The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1359-0790.htm

JFC
22,1
Applying criminological theory
to academic fraud
Nicholas Walker and Kristy Holtfreter
Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
48

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to examine academic dishonesty and research misconduct, two forms of
academic fraud, and provides suggestions for future research informed by criminological theory.
Design/methodology/approach – After reviewing prior literature, this paper outlines four general
criminological theories that can explain academic fraud.
Findings – While criminological theory has been applied to some studies of academic dishonesty,
research misconduct has rarely been examined within a broader theoretical context.
Practical implications – This paper provides a blueprint for future theoretically informed analyses
of academic fraud.
Originality/value – This paper represents a unique attempt to apply general criminological theories
to diverse forms of fraud in higher education settings.
Keywords Fraud, Academic dishonesty, Criminological theory, Research misconduct
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Academic fraud is a type of deviance. The two main subcategories are academic
dishonesty and research misconduct. Fraud – a subcategory of white-collar criminality
(Newburn, 2007) – “uses deception as its principal modus operandi” (Wells, 1997, p. 2).
According to Smith et al. (2011, p. 15), fraud is “some form of intention of deception
and/or dishonesty alongside the achievement of some kind of gain”. For instance,
anesthesiologist Dr Scott S. Reuben intentionally fabricated medical research findings
in 21 empirical articles published from 1996 to 2008 (Harris, 2009; Winstein and
Armstrong, 2009). Reuben exposed countless patients and the medical industry to a
risky post-surgical pain treatment protocol. Reuben purported that non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory and neuropathic drugs were more effective than narcotics.
Ultimately, the journals Anesthesiology and Anesthesia & Analgesia retracted Reuben’s
publications, and the medical industry has second-guessed the utility of Reuben’s
protocol (Winstein and Armstrong, 2009). Despite the pervasive and consequential
nature of academic fraud, the topic – particularly for research misconduct – has sparsely
been examined theoretically (Friedrichs, 2004; Lambert et al., 2003; Lanier, 2006). We
have a limited understanding of the nature and ramifications of academic dishonesty
and research misconduct even though we know fraudulent behavior can produce
serious human, social and economic consequences (Rosoff et al., 2002).

Journal of Financial Crime

Vol. 22 No. 1, 2015
pp. 48-62 The authors thank Katelyn A. Wattanaporn for her research assistance. Please direct
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1359-0790
correspondence to Kristy Holtfreter, Arizona State University, School of Criminology & Criminal
DOI 10.1108/JFC-12-2013-0071 Justice, 411 N. Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 85,004 (email – kholtfreter@gmail.com)
 With some exceptions (Bichler-Robertson et al., 2003; Bolin, 2004; Cochran et al., 1998; Criminological
Holtfreteret al., 2010b; Lanza-Kaduce and Klug, 1986; Michaels and Miethe, 1989; theory
Tibbetts and Myers, 1999; Vowell and Chen, 2004), previous academic fraud studies on
academic dishonesty primarily explained the behavior with demographic variables
(Aiken, 1991; Brown and Emmett, 2001; Diekhoff et al., 1996; Genereux and McLeod,
1995; Lambert et al., 2003; Lanier, 2006; McCabe and Trevino, 1997; Newstead et al.,
1996; Ward, 1986; Whitley, 1998; Whitley et al., 1999) rather than with theoretical 49
concepts. In the analysis conducted by Lambert et al. (2003), however, demographic
variables explained just 10 per cent of the variation in academic dishonesty. In terms
of research misconduct, there is a theoretical dearth in the literature because
criminological theories have been largely applied to academic dishonesty to date.
Applying criminological theory to academic dishonesty and research misconduct is
necessary to further our understanding of academic dishonesty and to conceptually
explain research misconduct. In doing so, we can better understand the nuances of
these forms of academic fraud, and establish clear-cut strategies to detect and
prevent these behaviors. In response to Ashwin’s (2012) appeal for researchers to
guide their agendas regarding higher education topical issues and practices with
theoretical concepts, the current review undertakes the challenge of closing the
aforementioned literature gap. Our examination focuses on the applicability of four
criminological theories – social learning, self-control, routine activity theory (RAT) and
general strain theory – to academic dishonesty and research misconduct.

The nature of academic dishonesty

Academic dishonesty has been broadly defined in the literature. According to Jensen et
al. (2002, p. 210), academic dishonesty refers to “students’ attempt to present others’
academic work as their own”. Academic dishonesty can mean “any fraudulent actions or
attempts by a student to use unauthorized or unacceptable means in any academic
work” (Lambert et al., 2003, 3) or any “intentionally unethical behavior” (Von Dran et al.,
2001, p. 40). Academic dishonesty relates to “a violation of an institution’s policy of
honesty” (Weaver et al., 1991, p. 302); simply put, it implies cheating.
Scholars have characterized academic dishonesty as “epidemic” (Lambert and
Hogan, 2004), “rampant” (Tibbetts and Myers, 1999) and institutionalized within the
student culture (Horowitz, 1987). Since the 1940s, academic dishonesty has risen among
college students (Drake, 1941; Graham et al., 1994; Goldsen, 1960; Jendrek, 1992;
Tibbetts and Myers, 1999; Whitley, 1998). Moreover, the fraudulent behavior is a
pan-academic discipline problem (Coleman and Mahaffey, 2000) and appears to occur
more frequently among online college students than traditional college students (Lanier,
2006). Although the percentage of students who have engaged in academic dishonesty
has varied, Whitley’s (1998) meta-analysis of 107 studies showed that the mean average
of cheating was 70 per cent.
Academic dishonesty cases have embroiled American institutions of higher learning.
University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and Harvard University administrators
investigated allegations of academic dishonesty involving numerous university
students, including student-athletes, and faculty members (Brennan, 2012; Pickeral,
2012). In 2009, The Wall Street Journal documented seven of the most “peculiar” cases of
academic dishonesty by undergraduate, graduate and professional students at
institutions of higher learning, such as Yale University, Duke University, the US Naval
JFC Academy, and the University of Virginia. Over 100 University of Virginia
22,1 undergraduate students were accused of plagiarizing papers (Schemo, 2001; Trex, 2009).
Academic dishonesty is even widespread on the pre-collegiate level among high
school students (Davis and Ludvigson, 1995; Davis et al., 1992). For example, a female
high school honor student stated the following:
Since I only do this [i.e. cheat] when I need to, it isn’t a habit. Every kid does this when they’re
50 in a pinch (Jensen et al., 2002, p. 210).
Several Great Neck, New York high school (and college), students were implicated in an
extensive pay-to-take SAT exam scheme. Using fake identifications, the college
students received upwards of $500 to $3,600 from high school students to take SAT
exams on the high school students’ behalf (Fox News, 2011). The scheme resulted in
numerous arrests and criminal charges, and a new SAT and ACT policy that requires
test takers to submit their photo identifications when they initially register online to take
the exams (Anderson, 2012). Although academic dishonesty is prevalent among
students, it is misleading to assume academic fraud is exclusive to the student
population (Macfarlane et al., 2012). As noted earlier in the Reuben case, scientific
researchers engage in fraudulent behaviors and fail to uphold high academic integrity
standards.

The nature of research misconduct

Broadly defined, academic integrity refers to “values, behaviour and conduct of
academics in all aspects of their practice” (Macfarlane et al., 2012, p. 2). Research
misconduct exists in academic cultures (Macfarlane et al., 2012; Martinson et al., 2005;
Titus et al., 2008). In 1996, The Lancet cited academic fraud in 0.1-0.4 per cent of
empirical studies. Yet, research misconduct has been widely underreported (Breen,
2003; Titus et al., 2008) or even concealed (Martinson et al., 2005; Steneck, 1994;
Valentine and Kidwell, 2008).
Research misconduct connotes the “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP) in
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results” (USA
Office of Science and Technology Policy, 2000). From Friedrichs’ (2004, p. 98)
perspective, academic fraud, such as research misconduct, entails a wide range of
behaviors:
Plagiarism; misuse of or embezzlement of university discretionary funds or research grants;
forgery or fraudulent claims about credentials; unresolved conflicts of interest in connection
with grants, peer reviews, or evaluations of students; pilfering and unauthorized
photocopying; gross negligence in the fulfillment of teaching responsibilities (e.g. failure to
teach the course for which students enrolled); exposing students or research subjects to unsafe
or harmful conditions or procedures; and fabrication of scholarship or the use of fraudulent
data in research studies.
Misconduct also involves other inappropriate activities outside of “fraud, fabrication,
and plagiarism” that warrants scrutiny and reform, such as withholding contradicting
findings or publishing the same data or results in multiple publications (Martinson et al.,
2005).
Research misconduct is largely underreported because academics neglect to turn in
colleagues’ deceptive practices to the proper authorities, such as university
administrators or the Office of Research Integrity (Titus et al., 2008). The problem,
however, is that misconduct is common (Anderson et al., 1994; Angell, 1986; Breen, 2003; Criminological
Friedrichs, 2004; Geggie, 2001; Macfarlane et al., 2012; Martinson et al., 2005; Steneck, theory
1994; Titus et al., 2008; Wilcox, 1992). Research misconduct was a salient topic in 1994
The Journal of Higher Education devoted its entire publication – Special Issue:
Perspectives on Research Misconduct (Vol. 65, No. 3) – to the subject matter.
The prevalence of research misconduct has been revealed through survey data. For
example, out of the 265 observed incidences of misconduct in the investigation 51
conducted by Titus et al. (2008), 202 fulfilled the US Office of Science and Technology
Policy’s (2000) definition of research misconduct. Based on a self-report sample of 1,768
mid-career researchers and 1,479 early-career researchers, Martinson et al. (2005, p. 738)
surmised: “USA scientists engage in a range of behaviours extending far beyond FFP
that can damage the integrity of science”. The authors’ conclusion was grounded on two
revelations:
(1) 33 per cent of the sample respondents disclosed that they had participated in
research misconduct; and
(2) misconduct was significantly higher among mid-career researchers than
early-career researchers (Martinson et al., 2005).

Macfarlane et al. (2012) called for greater empirical scrutiny of academics’ research
misconduct, which reiterates our restricted understanding of academic fraud and gives
credence to the utility of applying criminological theories to academic dishonesty and
research misconduct.

Limited understanding of academic fraud

As mentioned, the primary argument of this review is that our scant understanding of
academic dishonesty and research misconduct originates from insufficient application
of theoretical concepts to the behavior (Friedrichs, 2004; Lambert et al., 2003; Lanier,
2006). Research methodology is another problem area that has reduced our
comprehension of academic fraud. Previous research misconduct studies have too often
attempted to explain fraudulent behavior solely with demographics (Lambert et al.,
2003). This trend continues to be used. Fang et al. (2013), for instance, found that, in the
discipline of life science, male researchers were disproportionately more likely than their
female counterparts to engage in misconduct. Although the aforementioned study is an
important literature contribution, even the authors concluded: “These observations
underscore the need for additional efforts to understand scientific misconduct and to
ensure the responsible conduct of research” (Fang et al., 2013, p. 1). In other words, we
need theoretical answers to determine why misconduct is more common among males.
We also have a limited understanding of academic fraud because the category of
“fraud” has been generally viewed as a civil issue rather than a criminal issue (Smith
et al., 2011). There is a conventional assumption that dominant social groups (e.g. the
upper and middle classes) engage in predominantly white-collar criminal activity. As a
result, dominant groups assign greater social value to curbing blue-collar crime (or
street crime) to avoid public scrutiny for their own malfeasances (Bensman, 1988). In
other words, the magnitude of white-collar deviance is minimized. This logic adheres to
Sutherland’s (1949) “white-collar” proposition that certain deviant behaviors, when
perpetrated by certain societal members, are not characterized as criminal or
JFC prosecuted. According to Sutherland (1949, p. 9), white-collar crimes are “committed by
22,1 a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation”.
When instances of academic fraud are discovered, these acts are not resolved
publicly (e.g. criminal prosecution) for several reasons. Some white-collar crime victims
prefer internal and/or alternative resolutions, such as “self-policing and self-regulation”
(Steneck, 1994) or “private settlement” (Holtfreter, 2008). In the occupational setting,
52 Holtfreter (2008) found that the “fear of negative publicity” guided organizational
victims’ decisions to forego legal claims against fraudulent employees. The work of
Titus et al. (2008) supports Holtfreter’s (2008) finding. The literature suggests that the
probability white-collar offenders will be criminally prosecuted is low due to
prosecutors’ perception of the behavior. Benson and Cullen (1998) established that some
prosecutors do not consider white-collar crime to be a serious matter, which sustains
Sutherland’s (1949) assertion. Despite claims that a punitive culture has intensified
regarding research misconduct, offenders are rarely prosecuted (Wilcox, 1992). The
latter conclusion is problematic for two reasons. First, the public considers fraudulent
white-collar behaviors to be serious, particularly activities that lead to the loss of human
life or bodily harm, and the public endorses greater governmental efforts to crack down
on fraudulent behavior (Holtfreter et al., 2008b). Second, academic fraud offenders are
ultimately incentivized when they are not reprimanded for their actions (Rosoff et al.,
2002). We must move beyond demographic explanations by applying general
criminological theories to academic fraud.

Theoretical framework
Social learning theory
An expansion of the differential association framework originally posited by Sutherland
(1939), the central argument of Ronald Akers’s social learning is that individuals learn
either prosocial norms or antisocial norms (i.e. deviant, delinquent and criminal
behavior) through key learning mechanisms and processes[1]. Differential association,
definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation are the four major propositions of
social learning theory. Previous research has demonstrated social learning theory’s
capacity to significantly account for learned deviant behaviors, including academic
dishonesty (Michaels and Miethe, 1989). Based on their meta-analysis of 133 research
studies, Pratt et al. (2010) reported strong empirical support for social learning theory.
Differential association. Differential association is “the process whereby one is
exposed to normative definitions favorable or unfavorable to illegal or law-abiding
behavior” (Akers, 2011, p. 132). As such, whether individuals are inclined to engage in
academic dishonesty or research misconduct is largely based on their socialization
within certain peer groups (i.e. differential association). In relation to academic fraud,
student peers (Craig and Evans, 1990; Diekhoff et al., 1996; Jensen et al., 2002; Lambert
and Hogan, 2004; Lambert et al., 2003; Lanier, 2006; Michaels and Miethe, 1989; Whitley,
1998) and research colleagues (Anderson et al., 2007; Anderson et al., 1994; Macfarlane
et al., 2012; Martinson et al., 2005; Titus et al., 2008) have been the leading peer groups,
within the cultures of student life and the academy, that, respectively, influenced
favorable definitions associated with academic dishonesty and research misconduct.
According to McCabe and Trevino (1997), peer disapproval significantly mitigated
academic dishonesty in the college setting. Anderson et al. (1994) link socialization to
research misconduct. Naturally, faculty members are the preeminent intermediaries Criminological
who are charged with socializing graduate students to the academic research culture. theory
Definitions. Individuals’ perspectives or attitudes (i.e. definitions) of aberrant activity
are shaped by their proximal relationships with various peer groups. Definitions pertain
to “one’s own attitudes or meanings that one attaches to given behavior” (Akers, 2011,
p. 132). These definitions can be positive (i.e. pro-deviant behavior), negative (i.e.
anti-deviant behavior) or neutralizing (i.e. justification(s) for participating in deviant 53
behavior). For example, Jensen et al. (2002) demonstrated that students use definition
motives to justify academic dishonesty – e.g. “Knew everyone else was cheating” and
“Didn’t think it was a big deal”. Michaels and Miethe (1989) found that differential
association and definitions (i.e. pro-cheating attitudes) were both significant predictors
of various types of academic dishonesty, including “having help or encouragement from
friends to cheat”. The predictive power of differential association and definitions has
been confirmed by Pratt et al. ’s (2010) meta analysis.
Differential reinforcement. Differential reinforcement implies “the balance of
anticipated or actual rewards and punishments that follow or are consequences of
behavior” (Akers, 2011, p. 133). The academic research culture has been driven by the
“publish or perish” ethos (Angell, 1986). The existing academic dishonesty and research
misconduct literature suggests that individuals participate in academic fraud because
the apparent benefits (e.g. “getting a good grade” or “professional survival”) usually
outweigh the potential consequences (e.g. “getting caught”).
Imitation. For Akers (2011, p. 134), imitation is the “engagement in behavior after the
observation of similar behavior of others”. The leading research misconduct literature
illustrates that mentoring and the modeling of mentors’ unsavory values and behaviors
are precipitating factors for academic fraud. Anderson and partners (2007) ascertained
that financial mentoring – i.e. how to manage “grant and contract proposals and
obtaining other financial support” – correlated strongly with misconduct among
researchers (e.g. improper use of funds). Titus et al. (2008) revealed that 192 of the
responding researchers witnessed 265 incidences of possible misconduct within a
three-year period.
Self-control theory. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory predicts that
individuals with low levels of self-control engage in a variety of criminal and analogous
acts. Variations in self-control are determined by ineffective and/or inconsistent
parenting practices during early childhood (e.g. failing to punish bad behavior).
According to Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990), self-control is fully developed around the
ages of 8-10 years, and is relatively stable over the life-course (Arneklev et al., 1998;
Piquero et al., 2010; Turner and Piquero, 2002). Comparatively, developmental
psychologists contend that self-regulatory functioning is not complete until the mid-20s
(Steinberg, 2007, 2008). Recent research demonstrates that impulsivity, a key dimension
of self-control, begins to decrease at age 10 years; however, teens are more prone to
risk-taking during mid-adolescence (Steinberg, 2010; Steinberg et al., 2009).
Psychologists and criminologists agree that those lacking in self-control are impulsive,
short-sighted and pursue their own self-interests without considering long-term
consequences[2]. There is considerable empirical support for the link between
self-control and various crime-related outcomes (Pratt and Cullen, 2000; Reisig and
Pratt, 2011).
JFC Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990, p. 14) definition of crime includes “acts of force or
22,1 fraud undertaken in pursuit of self-interest”. Tests of the theory have focused on
traditional “street” crimes, as well as white-collar crimes. More importantly, for present
purposes, self-control has been used to explain fraud-like behaviors that do not violate
criminal law (e.g. academic dishonesty). This research continues to confirm the link
between self-control and a multitude of outcomes (Holtfreter et al., 2010a). Some of this
54 research has examined fraud within the context of higher education. For example,
Holtfreter et al.’s (2010a) study demonstrated that self-control predicted college
students’ intentions to cheat and engage in a variety of other fraudulent activities.
Additionally, Smith (2004) administered a self-control scale to a sample of
undergraduate students, followed by an experimentally controlled, staged opportunity
for the sample to self-report “lost” test scores. In this study, low self-control predicted
reporting higher (albeit false) exam scores.
In summary, the existing studies provide theoretical and empirical justification for
applying self-control theory to the study of academic fraud. As noted, those with low
self-control are short-sighted, impulsive and pursue activities that provide immediate
gratification. We argue that academic misconduct, like other forms of fraud, fits
Gottfredson and Hirschi’s definition of crime. Rather than taking time and resources to
conduct ethical research, activities such as falsifying data/results provide immediate
gratification and are attractive to those with low self-control. Although those with
advanced degrees arguably have higher levels of self-control relative to the general
adult population, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) remind us that there is variation within
subsamples. Accordingly, we would expect variation in levels of self-control within the
population of academics.
Routine activity theory. Cohen and Felson’s (1979) RAT predicts that the probability
of crime increases with convergence of three elements: a motivated offender, suitable
target and absence of capable guardians[3]. The bulk of early criminological research in
this tradition focused on violent crime, and the ways in which lifestyles and behaviors
(e.g. walking alone at night) put individuals at greater risk for victimization. RAT has
also been empirically linked to white-collar crime (Benson et al., 2009) and to many
fraud-related outcomes (Holtfreter et al., 2008a; Pratt et al., 2010a; Reisig et al., 2009).
Benson et al. (2009) note the importance of “common place” in applying RAT to
white-collar crimes like academic fraud. Unlike street crimes, which require direct
physical contact between victim and offender, many white-collar crimes do not have this
requirement. Benson et al. (2009) focus on elements of organizational structure that
permit fraudulent acts to take place. Scholars enjoy much autonomy when it comes to
the research process; they work when and where they choose, with little oversight.
Along these lines, autonomy and related factors associated with positive outcomes (e.g.
job satisfaction) may also increase opportunities for misconduct.
The simple logic of RAT makes it appealing in a higher-education context.
Researchers who commit academic fraud fit the description of a “motivated offender”.
There may be numerous potential victims of academic fraud, including the offender’s
university, human subjects of research, funding agencies and others who attempt to
build upon unknowingly fraudulent research in their own work. Academic fraud is very
unique in that many potential targets/victims of motivated offenders are also supposed
to take on the role of capable guardians in preventing fraud. These include, but are not
limited to peer reviewers, journal editors, institutional review boards (IRBs), funding
agencies and even colleagues who comment on peers’ papers. RAT suggests that crime Criminological
prevention efforts should focus on increasing guardianship via various “target theory
hardening” techniques, such as close monitoring and evaluation of research activities.
Strain theory. As articulated by Cloward and Ohlin (1960), Cohen (1955) and Merton
(1938), the original focus of strain theorists was on explaining aggregate crime patterns.
At the individual level, traditional strain theory suggests that people engage in crime
when they are blocked from legitimately achieving cultural goals (e.g. monetary 55
success). Similarly, Agnew’s (1992) general strain theory posits that a variety of strains/
pressures increase the likelihood of crime. As Agnew (2006, p. 101) notes, strain
encompasses the inability to achieve positively valued goals, the loss of positively
valued stimuli and the presentation of negatively valued stimuli. To cope with strain,
people use a variety of responses, one of which is crime[4].
Much like other general theories, strain theory has been utilized to explain a
multitude of offending behaviors, including street and white-collar crimes. There is
considerable support for the theory across crime contexts (Agnew, 2006). Studies on
white-collar and corporate crime suggest a logical extension to academic fraud. As noted
at the outset, the range of behaviors in Sutherland’s (1949) original definition of
white-collar crime includes academic fraud. And, we argue, the traditional university
incentive structure provides a setting conducive to academic fraud. For example, junior
faculty faces the immediate and almost constant pressure to achieve tenure and
promotion. Faculty members at research-intensive institutions are subjected to a
“publish or perish” culture that extends even beyond the achievements of tenure and
promotion. Geggie (2001) determined that the strain of publishing was a critical factor
that impacted medical consultants’ professional preservation, leading to research
misconduct. At many universities, there is also pressure to obtain research grants from
external funding agencies (e.g. the National Science Foundation). Regardless of the
discipline, publishing in top journals and securing large grants is highly competitive,
resulting in blocked opportunities. Meeting these goals through legitimate means may
be challenging for some individuals. Consistent with general strain theory, the inability
to attain academic success may result in an increased likelihood of committing academic
fraud (e.g. in the form of falsifying results and the like). Given that the opportunity and
structure of universities varies considerably, we would expect academic fraud to be
more likely among faculty in research-intensive environments (Wang and Holtfreter,
2012).

Discussion
This manuscript reviewed the existing literature on academic fraud, which includes
academic dishonesty among students as well as research misconduct by faculty
members. Our review highlighted the lack of theoretical application in prior academic
fraud research, an issue that is salient in the larger body of higher education research
(Ashwin, 2012). We attempted to address this gap by examining the applicability of four
general criminological theories to the study of academic misconduct. The theoretical
and empirical literature reviewed here suggests some important directions for future
research.
First, it is important to gauge the extent of academic fraud. Unlike criminal law
violations, which are regularly recorded in official records (e.g. arrest data), most forms
of academic fraud are considered ethical violations. As a result, it is not possible to
JFC estimate the extent and nature of academic fraud using official records. Self-report
22,1 surveys of researchers from a variety of academic disciplines (e.g. medicine, social
science and education) represent a promising method for obtaining academic fraud data.
This approach would permit between-discipline comparisons both in the extent of
misconduct and differences in theoretical explanations (e.g. perhaps social learning is
more pervasive in some fields).
56 The general theories discussed here – social learning, self-control, RAT and strain –
have enjoyed considerable support within criminology. Self-report surveys are
frequently used to test these theories across a variety of samples and crime contexts. A
retrospective approach might query respondents about their behavior within a
designated time period (e.g. “In the past year, how often have you reported false results
in your research?”), or over the entire course of one’s career (e.g. “Have you ever reported
false results in your research?”). Additionally, researchers might use vignette-based
designs where respondents are presented with hypothetical situations where
misconduct is a potential outcome. This approach has been used in past studies of
white-collar crime (Simpson and Piquero, 2002) and academic dishonesty (Holtfreter
et al., 2010b). An obvious limitation of vignette-based research is that it only captures
behavioral intentions, rather than actual unethical activities; however, intentions are
highly correlated with future behavior (Ajzen, 1991). The four general theories
examined here could be tested alone, or within the same study.
Future academic fraud research also carries important policy implications. The
specific policy recommendations made depend on results of theoretical tests. Some
theories suggest more direct policy recommendations. For example, there is consensus
that teaching individuals with low self-control to change their behavior is difficult at
best. Modifying chronic, persistent and deviant coping mechanisms (e.g. engaging in
unethical behavior in response to strain) also presents numerous challenges. In
comparison, social learning theory and RAT point to practical interventions directed at
structural factors (e.g. policies and practices in higher education), as opposed to
individual-level behavioral modifications. Empirical support for RAT would suggest
that institutions of higher education increase capable guardianship in the form of closer
monitoring of research activities. Likewise, support for social learning theory might
reveal the need for cultural changes, such as ethics training.

Notes
1. In prior studies of academic dishonesty, social learning variables have been measured
attitudinally and behaviorally [Lanza-Kaduce and Klug (1986, p. 249) – for measures of all
four social learning variables – and Michaels and Miethe (1989, p. 875] – for differential
association [e.g. on a scale ranging from “very negatively” (coded 0) to “very positively”
(coded 4), respondents were asked “how your closest friend would react on learning that you
had cheated on an exam”, “how your parents would react” and “how most of your closest
friends regards cheating”.] and definitions measures.
2. Self-control has been measured attitudinally (e.g. “I do certain things that are bad for me, if
they are fun”) Tangney et al. (2004). Others (Marcus, 2004) contend that behavioral measures
are more appropriate (e.g. whether individuals wear their seat belts, or the length of time they
study).
3. In addition to the three elements that increase the probability of crime, tests of RAT focused
on victimization have incorporated a variety of lifestyle measures that reflect unguarded
 exposure (e.g. making online purchases, walking alone in one’s neighborhood after dark, Criminological
leaving automobiles unlocked). theory
4. Agnew (2006) suggests that individual-level sources of strain should incorporate factors that
increase the likelihood of criminal coping. These include, but are not limited to personality
traits such as poor problem-solving, as well as low levels of direct social control (e.g.
monitoring). Consistent with Wang and Holtfreter’s (2012) research on corporate crime, we
argue that individuals in a university setting are subject to strain from multiple levels (e.g. 57
academic unit pressure to publish; university pressure to obtain grants). Accordingly,
research applying strain to academic fraud should incorporate multilevel sources of strain
and opportunity.

References
Agnew, R. (1992), “Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency”, Criminology,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 47-87.
Agnew, R. (2006), “General strain theory: current status and directions for future research”, in
Cullen, F.T., Wright, J.P. and Blevins, K.R. (Eds), Taking Stock: The Status of
Criminological Theory, Advances in Criminological Theory, Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, NJ, Vol. 15, pp. 101-123.
Aiken, L.R. (1991), “Detecting, understanding, and controlling for cheating on tests”, Research on
Higher Education, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 725-736.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Akers, R.L. (2011), “A social learning theory of crime”, in Cullen, F.T. and Agnew, R. (Eds),
Criminological theory: Past to present, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 130-142.
Anderson, J. (2012), “SAT and ACT to tighten rules after cheating scandal”, The New York Times,
27 March, available at: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/education/after-cheating-scandal-
sat-and-act-will-tighten-security.html?pagewanted⫽all
Anderson, M.S., De Vries, R., Horn, A.S., Martinson, B.C., Risbey, K.R. and Ronning, E.A. (2007),
“What do mentoring and training in the responsible conduct of research have to do with
scientists’ misbehavior? Findings from a national survey of NIH-funded scientists”,
Academic Medicine, Vol. 82 No. 9, pp. 853-860.
Anderson, M.S., Earle, J. and Louis, K.S. (1994), “Disciplinary and departmental effects on
observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct”, The Journal of Higher
Education, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 331-350.
Angell, M. (1986), “Publish or perish: a proposal”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 104 No. 2,
pp. 261-262.
Arneklev, B.J., Cohran, J. and Gainey, R.R. (1998), “Testing Gottfredson and Hirschi’s low
self-control stability hypothesis”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 No. 1,
pp. 107-127.
Ashwin, P. (2012), “How often are theories developed through empirical research into higher
education?”, Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 8, pp. 941-955.
Bensman, J. (1988), “White-collar crime: Re-examination of a concept”, International Journal of
Politics, Culture, and Society, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
Benson, M.L. and Cullen, F.T. (1998), Combating Corporate Crime: Local Prosecutors at Work,
Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA.
JFC Benson, M.L., Madensen, T.D. and Eck, J.E. (2009), “White-collar crime from an opportunity
perspective”, in Simpson, S.S. and Weisburd, E. (Eds), The Criminology of White-Collar
22,1 Crime, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 175-193.
Bichler-Robertson, G., Potchak, M.C. and Tibbetts, S. (2003), “Low self-control, opportunity, and
strain in students’ reported cheating behavior”, Journal of Crime and Justice, Vol. 26 No. 1,
pp. 23-53.
58 Bolin, A.U. (2004), “Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic
dishonesty”, The Journal of Psychology, Vol. 138 No. 2, pp. 101-114.
Breen, K.J. (2003), “Misconduct in medical research: whose responsibility?”, Internal Medicine,
Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 186-191.
Brennan, E. (2012), “Harvard academic scandal haunts hoops”, ESPN, available at: http://
espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/63787/harvard-academic-scandal-
haunts-hoops (accessed 11 September 2012).
Brown, B.S. and Emmett, D. (2001), “Explaining variations in the level of academic dishonesty in
studies of college students: some new evidence”, College Student Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 529-539.
Cloward, R.A. and Ohlin, L.E. (1960), Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent
Gangs, Free Press, New York, NY.
Cochran, J.K., Wood, P.B., Sellers, C.S., Wilkerson, W. and Chamlin, M.B. (1998), “Academic
dishonesty and low self-control: an empirical test of a general theory of crime”, Deviant
Behavior, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 227-255.
Cohen, A.K. (1955), Delinquent boys: The Culture of the Gang, Free Press, Glencoe, IL.
Cohen, L.E. and Felson, M. (1979), “Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity
approach”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 588-608.
Coleman, N. and Mahaffey, T. (2000), “Business student ethics: selected predictors of attitudes
toward cheating”, Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 121-136.
Craig, D. and Evans, E.D. (1990), “Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle
and senior high schools” The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 84 No. 1, pp. 44-52.
Davis, S.F., Grover, C.A., Becker, A.H. and McGregor, L.N. (1992), “Academic dishonesty:
prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments”, Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 16-20.
Davis, S.F. and Ludvigson, H.W. (1995), “Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal
for remediation”, Teaching of Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 119-121.
Diekhoff, G.M., LaBeff, E.E., Clark, R.E., Williams, L.E., Francis, B. and Haines, V.J. (1996),
“College cheating: ten years later”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 487-502.
Drake, C.A. (1941), “Why students cheat”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 12, pp. 418-420.
Fang, F.C., Bennett, J.W. and Casadevall, A. (2013), “Males are overrepresented among life science
researchers committing scientific misconduct”, mBio, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 1-3.
Fox News. (2011), “SAT cheating scandal widens as 13 more students charged in New York”, Fox
News, available at: www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/23/sat-cheating-scandal-widens-
as-20-students-charged-in-new-york/ (accessed 23 November 2011).
Friedrichs, D.O. (2004), Trusted Criminals: White-Collar Crime in contemporary Society,
Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.
Geggie, D. (2001), “A survey of newly appointed consultants’ attitudes towards research fraud”,
Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 344-346.
Genereux, R.L. and McLeod, B.A. (1995), “Circumstances surrounding cheating: a questionnaire Criminological
study of college students”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 687-704.
theory
Goldsen, R.K. (1960), What College Students Think. D. Van Norstrand, Princeton, NJ.
Gottfredson, M.L. and Hirschi, T. (1990), A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press,
Palo Alto, CA.
Graham, M.A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K. and Steffen, S. (1994), “Cheating at small colleges: an
examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of College Student 59
Development, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 255-260.
Harris, G. (2009), “Doctor’s pain studies were fabricated, hospital says” The New York Times,
available at: www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/health/research/11pain.html
Holtfreter, K. (2008), “The effects of legal and extra-legal characteristics on organizational victim
decision-making”, Crime, Law, & Social Change, Vol. 50 Nos 4/5, pp. 307-330.
Holtfreter, K., Beaver, M., Reisig, M.D. and Pratt, T.C. (2010a), “Low self-control and fraud
offending”, Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 295-307.
Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D., Piquero, N.L. and Piquero, A.R. (2010b), “Low self-control and fraud:
offending, victimization, and their overlap”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 188-203.
Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M.D. and Pratt, T.C. (2008a), “Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud
victimization”, Criminology, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 189-220.
Holtfreter, K., VanSlyke, S., Bratton, J. and Gertz, M. (2008b), “Public perceptions of white-collar
crime and punishment”, Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 50-60.
Horowitz, H.L. (1987), Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth
Century to the Present. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Jendrek, M.P. (1992), “Students’ reactions to academic dishonesty”, Journal of College Student
Development, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 401-406.
Jensen, L.A., Arnett, J.J., Feldman, S.S. and Cauffman, E. (2002), “It’s wrong, but everybody
does it: academic dishonesty among high school and college students”, Contemporary
Educational Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 209-228.
Lambert, E.G. and Hogan, N.L. (2004), “Academic dishonesty among criminal justice majors: a
research note”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-20.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. and Barton, S.M. (2003), “Collegiate academic dishonesty revisited:
what have they done, how often have they done it, who does it, and why did they do it?”,
Journal of Sociology, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 1-28.
Lanier, M.M. (2006), “Academic integrity and distance learning”, Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, Vol. 17, pp. 244-261.
Lanza-Kaduce, L. and Klug, M. (1986), “Learning to cheat: the interaction of moral-development
and social learning theories”, Deviant Behavior, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 243-259.
MacFarlane, B., Zhang, J. and Pun, A. (2012), “Academic integrity: a review of the literature”,
Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 339-358.
McCabe, D.L. and Trevino, L.K. (1997), “Individual and contextual influences on academic
dishonesty: a multicampus investigation”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 379-396.
Marcus, B. (2004), “Self-control in the general theory of crime: theoretical implications of a
measurement problem”, Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 33-55.
Martinson, B.C., Anderson, M.S. and De Vries, R. (2005), “Scientists behaving badly”, Nature, 435
No. 7043, pp. 737-738.
JFC Merton, R.K. (1938), “Social structure and anomie”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 3 No. 5,
pp. 672-682.
22,1
Michaels, J.W. and Miethe, T.D. (1989), “Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating”,
Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 870-885.
Newburn, T. (2007), Criminology, Willan, Cullompton.
Newstead, S.E., Franklyn-Stokes, A. and Armstead, P. (1996), “Individual differences in student
60 cheating”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 229-241.
Pickeral, R. (2012), “NCAA stays mum on UNC scandal”, ESPN, available at: http://espn.go.com/
college-sports/story/_/id/8243813/academic-scandal-embroils-north-carolina-tar-heels-
ncaa-stays-quiet (accessed 8 August 2012).
Piquero, A.R., Jennings, W.G. and Farrington, D.P. (2010), “On the malleability of self-control:
theoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime”, Justice Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 803-834.
Pratt, T.C. and Cullen, F.T. (2000), “The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general
theory of crime: a meta-analysis”, Criminology, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 931-964.
Pratt, T.C., Cullen, F.T., Sellers, C.S., Winfree, L.T., Madensen, T.D., Daigle, L.E., Fearn, N.E. and
Gau, J.M. (2010), “The empirical status of social learning theory: a meta-analysis”, Justice
Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 765-802.
Pratt, T.C., Holtfreter, K. and Reisig, M.D. (2010), “Routine online activity and internet fraud
targeting: extending the generality of routine activity theory”, Journal of Research in Crime
& Delinquency, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 267-296.
Reisig, M.D. and Pratt, T.C. (2011), “Low self-control and imprudent behavior revisited”, Deviant
Behavior, Vol. 32 No. 7, pp. 589-625.
Reisig, M.D., Pratt, T.C. and Holtfreter, K. (2009), “Perceived risk of internet victimization:
examining the effects of social vulnerability and impulsivity”, Criminal Justice and
Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 369-384.
Rosoff, S.M., Pontell, H.N. and Tillman, R.H. (2002), Profit Without Honor: White-Collar Crime and
the Looting of America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Schemo, D.J. (2001), “U. of Virginia hit by scandal over cheating”, The New York Times, available
at: www.nytimes.com/2001/05/10/us/u-of-virginia-hit-by-scandal-over-cheating.html (accessed
10 May).
Simpson, S.S. and Piquero, N.L. (2002), “Low self-control, organizational theory, and corporate
crime”, Law & Society Review, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 509-547.
Smith, G., Button, M., Johnston, L. and Frimpong, K. (2011), Studying Fraud as White Collar Crime,
Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Smith, T. (2004), “Low self-control, staged opportunity, and subsequent fraudulent behavior”,
Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 542-563.
Steinberg, L. (2007), “Risk taking in adolescence: new perspectives from brain and behavioral
science”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 55-59.
Steinberg, L. (2008), “A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk taking”, Developmental
Review, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 78-106.
Steinberg, L. (2010), “A dual systems model of adolescent risk-taking”, Developmental Psychology,
Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 216-224.
Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., Woolard, J., Graham, S. and Banich, M. (2009), “Are adolescents less
mature than adults?”, American Psychologist, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 583-594.
Steneck, N.H. (1994), “Research universities and scientific misconduct: history, policies, and the Criminological
future”, The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 310-330.
theory
Sutherland, E.H. (1939), Principles of Criminology, J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia, PA.
Sutherland, E.H. (1949), White-Collar Crime, Dryden Press, New York, NY.
Tangney, J.P., Baumeister, R.F. and Boone, A.L. (2004), “High self-control predicts good
adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success”, Journal of
Personality, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 271-324. 61
Tibbetts, S.G. and Myers, D.L. (1999), “Low self-control, rational choice, and student test
cheating”, American Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 179-201.
Titus, S.L., Wells, J.A. and Rhoades, L.J. (2008), “Repairing research integrity”, Nature, Vol. 453
No. 7198, pp. 980-982.
Trex, E. (2009), “Seven college cheating scandals”, The Wall Street Journal, available at: http://
online.wsj.com/article/SB124216746702112585.html (accessed 15 May).
Turner, M.G. and Piquero, A.R. (2002), “The stability of self-control”, Journal of Criminal Justice,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 457-471.
US Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000), available at: http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/
products/RCRintro/c02/1c2.html
Valentine, S. and Kidwell, R. (2008), “Business students’ ethical evaluation of faculty misconduct”,
Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 287-300.
Von Dran, G.M., Callahan, E.S. and Taylor, H.V. (2001), “Can students’ academic integrity be
improved? Attitudes and behaviors before and after implementation of an academic
integrity policy”, Teaching Business Ethics, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35-58.
Vowell, P.R. and Chen, J. (2004), “Predicting academic misconduct: a comparative test of four
sociological explanations”, Sociological Inquiry, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 226-249.
Wang, X. and Holtfreter, K. (2012), “The effects of corporation and industry-level strain and
opportunity on corporate crime”, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 49,
pp. 151-185.
Ward, D.A. (1986), “Self-esteem and dishonest behavior revisited”, The Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 126 No. 6, pp. 709-713.
Weaver, K.A., Davis, S.F., Look, C., Buzzanga, V.L. and Neal, L. (1991), “Examining academic
dishonesty policies”, College Student Journal, Vol. 25, pp. 302-305.
Wells, J.T. (1997), Occupational Fraud and Abuse. Obsidian, Dexter.
Whitley, B.E. (1998), “Factors associated with cheating among college students: a review”,
Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 235-274.
Whitley, B.E., Nelson, A.B. and Jones, C.L. (1999), “Gender differences in cheating attitudes and
classroom behaviors: a meta-analysis”, Sex Roles, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 657-680.
Wilcox, B.L. (1992), “Fraud in scientific research: the prosecutor’s approach”, Accountability in
Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 139-151.
Winstein, K.J. and Armstrong, D. (2009), “Top pain scientist fabricated data in studies, hospital
says”, The Wall Street Journal, available at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672
510903888207.html (11 March).

Further reading
Akers, R.L. (1998), Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and Deviance,
Northeastern University Press, Boston, MA.
Anonymous. (1996), “Dealing with deception”, The Lancet, Vol. 347, p. 843.
JFC Baird, J.S. (1980), “Current trends in college cheating”, Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 515-522.
22,1
Eve, R. and Bromley, D.G. (1981), “Scholastic dishonesty among college undergraduates: Parallel
test of two sociological explanations”, Youth and Society, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Jordan, A.E. (2001), “College student cheating: the role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes,
and knowledge of institutional policy” Ethics & Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 233-247.
62 Kirkvliet, J. (1994), “Cheating by economics students: a comparison of survey results”, Journal of
Economic Education, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 121-133.
McCabe, D.L. and Trevino, L.K. (1993), “Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextual
influences”, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 64 No. 5, pp. 522-538.
Meade, J. (1992), “Cheating: is academic dishonesty par for the course?”, Prism, Vol. 1 No. 7,
pp. 30-32.

Corresponding author
Kristy Holtfreter can be contacted at: kholtfreter@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.