![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Abstract
Researchers commonly use hypothetical intentions to offend as proxies for real-world offending behavior. The current study examined the predictive validity of these hypothetical intentions, as well as the consequences of using offending intentions in statistical models of decision-making. Undergraduate students were asked to self-report their intentions to cheat on a hypothetical online exam for which they were unprepared. Minutes later, they completed a difficult online trivia test for course credit. Students who performed well on the trivia test were presumed to have cheated. Hypothetical intentions to cheat were found to predict actual cheating at a rate no better than chance. Furthermore, while several factors were found to be predictive of hypothetical cheating, none were predictive of actual cheating. This incongruence between intentions and behavior may be attributed to the different emotional reactions evoked by hypothetical and real-world offending opportunities. Implications for research on offender decision-making are discussed.
Notes
1. Although academic test cheating is not necessarily a criminal offense, it has often been used to study theoretical and methodological issues related to criminal offending and decision-making (e.g., Bichler-Robertson, Potchak, and Tibbetts Citation2003; Cochran et al. Citation1998; Michaels and Miethe Citation1989; Nagin and Pogarsky Citation2003; Pogarsky Citation2004; Tibbetts Citation1998, 1999; Tibbetts and Herz Citation1996; Tibbetts and Myers Citation1999).
2. The instructors of the CJUS courses who agreed to offer extra credit predominately taught upper level classes, which explains the large number of Juniors and Seniors in the sample.
3. When designing the study, we were concerned that those participants who were already performing well in their courses may not find the extra credit opportunity very enticing. We therefore added the opportunity to earn a second $5.00 gift card as an additional incentive.
4. Some readers may be concerned that by allowing participants to choose whether to complete the second survey, risk-averse students will self-select out of the second survey leaving the sample heavily biased toward risk seekers. Given that real-world offenders are inherent risk seekers (Gottfredson and Hirschi Citation1990), it is essential for researchers who use hypothetical offending scenarios to understand the IB relationship among these types of individuals. Thus, if the current sample is biased toward risk seekers, then this can be viewed as an asset rather than a limitation.
5. Note that the survey did not monopolize participants’ Internet browsers, thereby allowing them to open a secondary window and conduct an online search for the answers to the trivia questions. Participants could easily find the answers by conducting a basic Internet search on key words included in the questions.
6. To verify that students would not perform well on the trivia test without cheating, paper copies of the test were to administered to a comparable but independent sample of CJUS students at the university (n = 106) a few months after the completion of the current study. Students completed the trivia test without the aid of technology while sitting in a classroom. They were told they would receive extra credit if they received a score of 80% or higher. No student answered six or more of the final eight questions correctly (mean = 1.05, range = 0–3).
7. In an additional examination of the predictive validity of hypothetical intentions to offend, Models 2 and 4 were re-analyzed with hypothetical intentions included as an independent variable. In both analyses, the model fit remained poor and non-significant. In Model 2, the coefficient for hypothetical intentions was .34 (p = .30, Exp (B) = 1.41), while in Model 4, the coefficient was .35 (p = .31, Exp (B) = 1.42).