See attached document for literature review instructions. Use attached beginning paragraph for reference. Use the following citation, plus ones attached (4): Best, L. M., & Shelley, D. J. (2018).
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR,24(1), 53–72Copyright © 2014 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 online
DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2013.819783
The In uence of Personality on the Decision to Cheat
Melissa McTernan
Department of Psychology
University of California, Davis
Patrick Love and David Rettinger
Psychology Department & Center for Honor, Leadership, & Service
University of Mary Washington
Seventeen transgressive behaviors were studied in the context of six personality variables using survey
methods. The personality variables were impulsivity, sensation seeking, empathetic perspective tak-
ing, guilt, and shame, with social desirability used as a control. Con rmatory factor analysis indicated
a ve-factor model as having the best t. Those ve factors are competitive cheating, self-cheating,
school cheating, relationship cheating, and breaking a social contract. A structural equation model
indicated that only impulsivity, sensation seeking, and empathetic perspective taking were related to
frequency of transgressive behaviors, thus supporting the hypothesis that moral decision making has
a critical automatic component.
Keywords: cheating, impulsivity, sensation seeking, guilt, shame, moral decisions
Most early research on the moral decision-making process suggests that it is driven by reason
(Kohlberg, 1973). This view postulates that at the moment of a decision, people perform a quick
analysis of the situation, weighing each possible action in an attempt to select the optimal behav-
ior (Ellison, 1996). Recent research on the topic argues for decision making as a process largely
based on emotion or intuition, not purely on logic (Haidt, 2001; Peters, Västfjäll, Gärling, &
Slovic, 2006). Naturally, there are individual differences in the use of these emotional and intu-
itive processes. Some of these differences include an individual’s use of intuition, the availability
heuristic, representative heuristic, anchoring, and con rmation bias while making a moral judg-
ment (Rogerson, Gottlieb, Handelsman, Knapp, & Younggren, 2011). The researchers propose
that aspects of personality mediate these differences, including empathy and impulsivity.
One way to study the moral decision-making process is to examine the morally or socially
transgressive behaviors in which people engage. Morally transgressive behaviors take many
forms (e.g., cheating in school, relationship in delity), and those who transgress do not always
transgress in all domains (Lovett-Hooper, Komarraju, Weston, & Dollinger, 2007). These behav-
iors differ in many ways, including the severity of social sanction, effort required to perform
Correspondence should be addressed to David Rettinger, Psychology Department & Center for Honor, Leadership, &
Service, University of Mary Washington, 1301 College Avenue, Fredericksburg, VA 22401. E-mail: [email protected] 54 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
them, and others. Some behaviors characterized as “cheating” are not universally considered to
be transgressions against others but against one’s own values or goals. Thus, although it is pos-
sible that those individuals who engage in one cheating type will engage in all cheating types
at similar rates, it is more likely that people might be prone to engage in one or some cheating
behaviors while abstaining from others, based on the different characteristics of the behaviors.
Further, because the decision to engage in those behaviors may be the result of an automatic pro-
cess rather than a rational decision (that would likely be based on situational factors); personality
may be a predictor of speci c types of transgressive behavior. Automatic processes are de ned
broadly as the constellation of processing that is beyond deliberate control. Many intuitive pro-
cesses (Haidt, 2001) fall under this category, including but not limited to those that are emotion
focused (Damasio, 1994).
PERSONALITY FACTORS
Although both situational and personal factors are involved in moral decision making, this study
examines differences in personality between people who commit particular transgressions, those
who do not, and between people who tend to commit transgressions in different categories. In par-
ticular, this research emphasizes factors like shame- and guilt-proneness, empathic perspective
taking, impulsivity, and sensation seeking, which have been associated with a variety of risky
behavior in previous literature (Corcoran & Rotter, 1987; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000; Vorauer,
Martens, & Sasaki, 2009; Zuckerman, 1979). Understanding the stable individual differences
associated with differences in transgressive behavior can provide us with insight into the process
involved in making transgressive choices.
Empathic perspective taking is one such personality characteristic that could affect decisions
about actions. Perspective taking is the ability to see a situation from another person’s point
of view; it helps an individual see the negative consequences his or her actions have on oth-
ers (Vorauer et al., 2009). Although little research has explored the direct relationship between
perspective taking and transgressive behavior, previous research has examined the relationship
between empathy, a personality trait that encompasses perspective taking, and its relationship to
academic cheating (Staats, Hupp, Wallace, & Gresley, 2009). More empathetic people reported
engaging in less cheating than less empathetic people. Because strongly empathic individuals are
likely to be better at perspective taking, a negative correlation between perspective taking and the
frequency of competitive cheating behaviors is likely. Perspective taking will also have a stronger
in uence on an individual’s behavior when there is a salient victim of the transgression, apparent
at the time of the decision. Perspective taking is unlikely to strongly affect decisions to engage in
self-cheating behaviors (cheating on a diet or budget) when there is no other obvious perspective
to take.
Impulsivity, like perspective taking, affects the types and amounts of cheating behaviors in
which an individual engages (Anderman, Cupp, & Lane, 2009; Bravo & Lumpkin, 2010). Bravo
and Lumpkin (2010) reported that individuals who score high on impulsivity measures are more
likely to have extramarital affairs and are less likely in general to delay grati cation when faced
with opportunity for immediate reward. This idea is closely related to recent research on self-
control, the ability to resist impulses toward an immediate reward (Muraven, Tice, & Baumeister,
1998). Self-control is a limited resource that is depleted immediately after use (Muraven et al., INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 55
1998), and when an individual’s self-control has been depleted, he or she is more likely to engage
in behaviors that satisfy immediate needs to the detriment of long-term goals. In other words, the
more impulsive an individual is, the less self-control he or she will have to resist temptation. Thus,
more impulsive people may be more likely to commit a variety of moral transgressions when
faced with an opportunity for immediate gains. This behavioral phenomenon is likely a contribut-
ing cause of academic cheating and other transgressive behaviors, such as cheating on budgets
(Vohs & Faber, 2007) and diets (Baucom & Aiken, 1981; Guerrieri, Nederkoorn, & Jansen, 2007),
as impulsive people may be less able to control automatic responses toward immediate reward.
Sensation seeking is highly correlated with impulsivity and is characterized by the need to
engage in activities that are novel and or intense in nature as well as the willingness to take
risks to achieve such experiences (DeAndrea, Carpenter, Shulman, & Levine, 2009; Kalichman,
Simbayi, Jooste, Cain, & Cherry, 2006; Zuckerman, 1979). As with impulsivity, there is a wealth
of research linking sensation seeking with various risky behaviors. A small sample of this liter-
ature shows that individuals with high levels of sensation seeking were more likely to perform
risky behaviors such as increased use of alcohol, engagement in risky sexual practices (Kalichman
et al., 2006), increased use of illicit drugs (Dunlop & Romer, 2010), increased delinquent behav-
ior (Newcomb & McGee, 1991), and academic cheating (DeAndrea et al., 2009). Given these
ndings, it is not unreasonable to expect that sensation-seeking individuals would be more likely
to engage in various forms of cheating behavior where the danger of getting caught would cause
increased level of arousal, such as cheating in the workplace and cheating in sports or games.
However, it was predicted that sensation seeking would not correlate with cheating behaviors that
have little or no consequence for getting caught, such as cheating on a diet or budget. Furthermore,
sensation seekers are predicted to be less likely to set budgets or engage in dieting, and thus much
less likely to violate those self-imposed strictures.
More emotion-related personality traits like shame- and guilt-proneness also have been shown
to in uence an individual’s decision to engage in speci c cheating-type behaviors. According to
Eisenberg (2000), shame and guilt are self-conscious emotions that arise when thinking about the
self, especially in relation to the violation of moral standards. Shame and guilt are highly related,
so there is a frequent co-occurrence of the two emotions; however, important differences do exist
between the two (Harder, Rockart, & Cutler, 1993). Although shame and guilt both focus on
the self, they differ in their level of focus (Eisenberg, 2000). According to Corcoran and Rotter
(1987), shame is motivated by a desire to avoid external punishment and is more centered on
the self (Leith & Baumeister, 1998). In contrast, feelings of guilt are less self-centered and more
focused on one’s social relationship with others. Guilt results from engaging in behaviors that
might lead to the disapproval of others, even if those others are unaware (Baumeister, Stillwell,
& Heatherton, 1994).
Of the two emotions, guilt is more likely to be impacted by one’s adherence to social mores
(Eisenberg, 2000). Those who are shame motivated are less likely to engage in cheating when
there is a high risk of being caught, whereas those who are guilt motivated are less likely to
cheat if the behavior does not t their moral standards (Corcoran & Rotter, 1987). Unlike shame,
moderate levels of guilt will increase socially acceptable behavior because of the increased desire
to adhere to moral standards (Ausubel, as cited in Dost & Yagmurlu, 2008; Leith & Baumeister,
1998).
Given these differences, shame-proneness will have the greatest effect on behaviors that one
could easily be caught while doing, or would result in severe social consequences if caught. It is 56 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
therefore predicted that for self-cheating behaviors, like cheating on a budget, guilt would be
more predictive than shame because performing these behaviors is a violation of one’s internal
rule set.
Social contract violations may show the reverse pattern because they are more likely to be
detected and less morally objectionable to some participants. Further, individuals who are better
at perspective taking are predicted be more likely to experience guilt because of their heightened
ability to understand the effects of their behavior on others. Silfver and Helkama (2007) found
that guilt caused by cheating on a quiz was positively associated with perspective taking and
overall empathic concern in males. Therefore, research suggests that perspective-taking scores
and guilt scores in our survey will be positively correlated.
This combination of traits represents a key factor in the automatic decision process. If there is a
strong link between the presence of these traits and moral transgressions, this provides evidence
for an automatic emphasis in decision making about transgressive behavior. If moral decision
making is instead an automatic process, as Haidt (2001) argued, then the link between moral
transgressions and how likely an individual is to seek excitement and/or how impulsive that indi-
vidual is will be stronger than the link between the transgressions and other personality factors.
This relationship may be different for different kinds of transgressions, and so it is essential to
examine a wide range of behaviors independently.
TRANSGRESSIVE BEHAVIORS
When studying moral transgressions, most authors have focused on only one transgression at
a time (Jordan, 2001; Lucas & Friedrich, 2005; Silva, 1981). There is a lack of literature that
explores the relationships between various moral transgressions. It is therefore dif cult to deter-
mine if there exist any factors that in uence moral decision making across a variety of situations.
The research presented here explores these relationships by including a set of transgressions that
occur in a variety of settings and that require different motivations in order to determine if there
is any relationship between them.
The resulting hypotheses involve four main “cheating types,” or factors: competitive cheating,
or cheating to gain an advantage over others; personal relationship cheating; violations of social
contracts; and “cheating oneself.” The rst cluster of transgressive behaviors, which is labeled
competitive cheating, includes dishonest actions intended to gain a competitive advantage over
others. Examples include cheating in school (Jordan, 2001), cheating in sports or games (Silva,
1981), and cheating in the workplace (Lucas & Friedrich, 2005). Lucas and Friedrich (2005)
found academic and workplace dishonesty to be correlated. It can be inferred that commonalities
among these behaviors are a desire for a competitive advantage and a tendency for those who
are intrinsically motivated toward success to cheat less (because they will be less focused on the
immediate gain than on the feelings associated with an honest win; Jordan, 2001; Kavussanu &
Spray, 2006). Impulsivity has been implicated in academic cheating in previous research (Kelly
& Worell, 1978) and is hypothesized as a link binding this category together.
Cheating in a relationship differs from competitive cheating in that the victim is particu-
larly salient. Cheating of this type may occur when an individual is aware of the relationship
boundaries that de ne cheating as unacceptable but is unable to exhibit the self-control necessary
to refrain from engaging in the behavior (McAlister, Pachana, & Jackson, 2005). Impulsivity INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 57
and sensation seeking are expected to be predictive of this type of cheating, as the individual is
receiving an immediate thrill or gain from the experience. Individuals poor at perspective taking
will also be more likely to cheat on romantic partners.
Another form of cheating is the violation of social contracts. Some social contracts are under-
stood cultural rules, such as forming a line without “cutting.” Violating social contracts may
involve breaking explicitly stated rules or laws, such as littering, bringing outside food into an
event when it is explicitly forbidden, not paying for a meal at restaurant, sneaking into an event
without a ticket, or using a carpool (HOV) lane improperly. The researchers see two common
characteristics among these behaviors: They seem to lack a direct victim, and they confer a
perceived advantage to the cheater relative to his or her own alternative outcome.
Barnett, Sanborn, and Shane (2005) found that American college students were less likely
to engage in minor moral and legal violations that involved an obvious human victim. The stu-
dents also perceived these behaviors as more serious than violations with no clear human victim.
For example, in research speci cally on line cutting, B. H. Schmitt, Dubé, and Leclerc (1992)
explained the behavior as a “disrespect of essential human concerns” (p. 814). Among these con-
cerns, they include equality and fairness and personal space. Because the victim is not as obvious
in social contract violations, individuals who are better at perspective taking should be better able
to recognize the victim in such situations. As a result, they would be less likely to engage in
the behaviors. Further, because there is an immediate gain related to social contract violations,
impulsivity also will play an important role in this cluster of behaviors.
Although some transgressions can be explained by the desire to maximize some future bene-
t, others can be seen as simple failures of self-control at a particular moment, with no particular
advantage gained and no victim, either direct or indirect, except oneself. Although this is poten-
tially true of all transgressive behaviors, Baumeister (2002) and Wertenbroch (1998) indicated
that a failure of self-control may be particularly related to cheating oneself. This type of cheating
occurs when an individual breaks the rules of a regimen he or she has set for him- or herself (e.g.,
a personal diet program or a nancial budget). These behaviors are different from the other behav-
iors discussed in that there are no clear social rami cations and there is no clear victim (other than
oneself) related to the behaviors. As such, self-cheating behaviors will cluster together, clearly
distinct from other types of cheating.
Cheating on a self-imposed diet or failing to adhere to one’s own budget may result in a
short-term gain, but in the very act of creating the diet or budget, the individual acknowl-
edges the potential negative long-term effects of its absence. A decision that offers short-term
bene ts but long-term harm may be referred to as a vice (Wertenbroch, 1998). The decision liter-
ature has long understood this trade-off as temporal discounting (Raineri & Rachlin, 2006), and
Ostaszewski (1996) demonstrated that temporal discounting is associated with individual differ-
ences in impulsivity. Baumeister (2002) showed that, in the absence of self-control, individuals
will most often act upon their vices. In other words, even though the individual recognizes both
the bene ts of a set regimen and its previously de ned constraints, he or she fails to resist temp-
tation or impulse to engage in the cheating behavior. Therefore, it is hypothesized that impulsive
individuals would be more likely to engage in self-cheating.
A goal of this study was to determine how different types of moral transgressions are related
to each other. First, the frequencies of 17 different transgressive behaviors, ranging in sever-
ity from littering and using the HOV lane improperly to lying on a resume, were examined to
determine if there were patterns of behavioral transgressions. The researchers predicted that 58 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
these 17 transgressions would be generally correlated but that distinct categories also would
emerge according to the four hypothesized factors discussed in the previous section. In sum-
mary, researchers expected to nd four categories of transgressive behavior: competitive cheating
(e.g., cheating on a test or lying on a resume), cheating in a relationship (i.e., cheating on a spouse
or partner), self-cheating (e.g., cheating on a diet or budget), and the breaking of social contracts
(e.g., using the HOV lane improperly or bringing outside food into an event) and hypothesized
that these categories would be in uenced by different personality factors.
SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES
Given that personality seems to play a role in the decision-making processes that lead to social
transgressions, it is important to address speci c personality characteristics and their relationships
with different kinds of cheating behaviors so we may better understand the moral decision-
making process as a whole. This study evaluated these constructs with the goal of gaining a
better understanding of the speci c cheating behaviors in general, as well as what kinds of people
tend to engage in those cheating behaviors.
Five hypotheses were tested to strengthen our understanding of the relationship between cheat-
ing behaviors and the traits of the people who commit them. First, transgressive behaviors are
predicted to fall into at least four different clusters of cheating: competitive cheating, relationship
cheating, violations of social contracts, and self-cheating. A single factor model of transgressive
behaviors was also tested for comparison. Second, people with higher impulsivity and sensation-
seeking scores likely to cheat across various situations. Third, participants who cheat to gain an
advantage over others (competitive cheating) would display this behavior consistently, have low
levels of perspective taking, and have high levels of impulsivity and sensation seeking. Fourth, it
was hypothesized that self-cheating behaviors would not be likely to have any correlation with
perspective taking but would have a strong positive correlation with impulsivity and a negative
correlation with shame. Likewise, people who engage in self-cheating would behave consistently
when such cheating opportunities arise. Fifth, it is predicted that people with lower guilt- and
shame-proneness scores would be more likely to cheat across various situations.
METHOD
Participants
Six hundred sixteen participants were recruited over the Internet using the social networking site
Facebook. Three hundred sixty (58.4%) of these participants were female, 252 (40.9%) were
male, and four declined to respond (0.6%). A Facebook Event and Facebook Group were created
to publicize the survey and ask Facebook users to participate. Facebook Events and Groups allow
users to share information about a particular topic with select users or the general public by
creating a special page for that topic. Each page allows the creators to share posts and send
messages to all of the page’s members in mass. Individual researchers (aged 20–22) recruited
participants from among their “friends,” those with connections on the site, and in turn asked
each “friend” who was invited to the study’s Facebook Event or Group page to forward the INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 59
study’s information to other Facebook users. This technique is a convenience version of snowball
sampling (Goodman, 1961).
Participants ranged in age from 18 to 80 years old; however, the most frequently occurring
age was 21 years old (M=30.06,SD=13.77). The majority of participants identi ed them-
selves as Caucasian (538; 87.3%). The Asian/Paci c Islander (21; 3.4%), African American (6;
0.9%), Hispanic (17; 2.8%), Native American/Alaska Native (3; 0.5%), and Other/Multiracial
(17; 2.8%) communities were also represented. Fourteen (2.3%) participants declined to pro-
vide ethnic background information. Almost half (43%) of the participants had completed some
college, and 45% reported their relationship status as single. Participants were largely from the
United States (94.4%), although other countries were represented.
Materials
Transgressive Behavior Scale.The Transgressive Behavior Scale was created for this
study with the goal of combining transgressive behaviors across domains for the rst time. One
goal of this study was to determine the internal factor relationships among these behaviors, thus
validating the scale for future research. Therefore the scale was designed to measure how often
participants had engaged in cheating and other socially transgressive actions. It consisted of a list
of 17 items describing actions or behaviors accompanied by a 6-point response scale. Participants
used the scale to indicate how often they had performed the actions or behaviors since they
entered high school. The scale ranges fromnevertodaily. The items include such transgressive
and rule-breaking actions as plagiarism and other types of academic dishonesty (Jordan, 2001),
cheating at a sport or game (Silva, 1981), adultery in a relationship (Hall & Fincham, 2009; Lucas
& Friedrich, 2005; D. P. Schmitt, 2004), and social norm violations such as breaking a budget
(Cheema & Soman, 2006; Kidwell & Turrisi, 2004) and littering. Note that the scale was not
labeled as “transgressive behavior” when presented to participants. Participants were asked to
report how often they performed each of the behaviors since they were 14 years old, or entered
high school. The participants chose among “never,” “less than once or twice per year,” “once
per year,” “once or twice per month,” “once or twice per week,” “daily,” or “no answer/don’t
know/not applicable” for each behavior. For a list of items on this scale, see Table 1.
Personality measures.The Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS; Hoyle, Stephenson,
Palmgreen, Lorch, & Donohew, 2002) is an eight-item measure of sensation seeking speci -
cally designed to be a shorter and more practical alternative to Sensation Seeking Scale Form 5
(Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978), the most commonly used measure of sensation seek-
ing. The BSSS-4 was validated to be used speci cally as part of large-scale surveys (Stephenson,
Hoyle, Palmgreen, & Slater, 2003). Participants indicated their responses on a 5-point Likert scale
anchored bystrongly agreeandstrongly disagree. The four items on the BSSS-4 are “I would like
to explore strange places”; “I like to do frightening things”; “I like new and exciting experiences,
even if I have to break the rules”; and “I prefer friends who are exciting and unpredictable.” The
BSSS-4 was correlated at thep<.001 level with the BSSS (r=.89) and the Impulsive Sensation
Seeking scale from the Zuckerman-Kuhlman Personality Questionnaire (r=.81; Zuckerman,
Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993).
The Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS) is the most frequently used self-report measure of
impulsivity (Spinella, 2007). It contains 30 items that each states an action or thought such as 60 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
TABLE 1
Frequency of Participants Who Reported Committing a Transgression
TransgressionN%
Snuck food into a movie or other event where outside food is not allowed. 526 85.4
Set a budget and not followed it. 466 75.6
Was aware of someone else cheating on a test and did not report it. 431 70.0
Cheated on a homework assignment or copied information for a paper. 406 65.9
Was aware of someone else cheating on a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/partner and did
not tell the person being cheated on.393 63.8
Cheated on a diet.390 63.3
Cheated in a game (including board games, card games, etc.). 389 63.1
Cut someone in line. 385 62.5
Knew of someone else lying or cheating on a work task and did not report it. 383 62.2
Littered (dumped trash improperly). 354 57.5
Lied or cheated on a task at work (including job searches). 319 51.8
Cheated on a test.311 50.5
Snuck into any event without the proper ticket. 243 39.4
Cheated while playing a sport. 209 33.9
Cheated on a boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse/partner. 189 30.7
Used a carpool (HOV) lane improperly (e.g., with no passengers). 124 20.1
Not paid for a meal at a restaurant. 37 6.0
“I do things without thinking” (Haden & Shiva, 2008). Participants responded on a 4-point scale
ranging from 1 (rarely or never)to4(almost always) how often they have had the thought or per-
formed the action. To keep the current survey as ef cient as possible participants were presented
a 15-item version of the BIS (BIS15). Spinella (2007) found that the BIS15 had a Cronbach’s
alpha of .79 and all of the items were strongly correlated with the original BIS (r=.65,p<
.001 throughr=.94,p<.001).
The Harder Personal Feelings Questionnaire-2 (PFQ-2) serves as a measure of both shame-
and guilt-proneness (Fischer & Corcoran, 2007; Harder et al., 1993). The PFQ-2 is a 22-item
scale comprising two subscales. Six of the items measure guilt, 10 measure shame, and the addi-
tional six items on the scale are null items, included to make it more dif cult for subjects to
identify the constructs being measured. Participants were asked to indicate the frequencies of par-
ticular feelings on a scale from 0 (never)to4(continuously/almost continuously). For instance,
participants were asked to indicate how often they experienced “embarrassment,” “regret,” or
“remorse.” Higher scores on this scale indicate higher levels of both shame- and guilt-proneness.
This scale has acceptable reliability with alpha levels of .72 for guilt and .78 for shame, as well
as decent construct validity (Harder & Zalma, 1990). Given its acceptable reliability and validity,
along with the simplicity of this scale, researchers chose this over a more popular measure of
shame and guilt, which requires more interpretation of hypothetical emotion-inducing situations
(see Giner-Sorolla, Piazza, & Espinosa, 2011, for a more in-depth critique of the frequently used
TOSCA scale).
The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) is arguably the
most effective and widely used measure of social desirability. This scale consists of 33 true/false INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 61
items and has a reliability of .88, using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20 (Crowne & Marlowe,
1960). Crowne and Marlowe (1960) found that the scale is well correlated with social desir-
ability scales within the MMPI and the Edwards Social Desirability Scale. A short version
of the Marlowe-Crowne (M-C Form C) was used in this study (Reynolds, 1982). It contains
13 true/false items such as “I am always willing to admit when I make a mistake” and “There
have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they
were right” (Reynolds, 1982). The scale has a reliability ofrkr20=.76 (Reynolds, 1982).
Reynolds (1982) observed correlation coef cients between his short versions and the original
version of the Marlowe-Crowne and found thatr=.93 when Form C was compared to the
original Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.
The perspective taking subscale of Davis’s (1980, 1983) Interpersonal Reactivity Index con-
sists of seven items, each of which is measured on a scale ranging from 0 (does not describe
me well)to4(describes me very well). This subscale was used to measure participants’ perspec-
tive taking component of empathy, or how he or she tends to consider the viewpoint of others.
An example of one of the items that measures the tendency to engage in perspective taking is,
“When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to ‘put myself in his shoes’ for a while” (Davis, 1980).
Procedure
All participants began this survey by linking to the SurveyGizmo.com website. The rst page
required an informed consent from each participant. The informed consent told the participants
that the study examined the how certain personality characteristics are related to the decision-
making process. Once the participant gave consent, the survey began. (If consent was not given,
participants were forwarded to a thank-you page.) Participants completed the transgressive behav-
ior inventory rst, followed by the personality scales in a randomly generated order. After
completing the scale items, participants completed a set of demographic questions before they
were directed to a debrie ng page where the true nature of the study was revealed. Each partici-
pant had an option to remove his or her data from the study at this point in the survey, although
none chose to do so. Participants were permitted to stop taking the survey at any time and resume
it at a later date.
Data Analysis
A con rmatory factor analysis (CFA) was rst used to estimate the extent to which the speci c
behaviors cluster together into cheating domains as hypothesized. This method is most appro-
priate for this study as it allowed the researchers to observe the relationships between different
cheating behaviors and to test the hypothesis that there are distinct latent factors of cheating that
will comprise particular cheating behaviors.
Finally, a path model was estimated using the obtained factors from the CFA to assess how
impulsivity, sensation seeking, perspective taking, shame, and guilt are related to an individual’s
likeliness to engage in different domains of cheating behaviors. 62 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
RESULTS
Frequencies of Cheating Behaviors
Analyses were conducted on all valid data to determine the frequency each of the 17 behav-
ioral transgressions. No participants chose to remove their data from the study after completing
the survey. Those who had responded as having performed the transgression with any frequency
other than “never” were coded as having “ever” performed the behavior, whereas only those who
had responded with “never” were coded as such. For each transgression, cases where the partic-
ipant had not responded or had marked a response of “N/A” were excluded from the analyses;
as a result, each behavior has a different sample size. All participants (100%) reported having
performed at least one of the transgressions. See Table 1 for frequencies of the 17 behaviors.
It is interesting to note that the highest percentage of participants, 85.4% (526 respondents),
reported having snuck food into an event. Breaking a personal budget was also highly reported,
with 75.6% of valid responders (466 people) having admitted to this transgression. Relationship
cheating was less frequent, with 30.7% of respondents (189 people) reporting having ever cheat-
ing on a spouse or signi cant other. Finally, the behavior of not paying for a meal at a restaurant
was reported by the lowest number of respondents, with a frequency of only 37 positive responses,
or only 6% of all the valid responses.
Scale Reliability
Reliability tests con rmed that the personality scales used were reliable. The Cronbach’s alpha
for each of the scales were as follows: perspective taking, Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index
(Perspective Taking subscale):α=.79; social desirability, M-C Form C:α=.74; sensation
seeking, BSSS-4:α=.79; impulsivity, BIS:α=.86; Guilt and Shame subscales, PFQ-2:α=
.85; Shame subscale only, PFQ-2:α=.79; and Guilt subscale only, PFQ-2:α=.75.
Correlations Between Personality Measures
Signi cant relationships emerged amongst the personality measures. Scores on shame and guilt
were positively correlated,r(590)=.591,p<.01, as were impulsivity and sensation-seeking
scores,r(582)=.333,p<.01, as expected. Impulsivity and shame scores were also positively
correlated,r(578)=.270,p<.01. Finally, and of interest, impulsivity and perspective-taking
scores were signi cantly negatively correlated,r(583)=–.222,p<.01. All correlations between
the personality measures in this study are displayed in Table 2.
Relationships Among Transgressive Behaviors
Recall that it was hypothesized that the observed transgressive behaviors would cluster into
several “types” of transgressions. Speci cally, we expected to nd that competitive cheating,
cheating within relationships, self-cheating, and social contract violations would tend to be asso-
ciated within each group. Based on our theoretically motivated predictions, a CFA was performed
to verify the t of these four factors to the individual transgressive behaviors. Data were analyzed INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 63
TABLE 2
Correlations Between Personality Traits and Overall Cheating Frequency
Sensation
SeekingGuilt
Proneness ImpulsivityShame
PronenessPerspective
TakingCheating
Behavior
Sensation
Seeking−0.06 0.33 ∗∗∗ 0.07 0.02 0.32 ∗∗∗
Guilt Proneness 0.09 0.59 ∗∗∗ 0.07 0.09
Impulsivity 0.27 ∗∗∗ −0.22 ∗∗∗ 0.43 ∗∗∗
Shame
Proneness−0.07 0.23 ∗∗∗
Perspective
Taking−0.16 ∗∗∗
∗∗p<.01. ∗∗∗ p<.001.
using EQS 6.1 (Bentler & Wu, 1995) using maximum likelihood estimation. Six hundred sixteen
participants’ data were initially entered, but 22 were excluded because of missing data. The fac-
tors were allowed to correlate, as it was predicted that all transgressive behaviors would be at
least mildly correlated. Upon initial observation, it was clear that two behaviors, HOV lane vio-
lations and witnessing cheating in school, did not associate with other forms of cheating. These
behaviors were thus excluded from future analyses.
The t of the hypothesized model was not acceptable,χ
2(116)=1150.85,p<.001; compara-
tive t index (CFI)=.99, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.12, standardized
root mean square residual (RMR)=.14,
1and it was clear that the “competitive cheating” factor
was heterogeneous. Thus, a ve-factor model was estimated in which that factor was split into
two: school-related transgressions and competitive transgressions (in sports, games, and work
situations). The t of the ve-factor model was good,χ
2(62)=188.78,p<.001; CFI=.89,
RMSEA=.06, standardized RMR=.04. Factor loadings and correlations among factors for this
nal model are provided in Figure 1.
As the gure indicates, the CFA estimated ve factors. The factor loadings in the model indi-
cate the magnitude of the regressions of the factors on their respective speci c cheating behaviors.
This model represents the data well, indicating that the behaviors within each factor (where each
factor is representative of a domain of cheating) hold together well and that the factors are rep-
resentative of distinct domains. The estimated covariances between the factors indicate that the
different domains of cheating are nonetheless related, as expected. Cheating oneself is somewhat
less correlated with cheating in school, competitive cheating and social contract violations, but
other relationships are quite robust. However, a single-factor model (treating all cheating behav-
iors as belonging to the same factor) showed relatively poor t,χ
2(91)=528.33,p<.001; CFI
=.59, RMSEA=.10, standardized RMR=.08, supporting the hypothesis that, although over-
laps exist between the different clusters of behaviors, the differences among them are notable.
1CFI>.90 and RMSEA/RMR<.10 are typically representative of a good tting model. 64 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
FIGURE 1Con rmatory factor analysis showing clusters of
transgressive behaviors.Note.BF/GF represents the behavior of
cheating on a partner. Other BF/GF represents the behavior of knowing
someone else has cheated on a partner and not doing anything about it.
Cheating
Factor School Relationship SelfSocial
Contract
Competitive 0.32 0.69 0.21 0.47
School — 0.34 0.12 0.55
Relationship — 0.57 0.45
Self—0.26
Social contract—
Personality and Transgressive Behaviors
To assess the relationships between the estimated cheating factors and the measured person-
ality traits, a structural equation model (SEM) was estimated using EQS 6.1 among the 616
participants who completed the survey. A total of 277 participants were excluded for incom-
plete data. Maximum likelihood estimation was used to build a model that used ve personality
variables to explain the ve kinds of transgressive behaviors found using CFA. The personality
variables were sensation seeking, impulsivity, shame proneness, guilt proneness, and perspective
taking. Shame and guilt were allowed to correlate as were impulsivity and sensation seeking based
on the close theoretical relationship between the pairs. The t of this model was not acceptable,
χ
2(10)=66.09,p<.001; CFI=.91, RMSEA=.13, standardized RMR=.07. Upon exami-
nation, it was clear that neither shame nor guilt was useful in explaining transgressive behavior
(no regression weight exceeded .11). A model excluding those variables was then estimated. The
resulting model is displayed in Figure 2. The t of this model was good,χ
2(2)=13.50,p=.003;
CFI=.98, RMSEA=.10, standardized RMR=.04, demonstrating the importance of sensation INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 65
FIGURE 2Structural equation model indicates that personality traits are
associated with all transgressions equally.Note.Factor weights are all
signi cant at the .05 level.
seeking and impulsivity in all forms of transgressive behavior and the relatively lesser importance
of perspective taking across the board.
DISCUSSION
Many of our hypotheses were supported by the obtained results, although a number of them are
quite surprising. The following is clear: (a) Self-reports of transgressive behavior tend to be asso-
ciated with one another, but in clusters. Not all behaviors are equally correlated. (b) Transgressive
behaviors are associated with personality traits, particularly sensation seeking, impulsivity, and to
a lesser degree perspective taking. (c) The observed personality traits themselves are associated
in the expected ways.
As our rst hypothesis predicted, transgressive behaviors do cluster into separate domains, as
indicated by the CFA. As had been hypothesized, three of the cheating domains were clearly dis-
tinct:self-cheating, which included straying from a personal diet or budget;relationship cheating,
comprised of cheating on a romantic partner or knowing about another person cheating on his or
her romantic partner and not reporting it; andsocial contract violations, which included cutting
in line, littering, sneaking into an event without the proper ticket, sneaking outside food into an
event, and not paying for a meal at a restaurant. The fourth predicted factor, cheating for gain,
produced a better model t when it was broken down into two separate factors. The researchers
labeled the two resulting factorsschool cheating, comprising cheating on homework or tests, and
competitive cheating, which includes behaviors such as cheating at work, lying on resumes, and
cheating in sports and games. 66 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
An individual who transgresses in one of the cheating domains is likely to commit transgres-
sions in the others. However, an individual who breaks a diet or budget may not necessarily be
as likely to commit the other transgressions, as the self-cheating factor showed a weaker corre-
lation with the others. Although all of the clusters did correlate signi cantly, a one-factor model
of transgression did not create a good t. The ve-factor model resulting from the CFA showed
a much better t than the single factor model, indicating that the differences between the clusters
are meaningful and should not be ignored.
The rst two clusters of behaviors (labeled Competitive Cheating and School Cheating)
include behaviors that are performed in order to gain an advantage or “get ahead” without taking
the appropriate steps toward the end goal. In other words, these behaviors are all “shortcuts” and,
as such, the model shows that impulsive individuals are most likely to engage in them.
The second cluster (Social Contract Violations) includes behaviors that violate explicit laws
or rules established either by society or by a legal system. The violation of such rules is risky,
especially because the consequences for violating the rules are as explicit as the rules themselves.
Thus people who violate these rules despite knowing the consequences are likely to be sensation
seekers, as indicated by the SEM. The model also shows that these individuals are likely to be
impulsive, likely because all of the behaviors in this category yield short-term gains at the risk
of detrimental effects later. Further, these laws are often set into place in order to protect other
individuals or an entire system. Someone who violates these laws, then, is causing direct or
indirect harm to someone else. Therefore, it is not surprising that, according to the model, people
who are better at perspective taking are less likely to engage in these behaviors.
The third category (Self-Cheating) represents behaviors that violate rules set by oneself. These
behaviors are clearly different from the other categories of behavior. Short-term gain is especially
highlighted by these behaviors, and they are guaranteed violations of the actor’s long-term intent,
as made clear by the setting of the rule in the rst place. It is understandable that the SEM revealed
a strong relationship between impulsivity and self-cheating behaviors, because individuals who
lack self-control will be more likely to violate long-term goals for short-term gain. This nding
was supportive of our hypotheses.
Finally, behaviors involving romantic in delity (Relationship Cheating) fall into a category
of their own. These behaviors differ from the others in that they would be obviously hurtful
to another individual if the behavior were exposed, and because the victim is harmeddirectly,
unlike the victims of social contract violations or academic cheating violations. Further, victims
of behaviors in this cluster are likely to be closer to the actor than in other clusters. As such, it
is not surprising that, as hypothesized, the violators of this behavior cluster are sensation seekers
and impulsive individuals.
Our second hypothesis that impulsivity and sensation seeking would predict transgressions
was supported by the positive path coef cients in the second model leading from these personality
traits to the various cheating domains. However, the SEM did not support our fth hypothesis.
Shame and guilt were not associated with transgressions, and perspective taking played a smaller
role than expected. The negative path coef cient between sensation seeking and the self-cheating
domain was also surprising. It indicates that individuals higher on sensation seeking are less
likely to stray from a diet or budget than individuals who are low on sensation seeking. This is
probably because sensation-seeking individuals likely never set budgets or diets for themselves,
and therefore can stray from them. INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 67
The speci c path coef cients between the personality traits and the cheating factors in the
model are also independently meaningful. For example, the path coef cient from sensation
seeking to relationship cheating is .24 and the path coef cient from impulsivity to relationship
cheating is .13. Sensation seeking is a much stronger predictor of relationship cheating than an
impulsive personality. This suggests that people who cheat on their partners cheat primarily for
the excitement and only secondarily because they lack self-control. It is also interesting to note
that perspective taking has an effect of only –.05 on relationship cheating. This result suggests that
either (a) people cheat regardless of whether they take their partner’s perspective, or (b) perhaps
perspective taking as a trait not required in situations where the effect on others is so obvious. (c)
It is also possible that relationship cheaters assume no harm will accrue to their partner because
the partner will not nd out about the transgression.
Further, the coef cients linking impulsivity and sensation seeking with competitive cheating
behaviors (.24 and .18, respectively) seem to speak to the idea that people who cheat in sports, in
games, and at work may be likely to do so because of a lack of self-control and less so because
it is produces a thrill. Impulsivity also has a very large effect on self-cheating behaviors (.37),
especially when compared to the small contribution from sensation seeking (–.14). This result
indicates that self-control is the most important factor in being able to stick to one’s budget or
diet. These ndings support our third and fourth hypotheses, respectively.
Finally, by looking at the speci c path coef cients in the SEM, it can be concluded that per-
spective taking plays a much smaller role in all of the cheating factors than impulsivity and
sensation seeking. Perspective taking was found to have signi cant negative path coef cients
with all of the cheating factors except the self-cheating factor, with which perspective taking was
not associated at all. We had predicted that perspective taking would be related to the cheating
factors that directly or indirectly involve other people. It was also predicted it to be unrelated
to the self-cheating factor, because cheating one’s self does not include making decisions that
will negatively affect others. However, it was surprising that perspective taking had the lowest
path coef cient with relationship cheating. This nding is initially counterintuitive but can be
explained by victim salience. Even the least empathic individual can understand that cheating on
a partner will impact that partner, and so perspective taking is not associated with differences on
that behavior. In contrast, social contract violations require a good deal of perspective taking, as
the victim is not always obvious.
This difference cannot be accounted for by the victims’ ignorance of the transgression, as this
is consistent between social contract and relationship cheating. The harm that comes as the result
of the transgression is not solely the result of their knowledge of the transgression. There is an
objective harm to being cheated, either in a relationship or in a social contract, whether the victim
is aware or not.
In contradiction with our fth hypothesis, the model showed better t statistics when shame-
and guilt-proneness were removed. This result may be theoretically important, but it may be the
result of the survey method. Participants rst answered questions about their cheating behaviors,
which may have induced state shame or guilt, affecting responses on the later scale that was
meant to measure trait shame and guilt. Those with more transgressions to report would therefore
feel more state shame or guilt. Behavior scales were presented rst in this study to avoid priming
effects from the personality scales. However, in future research it would be wise to completely
counterbalance the order of presentation to prevent carryover in the opposite direction. 68 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
Another possibility is that shame- and guilt-proneness do not, in fact, cause changes in
transgressive behavior. This result would be truly surprising. Although it is unwise to overin-
terpret a null result such as this one, it is interesting to speculate that impulsivity overrides an
individual’s desire to avoid guilt or shame in the future. If that is so, it calls into question the use-
fulness of anticipated emotions (Loewenstein & Lerner, 2003) in the moral decision process. This
has strong implications for transgression prevention. We are often reminded of the emotional con-
sequences of our actions in an attempt to lead individuals to avoid transgressions. If impulsiveness
trumps a tendency to feel guilt about our transgressions, this strategy is unlikely to be effective.
There are also limitations to shame and guilt personality measures. As mentioned previously,
the Shame and Guilt scales were intended to measure trait emotions (and an individual’s level
of guilt and shame proneness); however, due to the order of the questions, it is possible that
they measured state emotions (the level of shame and guilt felt at the time of answering the
questionnaire). Our data indicate that emotions are not a large factor in the decision-making
process. Although we are con dent in our results, it is possible that this nding may have a more
methodological than theoretical explanation. Additional research should account for this when
designing future studies on shame and guilt.
Our nding that impulsivity is highly related to all the cheating domains supports an automatic
moral decision-making process, such as the social-intuitionist model of moral decision making
(Haidt, 2001). Because impulsive people are less able to resist the temptation to respond to inter-
nal or external stimuli without forethought, planning, or an appreciation for the consequences of
the action (Patton, Stanford, & Barratt, 1995), they would be less likely to adhere to their moral
judgments and thus more likely to commit a moral transgression. The results from this study sup-
port this hypothesis. Haidt (2001) also argued that a second “cold” system of moral behavior can
block the impulses of the hot system using rationality-based cognitions like perspective taking.
Although results of this study indicated that one’s ability to engage in perspective taking is related
to lower levels of cheating, the lower strength of the relationship indicates that impulsivity level
is the most in uential cognitive-base trait as related to moral transgressions in most cases. Future
research may further explore the relationship between these “hot” and “cold” systems of decision
making.
The ndings in the present study are less supportive of theories that suggest people perform
behaviors that will allow them to maintain their self-concepts (Mazar, Amir, & Ariely, 2008).
For example, if an individual believes him- or herself to be highly moral, he or she would be
likely to act in a way that does not threaten that sense of morality. The results from the present
study suggest that the decision-making process is less rational than Mazar et al. (2008) had pro-
posed. Because impulsivity appears to be strongly related to cheating behaviors, it might follow
that people who engage in transgressive behaviors are quick to act and likely would not have
time to evaluate their self-concepts beforehand. Further, the strong effect of sensation seeking
on transgressive behavior suggests that some people enjoy the thrill from transgressing. In other
words, they may choose to transgress despite their self-concepts.
Although there is literature that indicates that self-report measures lack external validity, our
ndings do not support this assertion. Real-world examples of moral transgressions are widely
available. A self-report survey administered over the internet, like the one used in this study,
creates a suf ciently secure and anonymous environment that the participants will be more likely
to report previous transgressions. Furthermore, social desirability scores did not interact with the
any other variables measured and was not likely a factor when affecting the participants’ decision INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 69
to report past behaviors. This result, paired with our nding that 100% of the participants reported
committing some sort of moral transgression, supports the argument that our participants did not
feel the need to hide past transgressions.
Another limitation results from the sampling method and resulting sample. Because the survey
was only posted on Facebook, and the population of Facebook users may differ from nonusers,
the population to which these ndings can be generalized may be limited. The demographics
of this sample are skewed young, White, and American. Although this is an improvement over
the traditional General Psychology sample, it still is not an accurate representation of a national
population, and certainly not a global population. The size of the sample does represent a strength
of the study, as it allows for appropriate parameter estimation in SEM. It is possible, however,
that small effects, such as that of perspective taking, may be overstated with such a large sample.
The present research excluded morality variables because the link between moral functioning
and transgressive behavior is well established (Haidt, 2001). Given the interesting ndings regard-
ing impulsivity, future research should explore the interactions between “cold” moral reasoning
and “hot” emotional or impulsive behavior.
Despite these limitations, the results of this study expand our understanding of the role of per-
sonality in transgressive behavior. It is clear that sensation seeking and impulsivity are extremely
important across the board and that more impulsive people do tend to transgress more frequently.
Also, this study presents the possibility that shame and guilt proneness are not important pre-
dictors of transgressive behavior, as one might have thought. Finally, the results suggest that the
ability to take the perspective of another is most in uential during those decisions about trans-
gressions where the harm to others is more abstract or remote. Understanding the relationships
between personality characteristics and the occurrence of transgressive behaviors will allow for
a better understanding of the moral decision-making process as a whole.
REFERENCES
Anderman, E. M., Cupp, P. K., & Lane, D. (2009). Impulsivity and academic cheating.Journal of Experimental
Education,78, 135–150. doi:10.1080/00220970903224636
Barnett, M. A., Sanborn, F. W., & Shane, A. C. (2005). Factors associated with individuals’ likelihood of
engaging in various minor moral and legal violations.Basic and Applied Social Psychology,27, 77–84.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2701_8
Baucom, D. H., & Aiken, P. A. (1981). Effect of depressed mood on eating among obese and nonobese dieting and
nondieting persons.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.4, 577–585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.577
Baumeister, R. F. (2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior.
Journal of Consumer Research,28, 670–676. doi:10.1086/338209
Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach.Psychological Bulletin,
115, 243–267. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243
Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (1995).EQS for Windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bravo, I. M., & Lumpkin, P. W. (2010). The complex case of marital in delity: An explanatory model of
contributory processes to facilitate psychotherapy.The American Journal of Family Therapy,38, 421–432.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.522491
Cheema, A., & Soman, D. (2006). Malleable mental accounting: The effect of exibility on the justi -
cation of attractive spending and consumption decisions.Journal of Consumer Psychology,16, 33–44.
doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1601_6
Corcoran, K. J., & Rotter, J. B. (1987). Morality-Conscience Guilt Scale as a predictor of ethical behav-
ior in a cheating situation among college females.The Journal of General Psychology,114, 117–123.
doi:10.1080/00221309.1987.9711061 70 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.Journal of
Consulting Psychology,24, 349–354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
Damasio, A. R. (1994).Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy.JSAS Catalog of Selected
Documents in Psychology,10,85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach.Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,44, 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
DeAndrea, D. C., Carpenter, C., Shulman, H., & Levine, T. R. (2009). The relationship between cheating behavior and
sensation seeking.Personality and Individual Differences,47, 944–947. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.07.021
Dost, A., & Yagmurlu, B. (2008). Are constructive and destructiveness essential features of guilt and shame feelings
respectively?Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior,38, 109–129. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.2008.00362.x
Dunlop, S. M., & Romer, D. (2010). Adolescent and young adult crash risk: Sensation seeking, substance use propensity
and substance use behaviors.Journal of Adolescent Health,46, 90–92. doi:10.1002/dev.20442
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.Annual Review of Psychology,51, 665–697.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665
Ellison, A. M. (1996). An introduction to Bayesian in uence for ecological research and environmental decision-making.
Ecological Applications,6, 1036–1046.
Fischer, J., & Corcoran, K. (2007).Measures for clinical practice and research: A sourcebook(4thed.,pp. 315–316). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Giner-Sorolla, R., Piazza, J., & Espinosa, P. (2011). What do the TOSCA guilt and shame scales really measure: Affect
or action?Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 445–450.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling.Annals of Mathematical Statistics,32, 148–170.
Guerrieri, R., Nederkoorn, C., & Jansen, A. (2007). How impulsiveness and variety in uence food intake in a sample of
healthy women.Appetite,48, 119–122. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2006.06.004
Haden, S. C., & Shiva, A. (2008). Trait impulsivity in a forensic inpatient sample: An evaluation of the Barratt
Impulsiveness Scale.Behavioral Sciences and the Law,26, 675–690. doi:10.1002/bsl.820
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.Psychological
Review,108, 814–834. doi:10.1037/0033-295X
Hall, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). Psychological distress: Precursor or consequence of dating in delity?
Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 143–159. doi:10.1177/0146167208327189
Harder, D., Rockart, L., & Cutler, L. (1993). Additional validity evidence for the Harder Personal Feelings Questionnaire–
2 (PFQ2): A measure of shame and guilt proneness.Journal of Clinical Psychology,49, 345–348. doi:10.1002/1097-
4679(199305)49:3<345:: AID-JCLP2270490307>(3.0.CO);2-Y
Harder, D., & Zalma, A. (1990). Two promising shame and guilt scales: A construct validity comparison.Journal of
Personality Assessment,55, 729–745. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa5503&4_30
Hoyle, R. H., Stephenson, M. T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E. P., & Donohew, R. L. (2002). Reliability and validity of
a brief measure of sensation seeking.Personality and Individual Differences,32, 401–414. doi:10.1016/S0191-
8869(01)00032-0
Jordan, A. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of
institutional policy.Ethics & Behavior,11, 233–247. doi:10.1207/S15327019EB1103_3
Kalichman, S. C., Simbayi, C. L., Jooste, S., Cain, D., & Cherry, C. (2006). Sensation seeking, alcohol use, and sexual
behaviors among sexually transmitted infection clinic patients in Cape Town, South Africa.Psychology of Addictive
Behaviors,20, 298–304. doi:10.1037/0893-164X.20.3.298
Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C.M. (2006). Contextual in uences on moral functioning of male youth football players.The
Sport Psychologist,20, 1–23.
Kelly, J. A., & Worell, L. (1978). Personality characteristics, parent behaviors, and sex of subject in relation to cheating.
Journal of Research in Personality,12, 179–188. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(78)90094-6
Kidwell, B., & Turrisi, R. (2004). An examination of college student money management tendencies.Journal of Economic
Psychology,25, 601–616. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(03)00073-4
Kohlberg, L. (1973). The claim to moral adequacy of a highest stage of moral judgment.Journal of Philosophy,70,
630–646. INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY ON DECISION TO CHEAT 71
Leith, K., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of interpersonal con icts: Guilt-prone people
are better at perspective taking.Journal of Personality,66, 1–37. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00001
Loewenstein, G., & Lerner, J. (2003). The role of affect in decision-making. In R. J. Dawson, K. R. Scherer, & H. Hill
(Eds.),Handbook of affective science(pp. 619–642). Goldsmith, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lovett-Hooper, G., Komarraju, M., Weston, R., & Dollinger, S. J. (2007). Is plagiarism a forerunner of
other deviance? Imagined futures of academically dishonest students.Ethics and Behavior,17, 323–336.
doi:10.1080/10508420701519387
Lucas, G. M., & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as predictors of academic
dishonesty.Ethics & Behavior,15, 15–35. doi:10.1207/s15327019eb1501_2
Mazar, N., Amir, O., & Ariely, D. (2008). The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self- concept maintenance.
Journal of Marketing Research,45, 633–634. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.633
McAlister, A., Pachana, N., & Jackson, C. (2005). Predictors of young dating adults’ inclination to engage
in extradyadic sexual activities: A multi-perspective study.British Journal of Psychology,96, 331–350.
doi:10.1348/000712605X47936
Muraven, M., Baumeister, R. F., & Tice, D. M. (1999). Longitudinal improvement of self-regulation through practice:
Building self-control strength through repeated exercise.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,139, 446–457.
doi:10.1080/00224549909598404
Muraven, M., Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 774–789. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.774
Newcomb, M. D., & McGee, L. (1991). In uence of sensation seeking on general deviance and speci c problem behaviors
from adolescence to young adulthood.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,61, 614–628. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.61.4.614
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. ( 1995). Factor structure of the Barratt impulsiveness scale.Journal of
Clinical Psychology,51, 768–774. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6<768:: AID-JCLP2270510607>3.0.CO;2-1
Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Gärling, T., & Slovic, P. (2006). Affect and decision-making: A "hot" topic.Journal of Behavioral
Decision-Making,19, 79–85. doi:10.1002/bdm.528
Ostaszewski, P. (1996). The relation between temperament and rate of temporal discounting.European Journal Of
Personality,10(3), 161–172.
Raineri, A., & Rachlin, H. (2006). The effect of temporal constraints on the value of money and other commodities.
Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,6, 77–94. doi:10.1002
/bdm.3960060202
Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desir-
ability scale.Journal of Clinical Psychology,38, 119–125. doi:10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119:: AID-
JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I
Rogerson, M. D., Gottlieb, M. C., Handelsman, M. M., Knapp, S., & Younggren, J. (2011). Nonrational processes in
ethical decision making.American Psychologist,66, 614–623. doi:10.1037/a0025215
Schmitt, B. H., Dubé, L., & Leclerc, F. (1992). Intrusions into waiting lines: Does the queue constitute a social system?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 806–815. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.5.806
Schmitt, D. P. (2004). The Big Five related to risky sexual behavior across 10 world regions: Differential personal-
ity associations of sexual promiscuity and relationship in delity.European Journal of Personality,18, 301–319.
doi:10.1002/per.520
Silfver, M., & Helkama, K. (2007). Empathy, guilt, and gender: A comparison of two measures of guilt.Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology,48, 239–246. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00578.x
Silva, J. M. (1981). Normative compliance and rule violating behavior in sport.International Journal of Sport Psychology,
12, 10–18.
Spinella, M. (2007). Normative data and a short form of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale.International Journal of
Neuroscience,115, 359–368. doi:10.1080/00207450600588881
Staats, S., Hupp, J. M, Wallace, H., & Gresley, J. (2009). Heroes don’t cheat: An examination of academic
dishonesty and students’ views on why professors don’t report cheating.Ethics and Behavior,19, 171–183.
doi:10.1080/10508420802623716
Stephenson, M. T., Hoyle, R. H., Palmgreen, M. T., & Slater, M. D. (2003). Brief measures of sensation seeking for screen-
ing and large-scale surveys.Drug and Alcohol Dependence,72, 279–286. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2003.08.003 72 MCTERNAN, LOVE, RETTINGER
Vohs, K. D., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Spent resources: Self-regulatory resource availability affects impulse buying.Journal
of Consumer Research,33, 537–547. doi:10.1086/510228
Vorauer, J. D., Martens, V., & Sasaki, Stacey J. (2009). When trying to understand detracts from trying to behave:
Effects of perspective taking in intergroup interaction.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96, 811–827.
doi:10.1037/a0013411
Wertenbroch, K. (1998). Consumption self-control by rationing purchase quantities of virtue and vice.Marketing Science,
17, 317–337.
Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking and psychopathology.Psychiatry Research,1, 255–264. doi:10.1016/0165-
1781(79)90007-6
Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S., & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age,
and sex comparisons.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,46, 139–149. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.46.1.139
Zuckerman, M., Kuhlman, D. M., Joireman, J., Teta, P., & Kraft, M. (1993). A comparison of three structural models
for personality: the big three, the big ve and the alternative ve.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65,
757–768. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.757 Copyright
ofEthics &Behavior isthe property ofTaylor &Francis Ltdand itscontent may
not
becopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's
express
writtenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for
individual
use.
