Research on the causes of student misconduct in higher education has largely overlooked the values of integrating individual and situational perspectives to structure empirical examinations. Such research has important implications for the prevention and management of academic misconduct by higher education institutions. In this study, perceptual deterrence (Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002; Stafford & Warr, 1993) and self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997) theories were adopted to model the impact of situational factors and individual differences on students' intentions to engage in plagiarism. A questionnaire using a scenario method and manipulating the situational deterrence variables of the certainty and severity of sanctions was administered to 536 undergraduate university students. Analysis of covariance results indicated that the objective manipulations of the certainty and severity of sanctions had no effect on intentions to engage in plagiarism. However, Tobit regression results indicated that both situational perceptions of costs and benefits, and academic self-efficacy were significant predictors of intentions to engage in plagiarism. Furthermore, academic self-efficacy was found to moderate the effects of deterrence perceptions on intentions to engage in plagiarism. The results highlight the significance of the interaction between situational and individual characteristics on decisions to engage in deviant behaviour. Implications for the management of misconduct in higher education institutions are discussed.
AjzenI. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27–58.
2.
AjzenI. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683
3.
ArielyD.LoewensteinG. (2000). When does duration matter in judgment and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4), 508–523
4.
ArielyD.ZakayD. (2001). A timely account of the role of duration in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 108, 187–207.
5.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
7.
BanduraA. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In PajaresF.UrdanT. (Eds.), Selfefficacy beliefs of adolescents. (pp 307–337). Greenwich, CT: IAP–Information Age Publishing.
8.
BanduraA.BarbaranelliC.CapraraG.V.PastorelliC. (1996). Multifaceted impact of selfefficacy Beliefs on academic functioning. Child Development, 67, 1206–1222.
9.
BeckerG.S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.
10.
BolinA.U. (2004). Self–control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology, 138(2), 101–114
11.
BunnD.N.CaudillS.B.GropperD.M. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior. The Journal of Economic Education, 23(3), 197–207
12.
CarmichaelS.PiqueroA.R. (2004). Sanctions, perceived anger, and criminal offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4), 371–393
13.
ClarkeR.V.FelsonM. (1993). Introduction: Criminology, routine activity, and rational choice. In ClarkeR.V.FelsonM. (Eds.), Routine activity and rational choice (Vol. 5, pp.)1–14. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
14.
CochranJ.K.ChamlinM.WoodP.B.SellersC.S. (1999). Shame, embarrassment, and formal sanction threats: Extending the deterrence/rational choice model to academic dishonesty. Sociological Inquiry, 69(1), 91–105
15.
CornishD.ClarkeR.V. (1986). Introduction. In CornishD.ClarkeR.V. (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. (pp. 1–16). New York: Springer-Verlag.
16.
CoveyM.K.SaladinS.KillenP.J. (2001). Self-Monitoring, surveillance, and incentive effects on cheating. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(5), 673–679
17.
CrownD.F.SpillerM.S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 683–700.
18.
CulwinF. (2006). An active introduction to academic misconduct and the measured demographics of misconduct. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(2), 167–182
19.
DevonportT.J.LaneA.M. (2006). Relationships between self-efficacy, coping and student retention. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(2), 127–138
20.
FinnK.V.FroneM.R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating: Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 97(3), 115–122
21.
GoreP.A.Jr. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 92–115.
22.
GottfredsonM.R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
23.
GrasmickH.G.BursikR.J.Jr. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law & Society Review, 24(3), 837–862
24.
HardingT.S.PassowH.J.CarpenterD.D.FinelliC. (2004). An Examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and professional behavior. IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 46(5), 133–138
25.
HaswellS.JubbP.WearingB. (1999). Accounting students and cheating: A comparative study for Australia, South Africa, and the U.K. Teaching Business Ethics, 3, 211–239.
26.
JohnsonP.B.RichterL. (2004). Research note: What if we're wrong?. Some possible implications of systematic distortions in adolescent's self-reports of sensitive behaviors. Journal of Drug Issues, 34(4), 951–970
27.
KlepperSNaginD.S. (1989). The deterrent effect of perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27(4), 721–746
28.
LemingJ.S. (1980). Cheating behavior, subject variables, and components of the internal-external scale under high and low risk conditions. Journal of Educational Research, 74(2), 83–87
29.
LinnenbrinkE.A.PintrichP.R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119–137.
30.
MarsdenH.CarrollM.NeillJ.T. (2005). Who cheats at university. A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57(1), 1–10
31.
McCabeD.L.ButterfieldK.D.TrevinoL.K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), 294–305
32.
McCabeD.L.TrevinoL.K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522–538
33.
McCabeD.L.TrevinoL.K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38(3), 379–396
34.
McCabeD.L.TrevinoL.K.ButterfieldK.D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232
35.
MultonK.D.BrownS.D.LentR.W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 38(1), 30–38
36.
MurdockT.B.AndermanE.M. (2006). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 129–145
37.
MurdockT.B.MillerA.KohlhardtJ. (2004). Effects of classroom context variables on high school students' judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 765–777
38.
NaginD.S.PaternosterR. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law & Society Review, 27(3), 467–496
39.
NaginD.S.PogarskyG. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39(4), 865–892
40.
NaginD.S.PogarskyG. (2003). An experimental investigation of deterrence: Cheating, selfserving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology, 41(1), 167–193
41.
NewsteadS.E.Franklyn-StokesA.ArmsteadP. (1996). Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 229–241
42.
OsgoodD.W.FinkenL.L.McMorrisB.J. (2002). Analyzing multiple-item measures of crime and deviance II: Tobit regression analysis of transformed scores. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(4), 319–347
43.
PajaresF. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 543–578
44.
PajaresF. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.
45.
ParkC. (2004). Rebels without a clause: Towards an institutional framework for dealing with plagiarism by students. Journal of Further and Higher Education,28(3),291–306
46.
PassowH.J.MayhewM.J.FinelliC.J.HardingT.S.CarpenterD.D. (2006). Factors influencing engineering students' decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 643–684
47.
PaternosterR. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly, 4(2), 173–217
48.
PiqueroA.R.MacIntoshR.HickmanM. (2002). The validity of a self-reported delinquency scale: Comparisons across gender, age race, and place of residence. Sociological Methods & Research, 30(4), 492–529
49.
PiqueroA.R.PogarskyG. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr's reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(2), 153–186
50.
PiqueroA.R.TibbettsS. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders' decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice Quarterly, 13(3), 481–510
51.
PogarskyG. (2002). Identifying ‘deterrable’ offenders: Implications for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 431–452
52.
PogarskyG.PiqueroA.R.PaternosterR. (2004). Modeling change in perceptions about sanction threats: The neglected linkage in deterrence theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 20(4), 343–369
53.
PulversK.DiekhoffG.M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and college classroom environment. Research in Higher Education, 40(4), 487–498
54.
RettingerD.A.JordanA.E.PeschieraF. (2004). Evaluating the motivation of other students to cheat: A vignette experiment. Research in Higher Education, 45(8), 873–890
55.
SchunkD.H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 207–231
56.
SchunkD.H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 159–172.
57.
SierraJ.J.HymanM.R. (2006). A dual-process model of cheating intentions. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 193–204
58.
SmithK.J.DavyJ.A.RosenbergD.L.HaightG.T. (2002). A structural modeling investigation of the influence of demographic and attitudinal factors and in-class deterrents on cheating behavior among accounting majors. Journal of Accounting Education, 20, 45–65.
59.
SmithT.R. (2004). Low self-control, staged opportunity, and subsequent fraudulent behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(5), 542–563
60.
StaffordM.C.WarrM. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(2), 123–135
TibbettsS.G. (1998). Differences Between criminal justice majors and noncriminal justice majors in determinants of test cheating intentions. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 9(1), 81–94
63.
TibbettsS.G. (1999). Differences between women and men regarding decisions to commit test cheating. Research in Higher Education, 40(3), 323–342
64.
TobinJ. (1958). Estimation of relationships for limited dependent variables. Econometrica, 26(1), 24–36
65.
VowellP.R.ChenJ. (2004). Predicting academic misconduct: A comparative test of four sociological explanations. Sociological Inquiry, 74(2), 226–249
66.
WhitleyB.E.Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39(3), 235–274
67.
WortleyR. (1996). Guilt, shame and situational crime prevention. In HomelR. (Ed.), The politics and practice of situational crime prevention (Vol. 5, pp.)115–132. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
68.
WrightB.R.E.CaspiA.MoffittT.E.PaternosterR. (2004). Does the perceived risk of punishment deter criminally prone individuals? Rational choice, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41(2), 180–213
69.
ZimmermanB.J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82–91.
70.
ZimmermanB.J.BanduraA. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845–862
71.
ZimmermanB.J.BanduraA.Martinez-PonsM. (1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting. American Educational Research Journal, 29(3), 663–676
