Are Persons Low in Self-Control Rational and Deterrable?

This work addresses a question raised by Wright et al. (2004) pertaining to the rationality and deterrability of individuals with low self-control. According to some, all persons are presumed to be equally rational; according others, individuals who possess little self-control, who are impulsive and present-oriented are less likely to be influenced by a perceived risks and costs of punishment; and according to a third group of scholars, those who do possess such self-control/restraint are either not motivated toward offending or are inhibited by moral constraints and are, thus, unresponsive to sanction threats. These rival predictions are examined with the use of self-report survey data on academic dishonesty from a sample of undergraduate college students. Across a tremendous number of models employing a variety of functional forms for the effects of perceived sanction threats, we consistently observed that the effects of perceived sanction threats on college students' self-reported academic dishonesty did not vary by their level of offending propensity (self-control).

[1]  Trevor Bennett,et al.  Burglars on Burglary: Prevention and the Offender , 1984 .

[2]  Daniel S. Nagin,et al.  PERSONAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL CONTROL: THE DETERRENCE IMPLICATIONS OF A THEORY OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CRIMINAL OFFENDING* , 1994 .

[3]  Harold G. Grasmick,et al.  Testing the Core Empirical Implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's General Theory of Crime , 1993 .

[4]  Neal Shover,et al.  Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary.By Paul F. Cromwell, James N. Olson, and D'Aunn Wester Avary. Sage. 125 pp. Cloth, $29.95; paper, $14.95 , 1991 .

[5]  Mitchell B. Chamlin,et al.  Academic dishonesty and low self‐control: An empirical test of a general theory of crime , 1998 .

[6]  Craig V. D. Thornton,et al.  Crime, Deterrence, and Rational Choice , 1986 .

[7]  Greg Pogarsky,et al.  Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research on deterrence , 2002 .

[8]  Phil A. Silva,et al.  From child to adult : the Dunedin multidisciplinary health and development study , 1996 .

[9]  Barry F. Rudnick,et al.  The Criminal Justice System: A Social-Psychological Analysis , 1983 .

[10]  Alex R. Piquero,et al.  Beyond Stafford and Warr's Reconceptualization of Deterrence: Personal and Vicarious Experiences, Impulsivity, and Offending Behavior , 2002 .

[11]  Mitchell B. Chamlin,et al.  Shame, Embarrassment, and Formal Sanction Threats: Extending the Deterrence/Rational Choice Model to Academic Dishonesty , 1999 .

[12]  Harold G. Grasmick,et al.  Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. , 1990 .

[13]  Paul F. Cromwell,et al.  Breaking and Entering: An Ethnographic Analysis of Burglary , 1990 .

[14]  Avshalom Caspi,et al.  Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime , 2004 .

[15]  Betty Pfefferbaum,et al.  RISK-TAKING AND SELF-CONTROL: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL CORRELATES OF DELINQUENCY , 1993 .

[16]  M. K. Block,et al.  Some Experimental Evidence on Differences between Student and Prisoner Reactions to Monetary Penalties and Risk , 1995, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[17]  Daniel S. Nagin,et al.  INTEGRATING CELERITY, IMPULSIVITY, AND EXTRALEGAL SANCTION THREATS INTO A MODEL OF GENERAL DETERRENCE: THEORY AND EVIDENCE* , 2001 .

[18]  Raymond L. Calabrese,et al.  The Relationship of Alienation to Cheating among a Sample of American Adolescents. , 1990 .

[19]  C. Sanders,et al.  :Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves , 1997 .