The authors conducted a meta-analysis of 150 studies in which the risk-taking tendencies of male and female participants were compared. Studies were coded with respect to type of task (e.g., self-reported behaviors vs. observed behaviors), task content (e.g., smoking vs. sex), and 5 age levels. Results showed that the average effects for 14 out of 16 types of risk taking were significantly larger than 0 (indicating greater risk taking in male participants) and that nearly half of the effects were greater than .20. However, certain topics (e.g., intellectual risk taking and physical skills) produced larger gender differences than others (e.g., smoking). In addition, the authors found that (a) there were significant shifts in the size of the gender gap between successive age levels, and (b) the gender gap seems to be growing smaller over time. The discussion focuses on the meaning of the results for theories of risk taking and the need for additional studies to clarify age trends.

Gender differences in risk taking: A meta-analysis.

/pdf/human-nature-and-the-social-order-3yqr9a7m4c.pdf

Human Nature and the Social Order.

Given assertions of the theoretical, empirical, and practical importance of self-control, this meta-analytic study sought to review evidence concerning the relationship between dispositional self-control and behavior. The authors provide a brief overview over prominent theories of self-control, identifying implicit assumptions surrounding the effects of self-control that warrant empirical testing. They report the results of a meta-analysis of 102 studies (total N = 32,648) investigating the behavioral effects of self-control using the Self-Control Scale, the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, and the Low Self-Control Scale. A small to medium positive effect of self-control on behavior was found for the three scales. Only the Self-Control Scale allowed for a fine-grained analysis of conceptual moderators of the self-control behavior relation. Specifically, self-control (measured by the Self-Control Scale) related similarly to the performance of desired behaviors and the inhibition of undesired behaviors, but its effects varied dramatically across life domains (e.g., achievement, adjustment). In addition, the associations between self-control and behavior were significantly stronger for automatic (as compared to controlled) behavior and for imagined (as compared to actual) behavior.

/pdf/taking-stock-of-self-control-a-meta-analysis-of-how-trait-4o1a2xsgbu.pdf

Taking Stock of Self-Control A Meta-Analysis of How Trait Self-Control Relates to a Wide Range of Behaviors

This article reviews 1 decade of research on cheating in academic institutions. This research demonstrates that cheating is prevalent and that some forms of cheating have increased dramatically in the last 30 years. This research also suggests that although both individual and contextual factors influence cheating, contextual factors, such as students' perceptions of peers' behavior, are the most powerful influence. In addition, an institution's academic integrity programs and policies, such as honor codes, can have a significant influence on students' behavior. Finally, we offer suggestions for managing cheating from students' and faculty members' perspectives.

/pdf/cheating-in-academic-institutions-a-decade-of-research-20kizxx0hy.pdf

Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research

Research and media reports have established the continued pervasiveness of academic dishonesty among students on America's college campuses [12, 13, 22, 25, 26, 33, 46]. While some colleges have responded with academic integrity classes and increased efforts to convince reluctant faculty members to report student cheaters [13], there is a renewed interest in the concept of "community" as an effective foundation for campus governance. For example, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching's special report, Campus Life: In Search of Community, concludes, "What is needed, we believe, is a larger, more integrative vision of community in higher education. . . . a place where individuals accept their obligations to the group and where well-defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good" [10, p. 7]. Derek Bok, in Universities and the Future of American, echoes this theme: [U]niversities need to consider the larger campus environment beyond the classroom. An obvious step in this direction is to have rules tha t prohibit lying, cheating, stealing, violent behavior, interference with free expression, or other acts that break fundamental norms. Such rules not only protect the rights of everyone in the community; they also signal the importance of basic moral obligations and strengthen habits of ethical behavior [5, pp. 84-85]. Bok offers the honor code as perhaps the most effective approach in matters of academic integrity, but acknowledges that, "the pervasive competition for grades; the size, diversity, and impersonal nature of many large universities; their lack of any honor code traditon; and the wide-spread distaste for accusing one's classmates" combine to work against such an approach [5, p. 87]. Although the honor code traditon dates back over a century, the viability of such codes on today's campuses is open to some question [12]. Small, relatively homogeneous campuses have generally given way to large, culturally diverse institutions which lack any apparent sense of community or common purpose among students other than getting a credential and a job. Despite the fundamental nature of this question, there is a surprising paucity of empirical research which addresses the effectiveness of honor codes. the study discussed here attempts to help fill this gap by comparing academic dishonesty in colleges that have honor codes and those that do not. The few studies that have addressed the effectiveness of honor codes [7, 9] have generally considered code effectiveness independent of context. We believe that it is important to acknowledge and understand the complexity of the social systems within which honor codes are embedded and the fact that other contextual factors may be as important or more important than the existence of an honor code by itself. Thus this study extends beyond previous work by studying the effectiveness of honor codes within a more complex social context. Honor Codes in Context Academic Dishonesty Depending on one's definition of academic dishonesty, the data collection methods employed, and other variables, prior studies report that anywhere from 13 to 95 percent of college students engage in some form of academic dishonesty [12, 17, 20, 21, 26, 30, 31, 42]. A major dichotomy that separates these prior studies is the level of analysis. One stream of research has focused on individual differences though to be predictive of cheating behavior, such as gender [45], grade point average [1, 22,], work ethic [15], Type A behavior, competitive achievement-striving [35], and self-esteem [44]. In contrast, other studies have concentrated on the institutional level of analysis and examined such contextual factors as honor codes [7, 8, 9], faculty responses to cheating [26], sanction threats [33, 42], and social learning [33]. Although the "individual differences" approach helps to understand individuals' predispositions to cheat, the findings are not particularly useful to the university administrator searching for effective institutional responses to issues of academic dishonesty. …

Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences

Using survey data, various measures of self-control, based respectively on cognitive and behavioral indicators, are compared in their ability to predict eight measures of crime/deviance. The results show that either type of measure produces supportive evidence for the theory, and the behavioral measures provide no better prediction than do the cognitive measures. Unlike cognitive type indicators, and contrary to the implications of the theory, different types of crime-analogous, imprudent behaviors are not highly interrelated, making it difficult to develop reliable behavioral measures. These results suggest that general support for self-control theory would likely not be any greater if all researchers had used behaviorally based measures, as recommended by the authors of the theory. Improving the level of prediction to the point where self-control could claim to be the master variable, as envisioned by its proponents, does not seem to rest on a shift to behaviorally based measures. Instead, improvements in the theory itself, particularly the incorporation of contingencies, appears to offer more promise.

/pdf/self-control-and-crime-deviance-cognitive-vs-behavioral-2rviysa1mh.pdf

Self-Control and Crime/Deviance: Cognitive vs. Behavioral Measures

Focusing on gender and age variations and using various measures of self-control and of crime/deviance, the authors' provide additional evidence concerning the strongest implications of self-control theory—that self-control interprets the main demo-graphic facts about crime/deviance and is of approximately equal import for all sub-categories of individuals. On one hand, the results are strongly supportive of the theory, showing that some measures of self-control not only predict misbehavior but they interpret the associations between gender and age and measures of crime/deviance. On the other hand, self-control does not appear to predict misbehavior equally well among various subcategories of individuals, particularly not for age groups, even failing to predict misbehavior at all for some groupings. Moreover, sup-port for the strongest claims of the theory are not robust, varying depending on how self-control and crime/deviance are measured.

Gender, Age, and Crime/Deviance: A Challenge to Self-Control Theory

Prior studies have shown that women are less likely than men to be dishonest when confronted with opportunities to cheat. The most common explanation for this finding is sex-role socialization theory: Women are socialized to obey the rules, whereas socialization for men is less binding in this respect. Even so, some women do cheat when given the opportunity. Hence, a theory is needed that accounts for the fact that women engage in dishonest behavior in spite of the restraining forces of internalized normative expectations. Using American college students as subjects, the study examined the relationship between excuse-making tendencies and actual cheating, while controlling for sex. The findings showed that women were significantly more likely to engage in excuse making prior to cheating than were men.

Gender and dishonesty.

We identify and elaborate a conceptual distinction between capability for self-control and the desire to exercise it, and employ data from a city survey to explore the empirical viability of such a differentiation. Separate scales measuring ability and desire to exercise self-control both prove to be significant and moderately strong predictors of several measures of criminal/deviant behavior, showing independent, cumulative, and interactive relationships with each other. For some measures of crime/deviance, self-control capability is most effective when the individual's interest in exercising self-control is low but its effect is greatly reduced or eliminated when desire to exercise self-control desire is high. Combinations of capability for self-control and interest in exercising it prove to be particularly good predictors of the absolute level of misbehavior.

/pdf/capacity-for-self-control-and-individuals-interest-in-1pb6kasrk1.pdf

Capacity for Self-Control and Individuals' Interest in Exercising Self-Control

Research within the framework of cognitive consistency theory has generally shown that high self-esteem is a deterrent to dishonest behavior. The degree to which this relationship holds across subject sex is unclear, however, because available studies have produced contradictory findings. The present study examined whether the esteem/honesty relationship would be specified by subject sex when focusing on a behavior that is unquestionably more dishonest than behavior studied in prior research, namely, actual cheating on a classroom exam. The findings indicated a significant deterrent effect of high self-esteem for women but not for men. The results are interpreted as supporting the sex-role socialization explanation advanced by Mussen, Rutherford, Harris, and Keasey (1970), who found similar results in a more contrived experimental arrangement.

David A. Ward

Papers

Self-Control and Crime/Deviance: Cognitive vs. Behavioral Measures

Gender, Age, and Crime/Deviance: A Challenge to Self-Control Theory

Gender and dishonesty.

Capacity for Self-Control and Individuals' Interest in Exercising Self-Control

Self-Esteem and Dishonest Behavior Revisited