This article was downloaded by: [International Islamic University MalaysiaIIUM]On: 27 February 2013, At: 17:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Deviant BehaviorPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

Academic dishonesty and lowself‐control: An empirical testof a general theory of crimeJohn K. Cochran a , Peter B. Wood b , ChristineS. Sellers c , Wendy Wilkerson c & Mitchell B.Chamlin da Department of Criminology, University of SouthFlorida, Tampa, FL, 33620–8100, USAb Department of Sociology, Anthropologyand Social Work, Mississippi State University,Mississippi, Mississippi State, USAc Department of Criminology, University of SouthFlorida, Tampa, Florida, USAd Division of Criminal Justice, University ofCincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USAVersion of record first published: 18 May 2010.

To cite this article: John K. Cochran , Peter B. Wood , Christine S. Sellers , WendyWilkerson & Mitchell B. Chamlin (1998): Academic dishonesty and low self‐control:An empirical test of a general theory of crime, Deviant Behavior, 19:3, 227-255

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1998.9968087

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,

reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any formto anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall notbe liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs ordamages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

academic dishonesty and lowself-control: an empirical test ofa general theory of crime

John K. CochranDepartment of Criminology, University of SouthFlorida, Tampa, Florida, USA

Peter B. WoodDepartment of Sociology, Anthropology and SocialWork, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State,Mississippi, USA

Christine S. SellersWendy WilkersonDepartment of Criminology, University of SouthFlorida, Tampa, Florida, USA

Mitchell B. ChamlinDivision of Criminal Justice, University ofCincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA

This study uses academic dishonesty as a unique typeof fraudulent behavior upon which to testGottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Thestudy utilizes self-report data from a survey ofundergraduate students enrolled in sociology coursesat a large southwestern university. With these data,the authors examine a number of the core theoreticalpropositions of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory. Thatis, we test issues concerning the dimensionality of lowself-control, the influence of parenting on thedevelopment of self-control, the association betweenlevels of self-control and involvement in academicdishonesty, and the interactive effects of low

Received 30 June 1997; accepted 27 August 1997.A previous version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the American

Society of Criminology, Chicago, IL 1996.Address correspondence to: John K. Cochran, Department of Criminology, University of

South Florida, Tampa, FL 33620-8100.

Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19:227-255,1998Copyright © 1998 Taylor & Francis

0163-9625/98 $12.00 +.00 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

228 J. K. Cochran et al.

self-control and opportunity on the frequency ofacademic dishonesty. The results of our analyses,although rather mixed, do provide qualified supportfor the theory.

Gottfredson and Hirschi's A General Theory of Crime (1990) isone of the more recent developments in criminology. Accordingto Gibbs and Giever (1995), the theory has spawned consider-able academic discussions because it calls into question manycurrent criminal justice policies, crime control procedures,popular public perceptions, and mainstream criminologicaltheories.

In their attempt to produce a general theory, Gottfredson andHirschi announced their dissatisfaction with "the ability of aca-demic criminology to provide believable explanations of criminalbehavior" (1990:xiii). In turn, they proclaimed that their theoryexplains every type of crime and deviance in all cases and alignsthe nature of the criminal directly with the nature of crime. Thisstudy tests many of Gottfredson and Hirschi's basic theoreticalpropositions by exposing them to a new dependent variable:academic dishonesty. Moreover, this study contributes to thegrowing body of research that has assessed the empirical ade-quacy of the theory by operationalizing the frequently neglectedconcept of parental effectiveness and testing its role in thegenesis of self-control. Likewise, it also measures and tests thecausal effects of opportunity in interaction with low self-controlon the frequency of self-reported academic dishonesty among asample of university students.

STATEMENT OF THE THEORY

Gottfredson and Hirschi proposed that their theory "incorpor-ates a classical view of the role of choice and a positivistic viewof the role of causation in the explanation of behavior"(1990:120). It is from this cross-fertilized perspective that theydiscuss their conceptualizations of crime, criminality, and lowself-control.

Though they begin their efforts from within the classicalschool of criminology, Gottfredson and Hirschi do not merelyresurrect this criminological tradition; their efforts are not oldwine in new bottles. Instead, they expand upon the basic clas-sical assumption that all human behavior is choice based on the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 229

self-centered pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain bybringing into this equation ideas unique to positivist views oncrime. First, they propose a general theory incorporating deviantas well as criminal acts. Thus, their approach is freed from thenarrow classical restriction that defines crimes within legalisticparameters. That is, Gottfredson and Hirschi extend classicalcriminology to incorporate not only legally defined criminal acts,but analogous deviant acts as well, including "accidents, victim-izations, truancies from home, school, and work, substanceabuse, family problems, and disease" (1990:xiv).

By expanding the classical conception of crime into a morenon-political, non-culturally limiting arena, Gottfredson andHirschi are able to develop a more general definition. In fact,Gottfredson and Hirschi define crime as "acts of force or fraudundertaken in pursuit of self-interest" (1990:15). This broader,more general definition blends the positivist conceptualizationof crime and deviance as characteristically similar events withthe classical vision of behavior as freely undertaken in thepursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. Furthermore,Gottfredson and Hirschi characterize both deviance and crimeas being easy, offering immediate benefits, risky, physical, andrequiring little planning, organization or sophistication, butnetting little in the way of long-term benefits. In fact, they con-clude that these similarities make clear the need for a generaltheory of crime and that it is inappropriate to produce theoriesbased on differences between types of crime.

Gottfredson and Hirschi not only find similarities betweencrime and deviance, they also find similarity between criminal/deviant acts and the people who commit them. It is at thisbehavioral appreciation of the criminal actor that they onceagain embrace aspects of positivist thought. Whereas they viewcrime and deviance classically as acts of choice, they find clas-sical theory lacking in its ability to explain why some peoplechoose crime as their means of pursuing pleasure and avoidingpain, whereas most others do not. To resolve this problem, Gott-fredson and Hirschi employ positivist views on causation.However, as with their interpretation of classical criminology,they accept some portions of positivist thought and rejectothers.

Criminality, the propensity to commit crime, is at the root oftheir causal explanation for individual differences in suscepti-bility to crime. Within this conceptualization of criminality,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

230 J. K. Cochran et al.

however, they reject deterministic notions of a genetic or otherbiological source. Instead, they focus on a probabalistic modelof cause in which poor early childhood socialization and ineffec-tive parenting practices produce an enduring criminal predis-position called low self-control. Thus, individual differences inself-control cause people to "differ in the extent to which theyare vulnerable to the temptations of the moment" (1990:87).Low self-control is promoted as the trait that accounts for indi-vidual differences in offending.

Gottfredson and Hirschi define self-control as "the differentialtendency of people to avoid criminal acts whatever the circum-stance in which they find themselves" (1990:87). It is the keytheoretical cornerstone of their general theory of crime. Theypropose that criminals are simply people who are unable tocontrol their desires because they lack self-control. Accordingly,Gottfredson and Hirschi believe that low self-control is the lackof internalized restraints necessary to keep people from engag-ing in criminal or deviant behavior.

They explain that "people who lack self-control will tend tobe impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and nonverbal, and they will tend there-fore to engage in criminal and analogous acts" (1990:90). Theyassert that these characteristics combine to form a single, unidi-mensional personality trait that remains stable throughout life.These elements of low self-control bear remarkable resemblanceto both the characteristics of people who commit criminal anddeviant acts and to the acts themselves. Again, according toGottfredson and Hirschi, people with low self-control succumbto the desires of the moment, are self-centered, gravitate towardphysical activities, take risks, have a here-and-now orientation,and are quick to become frustrated and angry. Similarly, theycharacterize acts of crime and deviance as behaviors which,whereas often harmful to others or property, are also imme-diately gratifying, easy, exciting, physical, and pleasurable.Crimes tend to be acts that require little planning, occur closeto the offender's home, and involve easy, available targets.Again, these attributes appeal to people focused in the presentin their selfish pursuit of pleasure who cannot or will not con-sider the long-term consequences of their action to themselvesor to others. Conversely, people possessing high self-control arebetter able to defer gratification, think of others, refrain fromtaking unnecessary risks, are willing to persevere under difficult

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 231

situations, are more apt to talk out their problems, and are lesseasily frustrated and angered; consequently, these people areless likely to find crime attractive.

The Role of Effective Parenting in the Development ofSelf-Control

Gottfredson and Hirschi proposed that a person's level of self-control is developed in early childhood and is dependent uponthe degree to which the child's caretakers are successful in rec-ognizing uncontrolled behaviors and are willing and able tocorrect them. They cite a large body of research which estab-lishes a link between effective parenting practices and crimi-nality. From this body of research they explicate what theybelieve is necessary for self-control to develop and flourishwithin a child. They propose that three conditions are neededfor parents to adequately instill self-control in their children,First, parents must continuously monitor and be aware of thechild's behavior. Second, the parents must recognize whendeviant, uncontrolled behavior occurs. Third, they must followthe deviant behavior with corrective punishment. These threeprocesses are viewed as minimal conditions necessary for achild to develop self-control. It is also important to note thatbehind these conditions lies the clear parental communicationof expectations for the child and a parental affection for andinvestment in the child's well-being.

Unfortunately, problems can occur at any point in theprocess. For example, the parent may not love or want thechild. Next, even if the parent loves the child, she/he may notbe willing or able to effectively communicate behavioral expec-tations to the child or to monitor the child's compliance withthese expectations. Also, even if there is love, communication,and monitoring, the parent may find nothing wrong with thechild's uncontrolled behavior and thus not recognize deviantbehavior when it occurs. Finally, even though the parent maylove and both monitor and recognize deviant behavior, he/shemay not possess either the ability or desire to properly disciplinethe child. In other words, there are many possibilities for theprocess to breakdown, resulting in a child with low self-control.Conversely, when a parent effectively follows the necessary pro-cedures involved in monitoring, recognition, and discipline,she/he can establish within the child a high level of self-controland the ability to resist the temptations of crime.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

232 J. K. Cochran et al.

The Interaction of Opportunity and Low Self-Control in theEtiology of Crime

Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime is seeminglysimple yet subtly complicated. Not only do they propose thatself-control is a key factor in determining individual differencesin proclivity toward crime and deviance, they also introduce theconcept of opportunity for crime as a major tenet of theirtheory. They attest that it is, in fact, the interaction between lowself-control and opportunity that produces criminal and deviantacts.

Gottfredson and Hirschi argued that a general theory of crimi-nal behavior should establish a link between individuals' capac-ity for criminal behavior and their opportunities to express thiscapacity. They advise that although low self-control does notrequire opportunity to lead a person into crime, whenopportunities for crime are present, a person with low self-control is more likely to succumb to the temptation. Thus, theattributes of low self-control and opportunity interact to causecrime. Moreover, they aver that "force and fraud are ever-present possibilities in human affairs" (1990:4). Thus,opportunities for crime are widely available to any whose levelof self-control is low enough to remove any restraints whichwould otherwise inhibit or prevent criminal behavior.

Gottfredson and Hirschi proposed that, "all else being equal,"for persons with low self-control, the opportunity for a ride in astolen car has more appeal than riding the bus home. Similarly,walking through an open door and stealing money off a tablewould be more appealing for those possessing low self-controlthan arising at 4:00 a.m. to earn money delivering newspapers.Furthermore, they emphasize that the interaction of opportunityand low self-control extends to non-criminal acts as well. Forexample, drinking, smoking, and non-marital sex, for those withlow self-control, are more immediately rewarding than absten-tion. These scenarios all suggest that persons with high self-control are less likely to take advantage of the easy, available,and immediately gratifying opportunities for crime and deviancethan are those with low self-control.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The relative newness of this theory brings it to the forefront ofcurrent criminologica! research, and even critics of the theory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 233

have pronounced it an important theoretical development.Unfortunately, there is not yet a sufficient body of empiricalresearch available to generate any firm conclusions regardingthe theory's validity. Although sparse, the research available onthis theory has focused on five main areas: (1) the dimension-ality of low self-control, (2) the stability of low self-control, (3) thecauses of low self-control, (4) the effects of low self-control, and(5) the interactive effects of opportunity arid low self-control.

Much of the earliest research targeted the dimensionalityissue (i.e., whether or not low self-control is a unidimensionaltrait). Although generally supportive of the unidimensionality oflow self-control, this research has produced varying results.Research by Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Ameklev (1993) and byWood, Pfefferbaum, and Arneklev (1993) supports Gottfredsonand Hirschi's assertion that self-control is unidimensional. Like-wise, Nagin and Paternoster (1994) and Piquero and Tibbetts(1996) both provided strong support for the unidimensionality ofthe scale. Furthermore, Polakowski's (1994) research suggeststhat a single latent factor underlies early indicators of impulsive-ness, hyperactivity, attention deficits, and minor conduct prob-lems. However, Longshore, Rand, and Stein (1996), in a survey ofa criminal sample, reported a five factor solution which,although generally congruent with Gottfredson and Hirschi'sdescription of the elements of low self-control, suggests a multi-dimensionality to this construct. Furthermore, a number ofstudies have shown that some of these elements of low self-control are better predictors of criminal/deviant behavior thanothers. For instance, Arneklev, Grasmick, Tittle, and Bursik (1993)found that the single risk-taking sub-scale was a stronger predic-tor of "imprudent" behavior than the overall self-control scale.Likewise, Wood et al. (1993) argued that the six components ofrisk, impulsivity, insensitivity, physicality, shortsightedness, and anonverbal orientation should be treated separately due to theirdifferential predictive abilities. Thus, whereas most of theresearch establishes empirical support for the unidimensionalnature of low self-control, some studies have obtained mixedresults. As such, a definitive answer regarding the dimensionalityissue is still lacking.

Perhaps the most controversial issue coming out of Gottfred-son and Hirschi's general theory of crime is their claim that lowself-control is a persistent, time-stable personality trait. Theirclaim represents one of two distinctly different explanations for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

234 ;. K. Cochran et al.

the strong positive correlation between past and future criminalbehavior. The first of these explanations is expressed by themajority of mainstream criminological theories and has beenreferred to as a state dependence explanation (Nagin and Pater-noster 1991). This line of explanation argues that prior involve-ment in crime has a genuine behavioral impact in that theexperience of committing a crime increases a person's potentialto commit future crimes by reducing internal inhibitions orexternal constraints or by increasing motivation. The other lineof explanation, represented by Cottfredson and Hirschi, hasbeen referred to as a theory of persistent heterogeneity. Underthis explanation, the positive association between past andfuture criminal involvement is spurious, a statistical manifesta-tion of persistent individual differences in criminal propensity.These differing perspectives have raised an interesting debatewithin the discipline of criminology; unfortunately, the researchliterature has not yet produced any closure to the validity ofthese rival claims. Some studies have found evidence supportiveof the existence of a persistent, time-stable propensity towardcrime (Nagin and Farrington 1992), others have failed to findsuch evidence (Nagin and Paternoster 1991), and still othershave produced rather mixed results (Paternoster and Brame1997). Thus, the issue of the stability of low self-control is cur-rently unresolved. Note, however, that these studies haveaddressed the degree to which the effects of low self-control (orsome other persistent trait of criminal propensity) are stableover time. They have not addressed the stability of the traititself. Some more recent research efforts have produced evi-dence to support the notion that low self-control is stable acrossrather short time durations. Arneklev et al. (1996) showed stabil-ity low self-control over the course of one academic term,whereas Polakowski (1994) found self-control to be moderatelystable across a 4-year span. Clearly, additional research needs tofurther explore this important issue.1

Unlike the modest but growing volume of research addressingthe issues of the dimensionality and stability of low self-control,only one study thus far has examined the cause of low self-control and then only indirectly. Polakowski (1994) examined the

1 This study cannot address the stability issue due to the cross-sectional nature of the data.Please note, however, that Gottfredson and Hirschi (1987) offered a rather convincing argumentconcerning the methodological adequacy of well crafted cross-sectional research designs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 235

correlation between low self-control and elements of socialbonding theory. He hypothesized and found evidence of inverserelationships between self-control and 13 different indicators ofthe social bond. Although not directly assessing Gottfredson andHirschi's claim that effective parental monitoring, recognition,and discipline of inappropriate conduct molds a child's level ofself-control, Polakowski's study does lend support to the impor-tance of familial and other social bonds in a child's develop-mental process. The lack of research on this component ofCottfredson and Hirschi's theory also calls out for additionalstudy, especially more direct tests of the influence of parentalsupervision on levels of self-control.

The empirical literature concerning the direct effects of lowself-control on criminal/deviant behavior is considerably moreextensive and can be divided into three basic areas: tests of thetheory on criminal behavior, tests of the theory on "analogous"non-criminal behaviors, and tests of the theory on a com-bination of criminal and "analogous" non-criminal behaviors. Inthe first category, research by Keane, Maxim, and Teevan (1993)and Nagin and Paternoster (1994) tests the ability of low self-control to predict criminal behavior. Keane et al. examined therelationship between self-control and driving under the influ-ence of alcohol (DUI) among a sample of active drivers usingrespondents' blood alcohol level as a measure of DUI and avariety oi behavioral indicators of low self-control such as notwearing seatbelts (risk taking), having been asked by others notto drive while impaired (impulsiveness), and the number of alco-holic drinks consumed in the past week (hedonism). Theirresearch showed, as predicted, a positive statistically significantassociation between the criminal activity of driving drunk andthese behavioral indicators of low self-control.

Nagin and Paternoster (1994) also found support that indica-tors of low self-control are related to participation in criminalactivities. Their research utilized vignettes in which respondentswere asked the likelihood they would commit a crime and theirperceived likelihood of being caught and publicly exposed forcommitting crimes including drunk driving, larceny, and sexualassault. Their results support Gottfredson and Hirschi's assertionsthat participating in crime is related to a person's level of self-control; however, they found that the individual components ofa here-and-now orientation and self-centeredness were goodpredictors of criminal inclinations by themselves.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

236 ) . K. Cochran et al.

Another recent test of the theory by Longshore et al. (1996)found support for the effects of both low self-control and spe-cific components of the construct by themselves. In theirsample of convicted drug users, they found that risk-taking,impulsiveness, and self-centeredness predicted participation incrimes of fraud (i.e., arson, burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft,forgery, and other larceny-related crimes), whereas risk-takingand an ill-temper predicted crimes of force (i.e., rape, homicide,assault, and robbery). In fact, in this study, as in the study byArneklev et al. (1993), risk-taking alone was found to be a betterpredictor of criminal involvement than the overall low self-control scale. Similarly, Wood et al. (1995) found strong supportfor the effects of thrill-seeking, immediate gratification, andimpulsivity on adolescent self-reported substance use. Finally,Piquero and Tibbetts (1996) integrated Gottfredson and Hirschi'stheory of low self-control with rational choice theory, and theyfound that low self-control produces both direct and indirecteffects on intentions to shoplift and to drive drunk.

In sum, although less than conclusive, these studies generallysupport Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory of low self-control.However, this body of research suggests that the componentsof low self-control may be just as, if not more, predictive ofcriminal behavior than low self-control. Moreover, some evi-dence suggests that the effects of low self-control may, in fact,be indirect.

Gottfredson and Hirschi assert that their theory is general innature and broad in scope and therefore should be able toexplain both criminal and "analogous" non-criminal acts. Arecent test of the theory on non-criminal behavior by Gibbs andGiever (1995) examined the relationship between self-controland the activities of skipping classes and alcohol consumptionamong a sample of university students. The study found thatstudents possessing low self-control were indeed more likely toboth skip classes and to use alcohol than were students withhigher levels of self-control. Arneklev et al. (1993) tested thehypothesis that people possessing low self-control engage inimprudent acts such as smoking, drinking, and gambling. Like-wise, Polakowski (1994) tested the relationship between self-control and personality disorders and minor conduct problemssuch as classroom disruption and aggressiveness. These studiesboth found support for the predictive power of low self-controlon deviant non-criminal behaviors. However, Arneklev et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 237

(1993) found low self-control effective in predicting alcohol useand gambling but not smoking. Similarly, Polakowski (1994)found that self-control failed to predict the minor forms oi devi-ance studied.

Some researchers such as Grasmick et al. (1993) and Wood etal. (1993) examined the effects of self-control on both deviantand criminal behaviors. Staying true to Gottfredson and Hirschi'sdefinition of crimes and "acts of force or fraud undertaken inpursuit of self-interest," Grasmick and his colleagues askedrespondents to indicate how many times in the last five yearsthey had lied to get something they desired and could nototherwise obtain or used or threatened to use force to get whatthey wanted from someone. Their study indicated mixedsupport for the theory in that low self-control was significantlyand directly related to their indicator of fraud but not to force.Wood and his colleagues (1993) found that, although a singularself-control scale was significantly related to a variety of deviantand delinquent behaviors, disaggregating the construct into itscomponent subscales provided greater insights into the causaleffects of self-controls. Again, although generally supportive ofGottfredson and Hirschi's theory, these results are somewhatequivocal and open to question Gottfredson and Hirschi's claimsas to the general scope of the theory.

The final empirical issue derived from Gottfredson andHirschi's theory addresses the interactive effects of low self-control and opportunity on criminal/deviant behaviors. Unfor-tunately, few studies have tested for interaction effects.Grasmick et al. (1993) found evidence of such an interactioneffect on indicators of both force and fraud, but they noted thattheir measure of opportunity alone offered a more parsimoniousexplanation of these behaviors without any interaction with lowself-control. Grasmick et al. measured crime opportunity by ask-ing respondents about being in situations during the past fiveyears where they could have easily committed an act of forceor fraud with little possibility of being caught. Keane et al. (1993)also found support for an interaction effect of opportunity andself-control on DUI. Similar to Grasmick et al. (1993), they usedrespondent's perceived risk of being arrested for DUI as theirmeasure of opportunity. Although supportive of Gottfredsonand Hirschi's claim of an interactive effect of low self-controland opportunity, the measures used in both studies strike us as,at best, surrogates or proxy measures for opportunity. Hence,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

238 ;. K. Cochran et al.

additional research using better measures of opportunity are stillneeded before any closure can be brought to bear on this issue.

Overall, the research literature suggests general but qualifiedsupport for the core empirical implications of Gottfredson andHirschi's theory, but that additional research is still needed. Thepurpose of the Current study is to add to our body of know-ledge regarding these issues. More specifically, this study usesacademic dishonesty as an additional behavior upon whichGottfredson and Hirschi's concept of low self-control can beaddressed. Using self-report survey data from a sample of under-graduate students, we test the following hypotheses:

(1) Self-control is a unidimensional trait.(2) Self-control is the product of effective parenting (parental

attachment and parental supervision).(3) Self-control is inversely related to academic dishonesty.(4) Self-control and opportunity have interactive effects on aca-

demic dishonesty.

DATA AND METHODS

The data for this study were derived from a non-random conve-nience sample of adult (i.e., 18 years of age or older) under-graduate students enrolled in all upper-division sociology classesat the University of Oklahoma (OU) during the Spring of 1993.Despite the limitations associated with such sampling designs,we feel that our sample is, nonetheless, sufficiently representa-tive to permit cautious generalizations. All students at OU wererequired to take 12 hours of upper-division electives. Becausemost upper-division sociology courses at OU, unlike othercourses in the College of Arts and Sciences, did not require anyprerequisites, these courses were open to any students needingto fulfill their upper-division elective requirement. This, in addi-tion to the fact that these courses address highly relevant socialissues like marriage and family, crime and justice, race andgender, and so on, made them especially appealing to a largeproportion of the student body. Thus, like the sample used byGibbs and Giever (1995), this sample is fairly representative ofundergraduate juniors and seniors within the College of Artsand Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. However, minor-ities and women are slightly over-represented. The sample is52.2% female, 23.9% minority, and 57.8% junior or seniorstatus.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 239

The research was conducted through the use of a self-administered questionnaire requiring approximately 30-45minutes to complete. Participation in the study was voluntary,and both the anonymity of the respondent and the con-fidentiality of their responses were guaranteed. Finally, signed,informed consent was obtained prior to the administration ofthe questionnaire.

The survey was given to all students attending each upper-division sociology class offered during the Spring '93 academicsemester. The total unique enrollment of all these classes was732, but only 448 usable surveys were obtained. The rather lowresponse rate (61%) is attributed to a combination of absen-teeism, incomplete surveys, ineligibility of minor students, andstudent decisions not to participate.2 Nonetheless, it is similar toresponse rates reported in other surveys utilizing similar tech-niques with college student samples.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is a composite measure of the self-reported frequencies of 17 forms of academic dishonestyengaged in over the past 12 months. Academic dishonesty, forthe purposes of this study, is defined as using deceit (fraud) inacademic work. Forms of academic dishonesty include cheatingduring an exam or on a homework assignment, paying for orbeing paid for cheating, plagiarism, or lying about academicwork, and they are operationally consistent with the "unethicalacademic behavior scale" developed by Calabrese and Cochran(1990).

Studies on academic dishonesty tend to indicate the impor-tance of both personal and situational characteristics in the eti-ology of cheating. A study by Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, and Clark(1986), addressing the underlying causal factors involved incheating, found three primary factors; these include a lack ofmaturity, a lack of commitment to academic pursuits, and aneutralizing attitude. These characteristics of the cheater strikeus as bearing a close resemblance to characteristics of personswith low self-control. Moreover, academic dishonesty is also a

2 These factors may reduce the generalizability of our findings in a variety of unknown ways.The readers are cautioned against reaching any premature conclusions on the basis of this studyalone. However, our findings should be interpreted in conjunction with those produced by othertests of Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

240 J. K. Cochran et al.

form of "analogous" non-criminal behavior, an act of fraudundertaken in pursuit of self interest, suitable for testing Gott-fredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Finally, some ofthe particular forms of academic dishonesty that comprise ourscale can be prosecuted as felonies or misdemeanors underOklahoma criminal law.

The 17 items measuring academic dishonesty were enteredinto a principal components factor analysis for the purpose of.scale construction. The 17 academic dishonesty items producedsix factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00; however, a screediscontinuity test suggested that a single-factor solution wasevident. Loadings on this single factor ranged from .22 to .73. ACronbach's alpha reliability coefficient for the 17-item additivescale was .73.

Low Self-Control

Self-control is defined as the differing tendency of people toengage in criminal or analogous actions. This tendency is com-prised of six interrelated elements: impulsivity, insensitivity,physicality, risk-taking, shortsightedness, and hostility. Itemssimilar to the Grasmick et al. (1993) and Wood et al. (1993) lowself-control scales are used in this study. Both scales have shownsupport for Gottfredson and Hirschi's assertion that low self-control is a unidimensional trait.

Low self-control is operationalized by asking respondents toindicate how strongly they agree or disagree with a series of 38Likert-type statements (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree)designed to reflect each of the six components of the trait. Thesurvey items asked about acting on the spur of the moment,looking out for oneself first, a desire for physical as opposed tomental challenges, thrill-seeking behaviors, and a quickness toanger.

Eight items are used to measure the impulsivity component;the additive scale produced from these items yields a Cron-bach's alpha of .74; moreover, these items form a single-factorsolution with loadings ranging from .44 to .77. The six-item addi-tive scale measuring a preference for simple tasks produced aCronbach's alpha of .74; these six items also yield a single factorsolution with loadings ranging from .55 to .78. Seven items areused to measure the risk-taking component; a factor analysis ofthese items produces a single factor with loadings of .55 to .82and the additive scale produced from these items has a Cron-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 241

bach's alpha of .81. The seven-item physicality scale has analpha reliability of .76, and these seven items produce a singlefactor solution with loadings of .37 to .79. Six items are used tomeasure self-centeredness; a factor analysis of these items alsoyields a single factor solution with loadings ranging from .45 to.81. The additive scale for these items has an alpha reliability of.77. Finally, the four-item anger scale produced a Cronbach'salpha of .75, and a factor analysis of these items again yields asingle factor solution with loadings ranging from .70 to .82. Eachof these component scales were used to create a single 38-itemadditive self-control scale (Cronbach's alpha = .84), which weuse to test hypotheses 2-4. An assessment of the dimensionalityof this construct, and a test of Hypothesis 1, is discussed in theopening of the results section below.

Effective Parenting

Four items in the questionnaire measure elements of parentalsupervision, the presumed determinant of self-control. Three ofthe items operationalize Gottfredson and Hirschi's definition ofeffective parental supervision including the monitoring of achild's behavior, the recognition of incorrect behavior, and thecorrection and discipline of inappropriate behavior. A fourthitem measuring parental communication of rules and expecta-tions is also included. Even though Gottfredson and Hirschi donot explicitly state that parents need to express rules beforemaking sure their children obey them, it is implied. The followingare the four Likert-type statements measuring these elements ofeffective parental supervision to which respondents were askedto indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree(1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree):

"When I was younger, my parents had strict rules and regula-tions for me.""When I was younger, my parents kept a pretty close eye onme.""When I was younger, my parents usually caught me when I haddone something wrong.""When I was younger, my parents usually punished me whenthey knew I had done something wrong."

The first item measures parental rule setting, and the follow-ing items measure, in order, parental monitoring, recognition,and discipline for incorrect behavior. A principal components

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

242 J. K. Cochran et al.

factor analysis of these four items produced a single factor solu-tion (eigenvalue = 2.27) with the items loading on this factor at.67 or higher. A Cronbach's alpha of .74 is obtained for the four-item additive scale.

The scale is the same measure used by Wood et al. (1993) andwas chosen because it closely parallels Gottfredson and Hirschi'sideas about what is necessary for parents to instill self-control ina child. Again, Cottfredson and Hirschi believe that self-controlis formed in early childhood and stems directly from effectiveparenting practices. That is, self-control is a function of thedegree to which parents establish rules and expectations,monitor their children's conduct, recognize inappropriateconduct, and are willing and able to correct it.

Underlying Gottfredson and Hirschi's concept of effective par-ental supervision is parental attachment. Gottfredson andHirschi explain that parental attachment is "all that is requiredto activate the system" of parental supervision (1990:97). If aparent does not care for and love the child, then typically noneof the requirements for effective parental supervision will bemet, and the result is a child with low self-control. They offerthat parents of non-delinquent children are more likely to bewarm, attentive, and loving, whereas parents of delinquentchildren are more likely to be distant, indifferent, and possiblyeven hostile toward their children.

Three items measure parental attachment. Respondents wereasked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree(1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree) with the followingstatements:

"I feel that I can confide in my parents about anything.""I have very few quarrels with members of my family.""When I was growing up my home life was generally happy."

A principal components factor analysis of these items indicatesa single factor solution (eigenvalue = 1.77) with the three itemsloading at .74 or higher. A Cronbach's alpha of .65 was found forthe three-item additive scale.

Opportunity

Opportunity to cheat was assessed through a measure of thenumber of credit hours in which the respondents were enrolled.It was assumed that the more credit hours a student takes, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 243

more opportunity there is to cheat. The number of credit hoursenrolled has a mean of 13.71 and a standard deviation of 2.45.

Control Variables

Measures of respondent's age, gender, race/ethnicity, urban/rural residency status, socioeconomic status (SES), class standing,and current grade point average are used as control variables.Age and grade point average are continuous variables. Genderand race/ethnicity are both dichotomous variables coded as0 = female, 1 = male and 0 = non-white, 1 = white, respec-tively. Urban/rural residency status was measured using a seven-point ordinal scale (1 = large city with a population greater than250,000 to 7 = rural area with a population less than, 2,000). SESwas measured by three variables regarding the status achieve-ments of the respondent's head of household: educationalattainment, occupational prestige, and family income. Educa-tional attainment was measured as the years of education com-pleted, occupational prestige was measured using theHodge-Siegle-Rossi scale, and family income was measuredusing a 12-point ordinal scale (1 = under $5,000 to12 = $100,000 or more). Finally, class standing was measuredusing a five-point ordinal scale containing the categories ofFreshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, and Graduate Student orother post-baccalaureate workA

RESULTS

The Dimensionality of Self-Control

Table 1 presents the results of several factor analytic proceduresused to test the dimensionality of low self-control (Hypothesis 1).Four separate factor analyses are reported; two using principalcomponents exploratory factor analyses (models 1 and 2) andtwo utilizing maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis(models 3 and 4). In model 1, all 38 items are entered into theprincipal components factor analysis. The results show eightfactors with eigenvalues greater than 1.00; however, the screediscontinuity test suggests that a single factor solution is best.All of the items measuring the impulsivity, preference for simple

3 Item wording and response categories, univariate distributions, means, standard deviations,and zero-order correlations for the variables used in this study are available from the lead authorupon request.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

TABLE 1 Factor Analyses: The Dimensionality of Low Self-Control

Items

123456

3839

789

103031

11121314151617

Model 1 Loadings

.42

.37

.61

.55

.56

.32

.53

.44

.33

.4039.45.32.37

.35

.42

.60

.58

.08

.23

.49

Exploratory factor analyses(Principal Components)

Model 2A Loadings

.56

.53

.77

.74

.75

.46

.52

.44

.56

.60

.74

.78

.74

.57

.72

.82

.74

.79

.53

.62

.55

Model 2B Loadings

Impulsivity

.77

Simple tasks

.58

Risk taking

.53

Confirmatory factor analyses(Maximum Likelihood)

Model 3 Loading;

.39

.35

.59

.52

.5329.50.41

.28

.37

.34

.41

.28

.33

.33

.40

.58

.55

.07

.21

.46

; Model 4 Loadings

.43 Impulsivity

.45

.73

.72

.73 .77

.38

.42

.31

.45 Simple tasks

.54

.66 .58

.73

.65

.47

.66 Risk taking

.79

.72 .39

.75

.41

.51

.49

244

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

18192021323334

222324253637

26272829

.33

.21

.18

.18- .02- .06

.03

.46

.47

.50

.54

.25

.23

.42

.57

.49

.33

.66

.78

.79

.72

.55

.56

.37

.66

.81

.80

.78

.54

.45

.70

.76

.82

.73

Physicality

.15

Self-centeredness

.62

Anger

.67

.29

.17

.15

.15- .02- .07

.01

.43

.44

.48

.51

.23

.22

.38

.54

.46

.29

.60

.75

.77

.63

.42

.43

.29

.58

.78

.79

.73

.36

.28

.57

.69

.78

.59

Physicality

.13

Self-centeredness

.54

Anger

.59

245

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

246 J. K. Cochran et al.

tasks, and anger components have loadings of .30 or higher, fiveof the seven indicators of risk-taking and four of the six indica-tors of self-centeredness also have loadings of .30 or higher;however, only one of the seven indicators of the physicalitycomponent loads above .30.

In the second model presented in Table 1, the results of aprincipal components factor analysis of the six additive scalesproduced from these 38 items and representing each of the sixcomponents of low self-control are reported. In this analysis, atwo factor solution is suggested. The first factor is very consis-tent with Gottfredson and Hirschi's arguments that low self-control is a unidimensional construct, but without thephysicality component. On the first factor, all components oflow self-control but physicality load at .50 or higher; on thesecond factor, only the physicality at risk-taking componentsload strongly. Thus, combined with the results in model 1, theseexploratory factory analyses offer qualified support for hypothe-sis 1 concerning the dimensionality of low self-control.

Models 3 and 4 present the findings of the maximum likeli-hood confirmatory factor analyses, which were also used to testthe dimensionality issue. In the first of these, model 3, all 38items were entered into an equation, which stipulated only thepresence of a single latent variable, presumably self-control. Themodel, however, fails to fit the data (Goodness of Fit = .551,X2 = 3982.1, p = .0001). In model 4, each of the 38 items wasprescribed to measure second-order factors representing the sixcomponents of low self-control; these second-order factors, inturn, were stipulated to reveal a single latent variable. Althoughit is the best fitting model obtained, model 4 provides ambigu-ous support for Gottfredson and Hirschi's contention that self-control is a unidimensional construct. The Goodness of Fit Index(GFI) of .804 falls below the commonly recommended standardof .90 or higher. Moreover, the six subscales (first-order factors)in model 4 load on self-control (the second-order factor) withvarying strengths. Impulsivity loads at a robust .77, simple tasks,self-centeredness, and anger load at .58, .54, and .59 respec-tively; whereas risk-taking loads at .39 and physicality loadsweakly at .13. The 38 items themselves load on the first-orderfactors, with two exceptions, at .30 or higher (some at .60 orhigher). These first-order factors and their loadings suggest thatlow self-control may, in fact, be multi-dimensional instead ofunidimensional as claimed by Gottfredson and Hirschi. Wood et

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 247

aL (1993) also found evidence of multidimensionality and sug-gested that the six components of self-control be viewed as sixseparate "personality characteristics."

In sum, the results presented in Table 1 suggest that low self-control may be best represented by those items measuring allbut the physicality component. Moreover, low self-control isrepresented in these data by a complex hierarchical structure.Despite the lack of support for the role of physicality as a com-ponent of low self-control, we use the full additive scale com-posed of all 38 items in our analyses of the causes and effects oflow self-control. In doing so, we offer tests of hypotheses mostparallel to the propositions argued by Gottfredson and Hirschi.4

The Effect of Parenting on Self-Control

Table 2 presents the results of an Ordinary Least Square (OLS)regression analysis of the effects of the parental attachment ofparental supervision scale on self-control while controlling forthe influence of the socio-demographic variables. The results ofthis analysis indicate that self-control is not the product of effec-tive parental supervision as predicted by Gottfredson andHirschi. The parameter estimate for the effect of this scale(b'= .19) fails to attain statistical significance. However, consis-tent with the hypothesis, the effect of the parental attachmentscale on self-control is significant and positive (b = .78) and,other than the effect of gender (b = -7 .21 , B = -.33), it is thestrongest in the model (B = .13). None of the other exogenousvariables attain statistically significant effects, and the modelexplains only 14.2% of the variance in self-control. Thus, itappears that other factors beyond effective parenting may alsoplay a role in the development of self-control. Moreover, ourdata suggest that it is through warm, attentive parental attach-ments rather than vigilant parental supervision that goodparents produce self-controlled children.

4 Other analyses not reported here use the six component subscales in lieu of the overallself-control scale. The results of these analyses are intriguing. First, as observed for the overallself-control scale, parental attachment is significantly associated with the development of self-control for all but the risk-taking component; however, the effect of parental supervision onself-control fails to attain significance for all but the self-centeredness component. Second, all sixsubscales are significantly and inversely related to academic dishonesty; however, when all sixsubsca/es are entered into the same model, only the anger subscale retains a significant inverseeffect on cheating. Finally, the parameter estimates for the subscale opportunity interactionsfailed to attain statistical significance; however, problems of multicollinearity were prevalent inthese non-linear models.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

248 J. K. Cochran et al.

TABLE 2 OLS Regression: The Effect of Parentingon Self-Control (N=429)

Parental SupervisionParental AttachmentAgeRaceGenderUrban/RuralHOH: EducationHOH: Occ. PrestigeFamily IncomeClass StatusInterceptR2

b

.19

.78*

.18- .07

- 7 . 2 1 *- .43

.33- . 00- .21

.078.44

.142

se(b)

.21

.27

.201.181.01.27.42.04.18.47

B

.04

.13*

.05- . 0 0- . 3 3 *- . 07

.04- .01- .06

.01

* p < .05 (one-tailed t tests)

The Effects of Self-Control on Academic Dishonesty

Model 1 of Table 3 reports the results of an OLS regressionanalysis of the effects of the self-control scale on academic dis-honesty, while controlling of the influence of the two parentingscales and the socio-demographic variables. These results indi-cate a statistically significant inverse effect of self-control(b = — .25, B = — .21), a finding consistent with Gottfredsonand Hirschi's argument. College students with higher levels ofself-control are less involved in cheating. Moreover, the effect ofself-control is also the strongest in the model. Respondent's age,urban/rural residency status, and gender also attain statisticallysignificant effects, indicating that younger (b = —.60), non-urban (b = —.71), and male (b = —3.03) undergraduates aremost inclined to cheat. Despite these findings, the modelaccounts for only 12% of the variance in academic dishonesty.

The Interactive Effects of Self-Control and Opportunity onAcademic Dishonesty

Models 2 and 3 in Table 3 examine the direct and interactiveeffects of self-control and opportunity (credit hours enrolled) onacademic dishonesty. In model 2, the direct effects of both theself-control scale and credit hours on cheating are statisticallysignificant (b = —.26 and b = .63 respectively). Again,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

TABLE 3 OLS Regression: The Direct and Interactive Effects of Self-Control and Opportunity on Academic

Dishonesty (N = 429)

Self-ControlCredit-HoursSC & Crd HrsParental SupervisionParental AttachmentAgeRaceGenderUrban/RuralHOH: EducationHOH: Occ. PrestigeFamily IncomeClass StatusCPAInterceptR2

b

- . 2 5 *——

-.08- .32- . 6 0 *- .113.03*

- . 7 1 *- .07

.05

.22

.48- .4148.89

.121

Model 1

se(b)

.06——

.25

.33

.231.421.28.31.50.05.22.57

1.20

B

- . 2 1 *——

-.02- .05- . 1 4 *- . 00

.12*- . 1 1 *- .01

.01

.05

.04- .02

b

- . 2 6 *.63*

—

- .08- .27- . 4 3 *- .043.06*

- . 7 7 *- .07

.05

.24

.41- .7338.97

.134

Model 2

se(b)

.06

.25—

.25

.33

.241.421.27.32.50.05

±.56

1.20

B

- . 2 2 *.12*

—

- .02- . 0 4- . 1 0 *- . 0 0

.12*

-.n*- . 0 1

.05

.06

.04- .03

b

.314.91*

- . 0 4 *- . 08- . 34- . 4 8 *- .033.13*

- . 7 5 *- . 1 0

.05

.28

.51-.73

-19.80.139

Model 3

se(b)

.342.56

.02

.25

.33

.241.411.27.32.50.05.22.56

1.19

B

.26

.94*- . 9 8 *- . 0 1- .05- . 1 1 *- . 0 0

.12*- . 1 1 *- . 01

.06

.07

.05- .03

p<.05 (one-tailed ttests)

249

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

250 / K. Cochran et al.

respondent's age, gender, and urban/rural residency status areattained statistically significant effects, and the model explains13.4% of the variance in academic dishonesty. Model 3 addsthe self-control opportunity cross-product term to the equationin model 2. Doing so raises the explained variance by only 0.5%.More important, and consistent with hypothesis 4, an interactiveeffect of self-control and opportunity on cheating is found(b = —.04). These results indicate, as predicted by Gottfredsonand Hirschi, that students with low self-control are more likelyto cheat when presented with opportunity. Respondent's age,gender, and residency continue to have significant effects asdoes credit hours enrolled; however, the significant direct effectof self-control observed in models 1 and 2 is lost.

In summation, the results of our analyses indicate qualifiedsupport for the dimensionality of self-control and the effects ofparenting on the development of self-control, but strongersupport for the direct and interactive effects of self-control andopportunity on academic dishonesty. A preference for physicalover verbal solutions to problems (physicality) does not appearto be a component of low self-control as argued by Gottfredsonand Hirschi. However, the other five components do form asingle factor solution suggestive of a unidimensional trait.Whereas the parental attachment scale was found to be posi-tively associated with self-control, the parental supervision scaleis not. Unfortunately, the parental supervision scale more closelyapproximates Gottfredson and Hirschi's concept of effective par-enting. Concerning the effects of self-control on academic dis-honesty, the findings reported here reveal a statisticallysignificant, direct, inverse relationship as hypothesized. Likewise,these findings also support Gottfredson and Hirschi's assertionthat self-control and opportunity interact in their influence oncriminal or "analogous" behaviors. Thus, our findings producemixed support for Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory.

CONCLUSION

The present study provides a unique test of many of the coretheoretical propositions derived from Gottfredson and Hirschi'sgeneral theory of crime. To accomplish that goal, the study useddata from a self-report survey of adult university studentsenrolled in upper division Sociology courses at the University ofOklahoma during the Spring '93 academic term. The dependent

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 251

variable was a composite measure of the self-reported fre-quencies of 17 forms of academic dishonesty. The primary inde-pendent variable, self-control, was measured using 38 itemsderived from the scale developed by Grasmick et al. (1993) andWood et al. (1993). Additionally, the questionnaire includeditems measuring parental attachment and parental supervision,opportunity for cheating, and a variety of common socio-demographic and school experience variables.

Again, the results offer mixed support for Gottfredson andHirschi's theoretical assertions. Factor analytic techniques pro-vided qualified support for the assertion that low self-control is aunidimensional construct. We found evidence of unidimen-sionality among five of the six components of low self-control. Inthis respect, this study joins earlier research efforts by Grasmicket al. (1993), Wood et al. (1993), Arneklev et al. (1993), and Long-shore et al. (1996) in finding mixed support for the unidimen-sionality issue. Given the relative consistency of this observation,perhaps it is time for Gottfredson and Hirschi to abandon theiremphasis on this relatively minor component of their theory andfocus their energy on the roles of parenting and opportunity,which receive less clear attention in their book.

The effects of the parenting variables on the genesis of self-control also garner mixed support. The parental supervisionscale, which most closely follows Gottfredson and Hirschi's theo-retical dictates, was not found to be significantly related to self-control; however, the parental attachment scale was found tobe significantly and positively related to self-control. With theexception of Polakowski (1994) and Wood et al. (1993), no otherresearch and attempts have addressed the issue of the origins ofself-control. Thus, although there seems to be a connectionbetween parenting and self-control, more research is needed toprecisely target the factors and processes involved.

As predicted, a direct inverse relationship was found betweenself-control and academic dishonesty. Most of the research intothe theory has focused on testing the predictive value of self-control on a variety of forms of criminal or analogous behaviors.These studies consistently find similar results supportive of Gott-fredson and Hirschi's assertion regarding the effects of self-control. In the present study, in fact, self-control was found tobe the strongest predictor of cheating; however, the modelsaccounted for only a small percentage of the variance in aca-demic dishonesty—another consistent finding across the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

252 ]. K. Cochran et al.

research. For instance, Grasmick et al. (1993) also found that alarge amount of the variance in crime could not be accountedfor by self-control, and that other variables that affect crime butare omitted from Gottfredson and Hirschi's theory, such asrational choice and motivation, perform better and perhapsshould be integrated into their general theory.

Few studies have tested for the interaction effect betweenopportunity and self-control, which Gottfredson and Hirschipropose. In this study, we found evidence of such an effect;students with low self-control were more likely to engage in actsof academic dishonesty under conditions of opportunity, mea-sured as the number of credit hours enrolled. Grasmick et al.(1993) also found evidence of an interactive effect of low self-control and their measure of opportunity on a respondent'sinclination to engage in future acts of force or fraud. Similarly,Piquero and Tibbetts (1996) tested a model integrating self-control and situational factors in the commission of crimes ana-logous to criminal opportunities; they too found support for aninteraction effect between low self-control and opportunity oncrime. Clearly, however, additional research on this critical com-ponent of the theory is still needed, because as Grasmick andhis colleagues (1993) note, few criminological theories explicitlypredict interactive effects.

In sum, this research has expanded the scope of Gottfredsonand Hirschi's theory by testing it against self-report data on aca-demic dishonesty, a form of fraudulent behavior for which ageneral theory of criminal and analogous acts should be able topredict. Moreover, we test a wide range of core theoretical pro-positions derived from the theory. Although our results arerather mixed, they are far from inconsistent. Instead, similar tothe previous efforts toward these ends, our study finds qualifiedsupport for the theory. The qualified support we find for thetheory, the consistency between our findings and those of otherstudies that came before us, and the various critiques of thetheory (e.g., Barlow 1991; Akers 1991, 1994; Curran and Renzetti1994; Reed and Yeager 1996), all suggest areas for additionalresearch and where Gottfredson and Hirschi might choose tomodify their theory.

We would be remiss, however, if we did not include a dis-cussion of the various methodological limitations that may haveinfluenced the findings we report, some of which we suspectmay be endemic to testing this theory. The lack of clear oper-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 253

ational definitions and guidelines for the measurement of keytheoretical concepts offered by Cottfredson and Hirschi havemade testing this intriguing theory a definite challenge. In anattempt to find an acceptable measure of self-control, severalstudies, including ours, have relied on the original measuresdeveloped by Grasmick et al. (1993) and/or Wood et al. (1993).Although this speaks highly of the creative insights of these orig-inal researchers and of the reliability of their measures, the con-sistently modest performance of these indicators points to theneed for a little risk-taking by other researchers. It may be timeto break new ground and develop alternative measures of lowself-control.5

Although we use a measure of opportunity to test for theproposed self-control opportunity interaction and find supportfor this interaction effect, we are uneasy about the face validityof this measure. Nevertheless, we feel our measure is as strongas (or as weak as) those used by others. Again, it is difficult todevelop sound measures of this concept due to the lack of clearoperational definitions offered by Gottfredson and Hirschi.Hence, more specific indicators of this elusive component arestill needed, and future research efforts should move toward thisend.

Gottfredson and Hirschi have reintroduced exciting conceptsin the etiology of crime and deviance, yet their disinclination tooffer clear operational guidelines has made the researcher's tasksomewhat daunting. There seems to be something there, theconsistency of the research efforts hint at support for thetheory, yet we continue to be unable to firmly grasp and under-stand the factors and processes that lead to and from self-control. Although the scope and parsimony of the theory appealto our desire to find an explanation for crime, the difficulties andchallenges of empirically testing the theory have hindered morerapid acceptance of it. Perhaps it is time for Gottfredson andHirschi or some other risk-taker(s) to further refine the theory sothat it is more falsifiable. One wonders why this provocativetheory has been left to limp along.

5 Hirschi and Gottfredson (1993), in their commentary on the Grasmick et al. (1993) andKeane et al. (1993) articles, stated a clear preference for. the behavioral indicators of low self-control used by Keane and his colleagues over the subjective measures developed by Grasmick.However, the scale developed by Grasmick overcomes the tautological nature of most behav-ioral indicators.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

254 J. K. Cochran et al.

REFERENCES

Akers, R. L. 1991. "Self-control as a General Theory of Crime." Journal ofQuantitative Criminology, 7:201-211.

Akers, R. L. 1994. Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation. LosAngeles: Roxbury.

Arneklev, B. J., J. K. Cochran, and R. R. Gaines. 1996. "Assessing the Stabilityof l o w Self-control:' An Exploratory Study." Paper presented at theannual meetings of the American Society of Criminology, November,Chicago, IL.

Arneklev, B. J., H. G. Grasmick, C. R. Tittle, and R. J. Bursik. 1993. "Low Self-control and Imprudent Behavior." Journal of Quantitative Criminology,9:225-247.

Barlow, H. D. 1991. "Explaining Crimes and Analogous Acts, or the Unre-strained Will Grab at Pleasure Whenever They Can." Journal of CriminalLaw and Criminology, 82:229-242.

Calabrese, R. L. and J. K. Cochran. 1990. "The Relationship of Alienation ofCheating among a Sample of American Adolescents." Journal of Researchand Development in Education, 23:65-72.

Curran, D. J. and C. M. Renzetti. 1994. Theories of Crime. Boston: Allyn andBacon.

Gibbs, J. J. and D. Giever. 1995. "Self-control and Its Manifestations amongUniversity Students: An Empirical Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi'sGeneral Theory." Justice Quarterly, 12:231-255.

Gottfredson, M. and T. Hirschi. 1987. 'The Methodological Adequacy of Lon-gitudinal Research on Crime." Criminology, 25:581-614.

Gottfredson, M. and T. Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford,CA: Stanford University Press.

Grasmick, H. G., C. R. Tittle, R. J. Bursik, and B. J. Arneklev. 1993. "Testing theCore Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory ofCrime." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30:5-29.

Haines, V. J., G. M. Diekhoff, E. E. LaBeff, and R. E. Clark. 1986. "CollegeCheating: Immaturity, Lack of Commitment, and the Neutralizing Atti-tude." Research in Higher Education, 25:342-354.

Hirschi, T. and M. Gottfredson. 1993. "Commentary: Testing the GeneralTheory of Crime." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30:47-54.

Keane, C. P., P. S. Maxim, and J. J. Teevan. 1993. "Drinking and Driving, Self-control, and Gender: Testing a General Theory of Crime." Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency, 30:30-46.

Longshore, D., S. T. Rand, and J. A. Stein. 1996. "Self-control in a criminalsample: An examination of construct validity." Criminology, 34:209-227.

Nagin, D. S. and D. P. Farrington, 1992. 'The Stability of Criminal Potentialfrom Childhood to Adulthood." Criminology, 30:235-260.

Nagin, D. S. and R. Paternoster. 1991. "On the Relationship of Past to FutureParticipation in Delinquency." Criminology, 29:163-189.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3

Academic Dishonesty and Low Self-Control 255

Nagin, D. S. and R. Paternoster. 1994. "Personal Capital and Social Control:The Deterrence Implications of a Theory of Individual Differences in Crimi-nal Offending." Criminology, 32:581-606.

Paternoster, R. and R. Brame. 1997. "Multiple Routes to Delinquency? A Testof Developmental and General Theories of Crime." Criminology, 35:49-84.

Piquero, A. and S. Tibbetts. 1996. "Specifying the Direct and Indirect Effects ofLow Self-control and Situational Factors in Offenders' Decision Making:Toward a More Complete Model of Rational Offending." Justice Quarterly,13:481-510.

Polakowski, M. 1994. "Linking Self- and Social Control with Deviance: Illumi-nating the Structure Underlying a General Theory of Crime and Its Rela-tions to Deviant Activity." Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 70:41-78.

Reed, G. E. and P. C. Yeager. 1996. "Organizational Offending and Neoclassi-cal Criminology: Challenging the Reach of a General Theory of Crime."Criminology, 34:357-382.

Wood, P. B., J. K. Cochran, B. Pfefferbaum, and B. J. Arneklev. 1995."Sensation-seeking and Delinquent Substance Use: An Extension of Learn-ing Theory." Journal of Drug Issues, 25:173-193.

Wood, P. B., W. R. Gove, J. A. Wilson, and J. K. Cochran. 1997. "Non-socialReinforcement and Habitual Criminal Conduct: An Extension of LearningTheory." Criminology, 35:335-366.

Wood, P. B., B. Pfefferbaum, and B. J. Arneklev. 1993. "Risk-taking and Self-control: Social psychological Correlates of Delinquency." Journal of Crimeand Justice, 76:111-130.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Inte

rnat

iona

l Isl

amic

Uni

vers

ity M

alay

sia

IIU

M]

at 1

7:55

27

Febr

uary

201

3