Dishonest Behavior: The Impact of Prior Self‐Regulatory Exertion and Personality

Gotlib, Tomer; Converse, Patrick D.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00696.x

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(64 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that self‐control was a strong negative predictor of academic dishonesty. This is consistent with the study by Jones and Quisenberry () and with the results of research on dishonest behavior in general (Gotlib & Converse, ). Jones and Quisenberry () use the assumptions of the general theory of crime (Gottfredson & Hirschi, ) suggesting that people with a low level of self‐control often engage in risky and deviant behavior.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Don't cheat, be happy. Self‐control, self‐beliefs, and satisfaction with life in academic honesty: A cross‐sectional study in Poland

Błachnio

2019

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Błachnio, A. (2019). Don't cheat, be happy. Self-control, self-beliefs, and satisfaction with life in academic honesty: A cross-sectional study in Poland. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 60, 261-266.Academic dishonesty is dishonest behavior at school or university which is supposed to result in a passed exam or in a positive grade. Academic dishonesty is a global problem, present at every stage of education. Since the consequences of this phenomenon may be serious, such as a low level of knowledge despite receiving a diploma from a school or university or carrying dishonest behaviors over into other domains of functioning, research into this phenomenon also seems to be of high significance. Cheating, plagiarism, and falsification are the forms of academic of dishonesty. The aim of this study was to establish how academic dishonesty is related to self-control, self-beliefs, and satisfaction with life. The sample consisted of 631 participants, to whom we administered the Academic Honesty Scale, the Brief Self-Control Scale, the Social Success Index, the Normalcy Feeling Scale, the Social Comparison Scale, and the Satisfaction With Life Scale. We found that academic dishonesty was linked with some of the variables. The results indicated that academic dishonesty and self-control were negatively related to academic cheating and that social comparison was positively related to plagiarism and falsification. It also turned out that women scored lower than men on academic dishonesty. Research findings on academic dishonesty have a number of important implications for education, particularly for psychologists, teachers, and sociologists.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Don't cheat, be happy. Self‐control, self‐beliefs, and satisfaction with life in academic honesty: A cross‐sectional study in Poland

Błachnio

2019

Scandinavian J Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers should also examine the connection between CAB and other personality variables. Among them, integrity tests have shown promising results when it comes to predicting CAB (see, e.g., Credé, Bashshur, & Niehorster, 2010; Gotlib & Converse, 2010; Lucas & Friedrich, 2005; Marcus, Lee, & Ashton, 2007). Likewise, the honesty-humility factor from the HEXACO personality model (Ashton & Lee, 2009; Lee & Ashton, 2004) needs to be further studied as it has been shown to be useful in determining negative behaviors in the academic and organizational contexts (Lee, Ashton, & de Vries, 2005; Marcus et al, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis.

Cuadrado¹,

Salgado²,

Moscoso³

2021

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Counterproductive academic behaviors (CAB) are a major problem for educational institutions all over the world. For this reason, to determine the potential predictors of CAB is relevant. After defining CAB and introducing a typology of seven CABs facets (i.e., cheating, absenteeism, plagiarism, deception, breach of rules, low effort, and misuse of resources), this study reports on a comprehensive meta-analysis carried out to estimate the relationships between CAB and its facets with the Big Five personality dimensions and intelligence. Results showed that conscientiousness (K ϭ 77, N ϭ 31,473, ϭ Ϫ.28) and agreeableness (K ϭ 56, N ϭ 24,436, ϭ Ϫ.14) were predictors of the student's propensity to engage in CAB. Conscientiousness also predicted the 7 facets of CAB, particularly absenteeism ( ϭ Ϫ.30), cheating ( ϭ Ϫ.34), misuse of resources ( ϭ Ϫ.32), low effort ( ϭ Ϫ.29), and breach of rules ( ϭ Ϫ.27). Intelligence showed a negative relationship with CAB (K ϭ 55, N ϭ 30,052, ϭ Ϫ.19), and it was the best predictor of deception (K ϭ 18, N ϭ 3,575 ϭ Ϫ.48). The educational level, the type of cognitive tests, and the intelligence factor assessed were relevant moderators of the validity estimates. The validity of a compound of conscientiousness, agreeableness, and intelligence was .42 for predicting overall CAB. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the findings.

show abstract

“…Additionally, they also found that depleted participants are more likely than non-depleted ones to expose themselves to the possibility of cheating. Gotlib and Converse (2010) found that egodepletion increases dishonesty (in the form of leaving a room before the designated end time).…”

Section: Review Of the Empirical Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation

Capraro¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Which social decisions are intuitive? Which are deliberative? The dual-process approach to human sociality has emerged in the last decades as a vibrant and exciting area of research. Here, I review the existing literature on the cognitive basis of cooperation, altruism, honesty, positive and negative reciprocity, and (act) utilitarianism. I conclude by introducing a game-theoretical framework that organizes the majority of the empirical regularities. This framework extends Rand and colleagues’ Social Heuristics Hypothesis to any one-shot game G. The core assumption of this “General Social Heuristics Hypothesis” is that, under intuition, people play a Nash equilibrium of the “real analogue of G”, G^real, while under deliberation people play a Nash equilibrium of G. G^real differs from G along two dimensions: G is one-shot, while G^real might be iterated; the payoffs of G^real might be different from the payoffs of G, although they are ordered in (almost) the same way.

show abstract

Dishonest Behavior: The Impact of Prior Self‐Regulatory Exertion and Personality

Cited by 9 publications

References 38 publications

Don't cheat, be happy. Self‐control, self‐beliefs, and satisfaction with life in academic honesty: A cross‐sectional study in Poland

Don't cheat, be happy. Self‐control, self‐beliefs, and satisfaction with life in academic honesty: A cross‐sectional study in Poland

Personality, intelligence, and counterproductive academic behaviors: A meta-analysis.

The dual-process approach to human sociality: Meta-analytic evidence for a theory of internalized heuristics for self-preservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About