Cited by 57

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Integration of Rational Choice and Self-Efficacy Theories: A Situational Analysis of Student Misconduct

Ogilvie, James, Stewart, Anna·2010·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

Abstract

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1375/acri.43.1.130

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 62

  1. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.27 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1037/0096-3445.129.4.508 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00034-8 · DOI
  4. Bandura A., 1986, Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory
  5. Bandura A., 1997, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
  6. Bandura A., 2006, Selfefficacy beliefs of adolescents, 307
  7. 10.1086/259394 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.3200/JRLP.138.2.101-114 · DOI
  9. 10.1080/00220485.1992.10844753 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s10940-004-5869-y · DOI
  11. 10.1075/veaw.g11.01cla · DOI
  12. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.1999.tb00491.x · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1007/978-1-4613-8625-4_1 · DOI
  14. 10.1080/00224545.1989.9713784 · DOI
  15. Crown D.F., 1998, Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 683
  16. 10.1080/02602930500262478 · DOI
  17. 10.2224/sbp.2006.34.2.127 · DOI
  18. 10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121 · DOI
  19. 10.1177/1069072705281367 · DOI
  20. 10.1515/9781503621794 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.2307/3053861 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1109/MAP.2004.1388860 · DOI
  23. 10.1023/A:1009830308143 · DOI
  24. Johnson P.B., 2004, Some possible implications of systematic distortions in adolescent's self-reports of sensitive behaviors. Journal of Drug Issues, 34, 951
  25. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb01052.x · DOI
  26. 10.1080/00220671.1980.10885288 · DOI
  27. 10.1080/10573560308223 · DOI
  28. Marsden H., 2005, A self-report study of dishonest academic behaviours in a sample of Australian university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 57, 1
  29. 10.5465/amle.2006.22697018 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1023/A:1024954224675 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1037/0022-0167.38.1.30 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_1 · DOI
  34. 10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.765 · DOI
  35. 10.2307/3054102 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00943.x · DOI
  37. 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00985.x · DOI
  38. 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.229 · DOI
  39. 10.3102/00346543066004543 · DOI · Paper page
  40. 10.1080/10573560308222 · DOI
  41. 10.1080/0309877042000241760 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 10.1080/07418828700089271 · DOI
  43. 10.1177/0049124102030004002 · DOI
  44. 10.1177/002242780203900202 · DOI
  45. 10.1080/07418829600093061 · DOI
  46. 10.1080/07418820200095301 · DOI
  47. 10.1007/s10940-004-5868-z · DOI
  48. 10.1023/A:1018792210076 · DOI
  49. 10.1007/s11162-004-5952-0 · DOI
  50. 10.1177/0273475306291464 · DOI
  51. 10.1016/S0748-5751(01)00026-4 · DOI
  52. 10.1177/0093854804267092 · DOI
  53. 10.1177/0022427893030002001 · DOI
  54. 10.1080/10511259800084201 · DOI
  55. 10.1023/A:1018751100990 · DOI
  56. 10.2307/1907382 · DOI · Paper page
  57. 10.1111/j.1475-682X.2004.00088.x · DOI
  58. Wortley R., 1996, The politics and practice of situational crime prevention (Vol. 5, pp.), 115
  59. 10.1177/0022427803260263 · DOI
  60. 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016 · DOI · Paper page
  61. 10.3102/00028312031004845 · DOI
  62. 10.3102/00028312029003663 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ogilvie, J., & Stewart, A.
Affiliations
Griffith University, Australia.
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
Published
2010-04
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
130-155
ISSN
  • 0004-8658
  • 1837-9273
Cited by
57
References
9
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review