Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating

Tibbetts, Stephen G.; Myers, David L.

doi:10.1007/bf02887271

Cited by 109 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Piquero and Tibbetts (1996), for example, found that much of the relationship between low self-control and intentions to drive drunk and shoplift were accounted for by anticipated shame, but that an independent relationship remained for low self-control. Other studies have shown that once anticipated shame was accounted for, the effect of low selfcontrol was either weakened (Grasmick & Bursik, 1990;Tibbetts & Herz, 1996;Tibbetts, 1997) or completely disappeared (Tibbetts & Myers, 1999). The present study builds on such research, but accomplishes another goal stated by Baron et al (2007) in the sense that it integrates additional decision-making theories-namely differential association, strain, and deterrence-into a more general model of criminal offending.…”

Section: Shaming Shame and Self-control Theorymentioning

confidence: 67%

“…For example, some studies have examined the influence of peer associations and deviance, most of them showing increased criminality for those who associate with or relate to delinquent peers (Warr & Stafford, 1996;Matsueda & Anderson, 1998;Piquero & Paternoster, 1998; but see Rebellon, Cohn & Van Gundy, 2007). Such effects of deviant peers tend to be reduced, but not fully accounted for, by anticipated shaming (Tibbetts, 1998;Tibbetts & Myers, 1999).…”

Section: Anticipated Shaming As a Unifying Conceptmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…Much of this research focuses on the deterrent effect of formal sanctions from the criminal justice system, but an emerging subset of this literature suggests that informal sanctions, such as anticipated or actual feelings of shame or embarrassment among family and friends, may wield a particularly strong inhibitory influence on crime (Grasmick & Bursik, 1990;Nagin & Paternoster, 1993;Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996;Tibbetts & Herz, 1996;Hay, 2001;Blackwell & Eschholz, 2002;Tibbetts, 1997Tibbetts, , 2003Williams & Hawkins, 1986). The same subset of research further suggests that informal sanctions may actually mediate the relationship between formal sanctions and crime (Nagin & Paternoster, 1993;Tibbetts & Herz, 1996;Tibbetts & Myers, 1999).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Anticipated shaming and criminal offending

Rebellon

Piquero

et al. 2010

Journal of Criminal Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Shaming Shame and Self-control Theorymentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Anticipated Shaming As a Unifying Conceptmentioning

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anticipated shaming and criminal offending

Rebellon

Piquero

et al. 2010

Journal of Criminal Justice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Noting that self-control measures explain relatively low levels of variation in crime-related dependent variables, some researchers have questioned Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) bold assertion that self-control is the indispensable predictor of crime Brownfield & Sorenson, 1993;Grasmick et al, 1993;Junger & Tremblay, 1999;Sellers, 1999). Indeed, investigators have found that the effects of self-control are exceeded by measures from competing theoretical perspectives, such as strain, rational choice, and Baumrind's theory of authoritative parenting (Hay, 2001;Tibbetts & Myers, 1999;Van Wyk, Benson, & Harris, 2000;cf. Britt, 2000;Polakowski, 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-control behind bars: A validation study of the Grasmick et al. scale

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much empirical support of self-control theory is based on the 24-item scale conceptualized by Grasmick and his colleagues. This study examined the dimensionality of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analyses, and a structural equation model (SEM) produced results that are discordant with much prior research. The Grasmick et al. scale was not unidimensional, more complex theoretical iterations failed to meet most goodness-of-fit statistics, and considerable refinement via modification indices was needed before a measurement model that fit the data could be found. Further refinement is required to justify it as the quintessential measure of self-control. ARTICLEMuch empirical support of self-control theory is based on the 24-item scale conceptualized by Grasmick and his colleagues. This study examined the dimensionality of the scale. Exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analyses, and a structural equation model (SEM) produced results that are discordant with much prior research. The Grasmick et al. scale was not unidimensional, more complex theoretical iterations failed to meet most goodness-of-fit statistics, and considerable refinement via modification indices was needed before a measurement model that fit the data could be found. Further refinement is required to justify it as the quintessential measure of self-control.Gottfredson and Hirschi's A General Theory of Crime (1990) galvanized the criminological community with its assertion that self-control is the main individual-level predictor of delinquency and related deviant behaviors. According to Pratt and Cullen (2000, p. 931), the popularity, controversy, and accuracy of self-control theory are some of the reasons why its authors are among the most cited criminologists in the world. Since 1990, dozens of scholars have devised ways to operationalize self-control and to examine its predictive power empirically.

show abstract

“…Researchers have shown that academic dishonesty has been worsened over the years [6], [7], [4], [8], and that cheating is an epidemic phenomena across most college campuses [9], [10], [11]. The development of information technology and the accessibility of academic material on the internet made it easier to engage in cheating and in plagiarism [12], [13], [14], and [15].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No More Excuses - Personality Traits and Academic Dishonesty in Online Courses

Eshet¹,

Grinautski²,

Peled³

et al. 2014

JSSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academic dishonesty is a disturbing issue in higher education that has been worsening over the years, especially with the appearance of the internet and the e-learning education. This new technology exposes students to the opportunity of using online bank exams and term papers and increases their tendency to cheat. This study investigates student academic dishonesty in the context of traditional and distance-learning courses in higher education. Data from 1,365 students enrolled in academic institutes in the U.S.A and Israel were surveyed to assess their personality and their willingness to commit various acts of academic misconduct. The findings indicate that in both countries dishonest behaviors are greater in face-to-face courses than in online courses. In addition, both American and Israeli students identified with the personality trait of Agreeableness showed a negative correlation with academic dishonesty. Furthermore, Israeli students identified with the personality traits of Conscientiousness and Emotional Stability demonstrated a negative correlation with academic dishonesty. In contrast, the personality trait of Extraversion among American students was found in a positive correlation with academic misconduct.Implications for further research are discussed.

show abstract

Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating

Cited by 109 publications

References 57 publications

Anticipated shaming and criminal offending

Anticipated shaming and criminal offending

Self-control behind bars: A validation study of the Grasmick et al. scale

No More Excuses - Personality Traits and Academic Dishonesty in Online Courses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About