photographs or charts in 

books and cannot photocopy them 
Do not think about the act but steal 

and mutilate casually and thought-
lessly 

Are not aware of the cost of theft and 
mutilation to the library 

Cannot afford the copy machine or 
price of a book but want to own a 
cofy 

Stea and mutilate books as an ex-
pression of hostility toward the li-
brary and the university 

same time as the Hendrick and Murfin study, 
it might have yielded more similar results on 
some variables , but there was the five-year 
difference between the two , from 1973 to 
1978. By 1978, the copy machine had become 
an integral part of " using the library. " An arti-
cle about the photocopy industry stated that 
1973 was the largest profit year in history, up 
to that time , for the photocopy industry, in a 
trend toward more photocopying that began 
accelerating in the 1960s6 and has continued 
at more rapid rates since 1973. When stu-
dents interviewed for the Hendrick and 
Murfin study indicated that better access to 
copy machines would stop mutilation, regular 
use of copy machines in the library was still a 
novelty. But consistency in the size of the 
problem suggests that more copy machines 
do not reduce mutilation. 

There are other differences in the findings 
between this study and that done by Hen-
drick and Murfin. It was found here that bet-
ter students mutilate books and sneak them 
out of the library , while the other study found 
that, to some degree, students with a higher 
grade point average mutilated books but the 
relationship was not statistically significant. 
In Hendrick and Murfin, students who had 
mutilated periodicals felt they had been 
treated unfairly by the library, while in this 
study attitudes toward the library and feeling 
well served were not related to book theft or 
mutilation. 

This study showed that students who break 
library rules do not feel they will get caught 
doing so and consider book theft beforehand. 

Book Theft I 345 

Hendrick and Murfin also found that students 
do consider mutilating before attempting it 
and do not feel they will get caught. 

CONCLUSION 

Because this study yielded results that the 
attitude toward the library and availability of 
copy machines were not related to book theft 
or mutilation, I believe the norm-violating 
behavior to be caused not primarily by the 
more external library service but by a 
psychological and sociological state within the 
students who commit such acts. The fact that 
a student who rips a page out of a book is 
significantly more likely to also consider 
sneaking out a book makes me believe that 
there is a definite antisocial streak that is dis-
tinctive. 

I believe that students who break the li-
brary rules in this way do so because of their 
coping response to do well under academic 
pressure. It was the better students in the 
total sample who admitted to committing acts 
of library abuse. Because this study was done 
in an urban university library, it could be said 
that the " toughness" of city life causes the 
theft. However, I believe a case could be 
made for "danger" on a rural college campus 
also, specifically , the pressure for good 
grades. 

Since it is more likely to be the better stu-
dents who are involved, I agree that they are 
behaving "selfishly" as reported by Souter. It 
is relevant that these students, when choos-
ing a motivation for this behavior, choose "Do 
not consider the needs of others" most often. 
When a "good" student steals material he 
needs, he/she does so because his/her future 
professional career is more important than 
the library rules themselves . Good grades 
may serve to reinforce .for these students that 
it is more important what happens in their 
individual careers than sensitivity to the 
needs of their fellow students. It could be that 
the alienation intrinsic to university life as 
distinct from the intimacy of a college is a 
contributing factor. 

OTHER HYPOTHESES 

The impersonal structure of the university 
may also contribute to antisocial behavior in 
the library. As a long-range goal, university 
administrators would do well in attempting to 
make students feel that they are a part of a 



346 I College & Research Libraries • july 1981 

personal community. The student working in 
a large library is not relieved of the imper-
sonal, achievement-oriented structure of the 
classroom. Better students appear to become 
alienated from their own better values when 
under academic pressure, abuse their library 
privileges, and do not believe this to be too 
serious since they don' t believe they'll get 
caught. In reality, they probably are not 
caught, and the pattern of book theft remains 
one thought up and practiced by the student 
acting alone. 

Before attempting to solve the problems of 
the students ' feelings of isolation and the · 
pressure of the academic setting, it is more 
practical to change immediately the cycle of 
book theft and abuse . The fact that the library 
does not apprehend the student sets up the 
cycle of repeated theft and the student be-
comes unafraid of the consequences of his or 
her actions . The validity of this is seen when 

most students (having broken the library 
rules or not) feel they will not' get caught rip-
ping out pages. 

If students believed they would be caught, 
and library-rule breaking were taken seri-
ously , the problem would decrease sig-
nificantly , and a different psychology would 
evolve among students in their use of library 
privileges. The larger academic community 
appears to tolerate book theft and mutilation 
because it feels that students suffer as they try 
to maintain their grade point average . An ob-
jective understanding of the motivations of 
the student who mutilates and steals books 
should make those in the library community 
less sentimental on this issue. If the problem 
of library-book abuse is to be taken more seri-
ously and even eliminated, the .question of 
why student offenders are not caught has to 
be addressed seriously. 

REFERENC ES 

1. Carol W . Tyler, " Book Theft: A Brief Review, " 
Cornell University Libraries Bulletin 202:9-12 
(Oct. 1976). 

2. Neal K. Kaske , " Moffitt Undergraduate Library 
Book Loss Study, " Library Security Newsletter 
2:6-7 (Spring 1976). 

3. G . H . Souter, "Delinquent Readers : A Study of 
the Problem in University Libraries, " Journal of 
Librarianship 8:96-110 (April 1976). 

4 . Clyde Hendrick and Marjorie E. Murfin , " Proj-

ect Library Ripoff: A Study of Periodical M utila-
tion in a University Library," College & Re-
search Libraries 35:402-11 (Nov . 1974). 

5 . Marjorie E. Murfin and Clyde Hendrick , 
" Ripoffs Tell Their Story : Interview s with 
Mutilators in a University Library ," journal of 
Academic Librarianship 1:8-12 (May 1975). 

6. " Photo Growth Spurred by Copiers ," Exchange 
35:12-13 (April . 1974). 

APPE NDIX A : Q UE STION NA IRE 

The information collected in the following survey is going to be used in a te rm pape r about the 
library for a graduate course. All information will be kept confide ntial and anon ymity is ensured . If 
you cannot answer any question , skip over it to the other questions. Thank you for your time and 
cooperation. 

Circle the answer you choose . 
1. My major area of study is---------------------------
2. I feel academically I am doing: 

A. Very well B. All right C. Not too badly D . Poorl y 
3. I am a full -time student: 

TRUE FALSE 
4. I also hold a full-time or part-time job: 

TRUE FALSE 
5. 1: 

A. Receive financial aid 
B. Do not receive financial aid 

6. I am: 
A. A graduate student 
B. An undergraduate student 

-- -- ---------------------------------------------------------~ 



Book Theft I 34 7 

7. In general: 
A. I feel well served by the library. 
B. I feel well served by the library but there are some things that could be improved . 
C. I feel the library isn't operated very well. 

8. How many times have you removed a book from the library without checking it out? 
A. Zero B. 1-4 C . 4 or more 

9. If you have removed a book in the above manner, how many times did you return it to the library 
after that? 
A. Zero B. 1 or 2 times C. 3 or more times 

10. Have you ever considered removing a book from the library without checking it out? 
A. Never B. Once or twice C. Three times or more 

11. What do you think the odds are of being caught with an unchecked-out book at the door? 
A. One out of a 100 
B. One out of 10 
C. One out of 2 

12. What proportion of the student body do you think has stolen books ? 
A. 2% B. 10% C . 25% D . 50% E. 75% 

13. Knowing your close friends as you do , how many have stolen books? 
A. the minority B. the majority C. 10% D. 50% E. 75% 

14. Have you been inhibited from using the Xerox machine because it was too expensive? 
A. Never B. One to four times C . A great deal of the time D . Most of the time 

15. Have you been inconvenienced because the Xerox machines were not working? 
A. Never B. One to four times C. A great deal of the time D . Most of the time 

16. Have you ever torn a section out of a library book or magazine? 
A. Never B. Once C. Two to four times D. More than four times 

17. Do you think ripping out a section of a book or magazine would be easy or difficult to accomplish? 
A. Very easy B. Fairly easy C. Not too hard D . Difficult 

18. Have you every been inconvenienced because a book you want has been stolen or a section you 
wanted ripped out? 
A. Never B. Once or twice C . Three or more times 

19. If you have ever removed a book from the library without checking it out or torn out a section of a 
book or magazine, circle as many of the following choices as are valid for yourself. Books are stolen 
and mutilated because students : 
A. Do not consider the needs of others 
B. Cannot afford the Xerox machine or the price of a book but want to own a copy. 
C. Are not aware of the cost of theft and mutilation to the library. 
D. Need the photographs or charts in books and magazines and cannot photocopy them . 
E. Do not think about the act or the library but steal and mutilate casually and thoughtlessly. 
F. Steal and mutilate books as an expression of hostility toward the library and the university . 
G. None of the above. 
H. Other. 

20. Do you steal things other than library books? 
A. Never B. Yearly C. Monthly D. Weekly 

Optional question : 
If it were up to me to better control book theft and mutilation of library material, I would ---,--I