Advancing Institutional Anomie Theory - SAGE Journals

Advancing Institutional Anomie Theory A Microlevel Examination Connecting Culture, Institutions, and Deviance

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Volume 50 Number 6 December 2006 630-653 © 2006 Sage Publications 10.1177/0306624X06287284 http://ijo.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Lisa R. Muftic′ North Dakota State University

Institutional anomie theory (IAT) contends that crime can be explained by an examination of American society, particularly the exaggerated emphasis on economic success inherent in American culture, which has created a “cheating orientation” that permeates structural institutions, including academia. Consistent with its macrosocial perspective, previous tests of IAT have examined IAT variables at the structural level only. The current study tests the robustness of IAT by operationalizing IAT variables at the individual level and looking at a minor form of deviance, student cheating. The author also examines the role statistical modeling has in testing the theory at the microlevel. Undergraduates, 122 American born and 48 international, were surveyed about their cheating behaviors and adherence to economic goal orientations. Results related to the hypothesis that American students, relative to foreign-born students, will have an increased adherence to economic goal orientations that increase cheating behaviors are presented, as are suggestions for future studies. Keywords:

institutional anomie theory; culture; institutions; cheating; comparative

I

nstitutional anomie theory (IAT) emerged in the 1990s, the product of Stephen Messner and Richard Rosenfeld. Since 1994, IAT has undergone several revisions (in 2006, 2001, 1996) and a growing number of empirical tests (Batton & Jensen, 2000; Chamlin & Cochran, 1995, 1997; Kim & Pridemore, 2005; Maume & Lee, 2003; Piquero & Piquero, 1998; Savolainen, 2000). At first blush, IAT appears relatively parsimonious, proposing that crime can be explained by an examination of American society, particularly the exaggerated emphasis on economic success specific to American culture. Further inspection of the theory, however, reveals complex and, at times, convoluted theoretical propositions specifying the interrelated relationships among American institutions, cultural values, and crime.

Author’s Note: I would like to thank Alex Piquero and several anonymous reviewers for their helpful and insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Parts of this article were presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology in Nashville, TN. Please address correspondence to Lisa R. Muftic′, Dept. of Criminal Justice & Political Science, NDSU, CJPP Building, P.O. Box 5101, Fargo, ND 58105-5101; e-mail: [email protected] 630

Muftic′ / Institutional Anomie Theory

631

Theoretical Overview Institutional Structures The crux of IAT is that crime flourishes in societies where the institutional balance is skewed toward the economy. In contrast, when there is equality between institutions, noneconomic organizations (i.e., family, education, and the polity) are capable of offsetting the criminogenic effects of American culture (i.e., the American Dream). Institutions are important because they are viewed as social structures that control human behavior to “meet the basic needs of a society” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 65). As such, the four primary institutions examined in IAT are the economy, polity, family, and education. Each institution provides a separate, but related way society can go about meeting its basic social needs. These needs include the “(1) adaptation to the environment, (2) mobilization and deployment of resources for the achievement of collective goals, and (3) the socialization of members to accept the society’s fundamental normative patterns” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 65). For instance, the economy is responsible for providing ways in which society can meet “basic material requirements for human existence” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 65), whereas the institution of education, such as the family, is responsible for adequately socializing its members.

Cultural Values In societies where the economy is dominant, IAT proposes that cultural values (i.e., the American Dream) encourage the achievement of success by any means possible, and as a result, these cultural values are unconstrained. Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) define the American Dream as consisting of four cultural values: achievement, individualism, universalism, and the fetishism of money. According to Messner and Rosenfeld (2001, p. 62), “A defining feature of American culture is its strong achievement orientation.” Achievement refers to the desire to be successful. Moreover, this success (i.e., achievement) becomes the measuring rod to which everyone is subject. The heavy emphasis on achievement in American society provides cultural pressure to achieve where the end goal (success) is more important than the means by which it is attained (Merton, 1938, 1968). In other words, “A strong achievement orientation, at the level of basic cultural values, is highly conducive to the mentality that ‘it’s not how you play the game; it’s whether you win or lose’” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 63). Related to achievement is the cultural value known as the fetishism of money. The fetishism of money refers to a particular kind of achievement: economic success. Money (and the accumulation of wealth) becomes the status marker by which every individual is measured. An individual’s value equates to what he or she has not only accomplished but the amount of money he or she has accumulated. Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) quickly point out that money, as a status marker, is unlimited. Like the saying goes, “You can never be too rich (or too thin).” As such, the pressure to

632

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology

succeed monetarily is incessant, requiring “never-ending achievement;” which results in achievement “by any means necessary” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 64). Finally, not only are Americans expected to succeed, they are expected to accomplish this achievement based on their own individual efforts. Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) refer to this cultural value as individualism. Individualism refers to the cultural pressure to succeed without any type of assistance or help. Similarly, not only are individuals expected to succeed within American society, but also this achievement is expected of all members of society, regardless of race, sex, or creed. This cultural value is referred to as universalism. According to universalistic principles, all individuals are socialized to aspire to the same cultural values (i.e., individualism, universalism, and the fetishism of money) and goals (i.e., achievement). Likewise, all individuals are evaluated based on whether or not they have attained the American Dream.

Institutions, Cultural Values, and Crime An important, but often overlooked, component of the theory stipulates that the aforementioned social institutions (economy, polity, family, and education) interact with the cultural values that compose the American Dream. Such an interaction results in the devaluation of non-economic institutional functions and roles, accommodation to economic requirements by other institutions, and penetration of economic norms into other institutional domains. (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 70)

The intersection of institutional imbalance and distorted cultural values, according to Messner and Rosenfeld (2001), is directly responsible for elevated crime rates in the United States, compared to other industrialized countries (for a comparison of cross-national crime rates, see Farrington, Langan, & Tonry, 2004). IAT, with its emphasis on cultural values and institutional roles, is uniquely situated to explain these cross-national differences in crime rates. In addition, Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) speculate that IAT may best explain violent crime, specifically violent crime that stems from economic motivation.

Literature Review As a relatively young theory, there are few empirical studies of IAT. The studies that have been conducted generally find support for the theory (Chamlin & Cochran, 1995; Maume & Lee, 2003; Piquero & Piquero, 1998; Savolainen, 2000). For instance, Maume and Lee (2003) examined the impact IAT variables have on violent crime rates across urban counties in the United States and concluded that noneconomic institutions (i.e., polity, family, and education) mediate the relationship


633

between the economy and instrumental violence. Similarly, Chamlin and Cochran (1995) found that the interaction between the economy and noneconomic institutions helps explain the disparity in property crimes rates across U.S. states. Specifically, they found that property crime rates are higher in states where the poverty rate (as a quasi-indicator of the economy) is high and not counterbalanced by participation in noneconomic institutions (Chamlin & Cochran, 1995). Consistent with the theory’s original premises, previous studies have operationalized variables at the macrolevel and have specifically examined their impact on violent and/or property offending. However, these studies have typically employed a misspecified unit of analysis. All previous studies, with the exception of Savolainen (2000), have examined variance in offending within a single country (usually across counties, states, or regions) rather than a cross-national comparison as proposed by IAT (Batton & Jensen, 2002; Kim & Pridemore, 2005; Maume & Lee, 2003; Piquero & Piquero, 1998). For example, Kim and Pridemore (2005) analyzed the impact noneconomic institutions (i.e., family, education, and polity) have on robbery rates across 78 regions in Russia. In a similar manner, Piquero and Piquero (1998) examined variation in property and violent crimes rates as explained by structural IAT variables (i.e., family, education, polity, and the economy) across 50 states in the United States. To date, the only study to have utilized a cross-national research design was conducted by Savolainen (2000). In this study, Savolainen tested the explanatory power of structural IAT variables utilizing two separate data sets. The first data set, borrowed from Messner and Rosenfeld’s (1997) study, included 45 nations. The second data set, collected by Savolainen, consisted of 36 nations, including 7 Eastern European nations not previously examined in Messner and Rosenfeld’s original sample. In support of IAT, Savolainen found homicide rates in both samples to be significantly related to negative interactions between economic inequality and social institutions. Another major limitation of the aforementioned studies is the disregard of a critical portion of IAT, cultural values. To date, no studies have included any measurement of the cultural values that compose the American Dream as stipulated by the theory. This is a serious limitation as IAT proposes that it is the interaction between cultural values and structural institutions that affects crime rates within industrialized nations (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001). As such, studies that do not include, at a minimum, variables representing cultural values are incapable of fully testing the propositions of IAT.

Current Study IAT argues that crime can be explained by an examination of American society, particularly the exaggerated emphasis on economic success inherent in American culture. Specifically, the theory states that Americans’ inflated emphasis on economic achievement has created a “cheating orientation” that permeates all its structural institutions,

634


including academia. Consistent with its macrosocial perspective, previous tests of IAT have examined the variables at the structural level only. The current study tests the robustness of IAT by operationalizing IAT variables at the individual level and looking at a minor form of deviance, student cheating. In addition, the current study examines the role modeling plays in testing the theory at the microlevel. Approximately 122 American-born college undergraduates and a comparison group of 48 international college undergraduates were surveyed about their cheating behaviors and adherence to economic goal orientations.

Cultural Values and IAT As previously stated, although there is a growing body of research evaluating the explanatory power of IAT, to date each of these studies has failed to include an important component of IAT: cultural values. As such, none of the aforementioned studies can be categorized as a complete test of the theory. Rather, they only provide partial support (or as in the case of Jensen, 2002, no support) for the theory. However, as previous researchers have pointed out, “The cultural dimensions of the theory—particularly anomie and the corresponding cultural pressures for monetary success—are impossible to measure given the available structural data on macrosocial units” (Maume & Lee, 2003, p. 1141). One way this might be accomplished is by measuring cultural values at the individual level. Although sociological interpretation of culture tends to view culture as largely a macrosocial construct (see Merton, 1938, 1968), research conducted by cultural psychologists has treated culture as a multidimensional concept composed of both macro- and microelements (see Matsumoto, Kudoh, & Takeuchi, 1996; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987). For instance, Matsumoto and colleagues (1996) distinguish between objective and subjective aspects of culture. They define objective culture as macrolevel social facts including “social institutions, physical artifacts, architecture, and the like” (Matsumoto et al., 1996, p. 79). In contrast, subjective culture is defined as “the psychological, introspective aspects of our lives and our selves that reflect culture. These include our values, attitudes, beliefs, opinions, and the like” (Matsumoto et al., 1996, p. 79). The consideration of culture as a microsocial concept allows for the measurement of culture at the individual level. This is especially salient for IAT, which defines culture as consisting of “values, beliefs, goals, and norms” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 44) but considers such constructs at their macrolevel only, making the measurement of culture and subsequent testing of IAT difficult (Maume & Lee, 2003). Thus, the measurement of cultural values at the individual level allows for not only the examination of cultural differences between groups but also the assessment of individuallevel variation. The present study, while utilizing microlevel scales that capture the components of each of the four cultural values identified by the theory and the exploration of individual- and group-level variation on culture, is, to the author’s knowledge, the first attempt to do that.


635

IAT and Cheating Generally considered to be a minor form of deviance, there is a growing recognition that academic dishonesty is a serious and chronic problem across college campuses in the United States (LaBeff, Clark, Haines, & Diekhoff, 1990; Tibbetts, 1997a, 1997b).1 In addition, research has found college student cheating to be correlated with offending behaviors, including unethical business practices (Sims, 1993) and binge drinking (Bichler & Tibbetts, 2003). Tibbetts and Myers (1999) argue that cheating can no longer be considered simply a form of deviant behavior. Rather, because cheating has been recognized “by the courts at all levels as a violation of administrative law,” cheating “should be studied as a form of offending” (p. 181). The current study tests the robustness of IAT by expanding Messner and Rosenfeld’s (2001) definition of instrumental crime to include a form of deviance: student cheating.2 IAT is specifically posed to explain serious types of instrumental crime that result in either physical harm or economic loss. “This type of behavior includes white-collar offenses, street crimes such as robbery and drug dealing, and other crimes that occur as a consequence of these activities” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001, p. 77). It can be argued that student cheating is one form of instrumental offending because it provides the student a type of nonmonetary reward (i.e., the possibility of a higher grade than would have been achieved if the student had not cheated). Grades may also be viewed as the currency of academia. The higher the grade (or GPA), the more currency the student has. Thus, cheating for students has intrinsic instrumental value. The inclusion of student cheating as a form of instrumental offending is highly relevant from a theoretical standpoint. IAT, with its roots in classical strain theory, asserts that in an institutionally imbalanced society, cultural pressures emphasize achievement by “any means possible” (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001). At the same time, noneconomic institutions, such as academia, become devalued, resulting in the accommodation of the institution to the demands of the economy. In academia, education is no longer valued solely as a means to better oneself intellectually. Rather, academia is viewed as a stepping-stone to a better, higher paying job. Cheating, for some students, may be one way to ensure the attainment of this goal (monetary success rather than academic success). Thus, in a society where the ends justify the means, cheating to achieve higher grades (or even to just pass a course) may not only be commonplace but encouraged. This cheating orientation is evident in the following statement made by one student related to her willingness to engage in cheating behaviors: What’s important is getting ahead. The better grades you have, the better school you get into, the better you’re going to do in life. And if you learn to cut corners to do that, you’re going to be saving yourself time and energy. In the real world, that’s what’s going to be going on. The better you do, that’s what shows. It’s not how moral you were in getting there. (Slobogin, 2002, p. 1)

636


Previous research that has examined the incidence of student cheating has done so from several different theoretical perspectives, including control (Tibbetts & Myers, 1999), rational choice (Cochran, Chamlin, Wood, & Sellers, 1999), and strain (Bichler-Robertson, Potchak, & Tibbetts, 2003). The overall findings from these studies indicate that among American college students, cheating is prevalent. For instance, LaBeff et al. (1990) surveyed close to 5,000 college students in the Southwest and found that the majority of students (54.0%) had reported at least one incidence of cheating.

Microlevel Models of IAT Additive model. According to the additive model, cultural values composing the American Dream (i.e., achievement, individualism, universalism, and the fetishism of money) will have separate and positive influences on a student’s likelihood to cheat in college. Likewise, a student’s involvement in the economy (i.e., as a paid laborer) will positively affect his or her likelihood to cheat, whereas a student’s involvement in noneconomic institutions (i.e., family, polity, and education) will negatively affect his or her likelihood to cheat. Interactive model. A critical component of IAT is how cultural values interact with social institutions. To date, tests of IAT have not incorporated this central component of the theory (Chamlin & Cochran, 1995; Maume & Lee, 2003; Piquero & Piquero, 1998; Savolainen, 2000). The current study attempts the first complete test of IAT by directly testing Messner and Rosenfeld’s (2001) proposition that noneconomic institutions may moderate the criminogenic effects of the American Dream. Guided by the theory, it is proposed that involvement in noneconomic institutions may buffer the anomic pressure to cheat associated with overinvolvement in the economy and with strong adherence to the American Dream among college students.

Hypotheses This study presents eight specific hypotheses derived from IAT and measured at the microlevel. Hypothesis 1: The adherence to the cultural values of the American Dream will be higher among U.S.-born students compared to non-U.S.-born students. Hypothesis 2: U.S.-born students will be more involved in the economy and less involved or committed to noneconomic social institutions (i.e., education, family, and the polity) compared to non-U.S.-born students. Hypothesis 3: U.S.-born students will have a higher likelihood of student cheating compared to non-U.S.-born students. Hypothesis 4: Involvement in noneconomic social institutions (i.e., education, family, and the polity) will moderate the influence of the economy on student cheating.


637

Hypothesis 5: In the additive model, students who have higher adherence to the cultural values composing the American Dream (i.e., individualism, achievement, universalism, and the fetishism of money) will be more likely to cheat. Hypothesis 6: In the additive model, students who are more involved or committed to the economy will have a higher likelihood of cheating. Hypothesis 7: In the interactive model, students who are high in adherence to the American Dream and more involved or committed to the economy will have a higher likelihood of cheating. Hypothesis 8: In the interactive model, the relationship between students’ adherence to the American Dream and likelihood of cheating will be moderated by involvement or commitment to noneconomic institutions (i.e., family, education, and polity).

Method IAT is specifically positioned to explain differences in offending rates across nation-states. Specifically, Messner and Rosenfeld (2001) argue that national differences in crime rates can be explained by national differences in institutional structure and cultural value systems. As such, a cross-national comparison, utilizing a cross-national sample, is necessary in testing the theory. The current study, however, sets out to extend the scope of Messner and Rosenfeld’s theory by examining whether IAT can explain differences in individual offending at the microlevel. The current study will thus utilize data collected from two separate student populations: American-born college students and foreign-born college students. Data for this study were collected from a survey of college students at a mediumsized, American, land grant university in the upper Midwest during spring semester 2004. Pencil and paper surveys were administered to all respondents by the researchers. The surveys consisted of 17 pages and took, on average, 45 minutes to complete. Respondents were solicited to participate in the study in two separate manners. First, students enrolled in three separate undergraduate social science courses were presented the opportunity to participate in the study. The total subsample drawn in this method was 124 students. All respondents were awarded extra credit points in their respective classes for participation. Because the current study aims to compare American-born students with international students, respondents were also solicited during a monthly meeting of an international student group on campus. The total subsample drawn in this method was 48 students. Respondents who participated in the study in this manner were provided doughnuts as compensation for participation. After careful analysis, 10 of the surveys completed by U.S.-born students were discarded because the survey instruments were not fully completed.3 Therefore, the final sample includes 114 U.S.-born students and 48 foreign-born students, for a total sample size of 162 college students. The combined sample (i.e., traditional and international students) is largely representative of the university population from which it was drawn (see Table 1). Specifically, the percentages of men and women in the current study (59.4% and 40.6%,

638


Table 1 Differences Between Sample and University Populations College Students Variable Age in years (M) Gender Male Female Race Caucasian Asian African American Hispanic American Indian Other American citizen Year in college Freshman Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate student Married

Sample (%)a

University (%)b

21.8

24.8

59.4 40.6

55.8 44.2

72.2 10.5 9.3 2.5 1.9 3.7 71.8

89.5 1.3 1.3 0.6 1.0 6.3 93.7

23.2 25.0 25.0 15.9 11.0 6.2

20.8 19.0 17.3 30.1 12.8 1.2

a. N = 162. b. N = 10,888.

respectively) approximated the percentages of men and women enrolled at the university (55.8% and 44.2%, respectively). Likewise, the average age of survey respondents was 21.8 years, whereas the average age of university students was 24.8 years. Slight differences were found related to year in college, race, citizenship, and marital status. For instance, although survey respondents and university students reported similar percentages of freshman students (23.2% of respondents and 20.8% of university students) and graduate students (11.0% of respondents and 12.8% of university students), the study sample appears to be overrepresentative of sophomores and juniors and underrepresentative of seniors. Sophomores and juniors each composed one fourth of the survey population, whereas sophomores constituted 19.0% of the university student population, and juniors constituted 17.3%. Considering the level of classes from which the majority of respondents were pulled (i.e., criminal justice and political science introductory courses), it is not surprising that students were most likely to report their current year in college as freshman, sophomore, or junior. The overall sample appears to be slightly overrepresentative of non-Caucasian students (27.8% compared to 10.5% of university students), non-U.S.-citizen students (28.2% compared to 6.3% of university students), and married students (6.2%


639

Table 2 Differences Between U.S.-Born and Non-U.S.-Born Studentsa College Students Variable Age in years (M)*** Percentage male Standardized low self-control score (M) Percentage having ever cheated*** Cultural values Individualism (M)*** Achievement (M) Universalism (M)** Fetishism of money (M)*** Institutions Family social bonds (M) Education (M) Percentage employed Percentage performed community service

U.S. Born (%)b

Non-U.S. Born (%)c

Test Statistic

20.56 56.1 2.07 86.0

24.77 64.6 2.50 23.3

t(49) = 4.194 χ2(1) = .993 t(67) = .206 χ2(1) = 57.189

11.39 11.66 7.95 15.92

13.88 12.48 7.00 14.29

t(95) = 4.516 t(85) = 1.178 t(77) = –2.938 t(78) = –2.940

16.77 13.06 69.3 19.3

17.02 13.63 70.2 40.0

t(85) = .497 t(74) = .857 χ2(1) = .013 χ2(1) = 7.344

a. N = 162. b. n = 114. c. n = 48. *p < .05, two-tailed. **p < .01, two-tailed. ***p < .001, two-tailed.

compared to 1.2% of university students). This difference is more than likely the result of the purposeful recruitment of international students as previously mentioned. For example (see Table 2), international students, when compared to the traditional student subsample, were more likely to be non-U.S. citizens (83.3% compared to 0% of traditional students, χ2 = 126.148, p < .001), non-Caucasian (77.1% compared to 7.0% of traditional students, χ2 = 82.656, p < .001), and married (14.9% compared to 1.8% of traditional students, χ2 = 16.522, p < .001). Although this limits the generalizability of the sample, the use of multivariate statistical procedures will control for any differences between the samples used in the current study.

Measures As noted earlier, the theoretical propositions of IAT are primarily structured around the interrelationship between cultural values and social institutions and their subsequent impact on offending behaviors (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001). The current study constitutes the first test of IAT to include variables representing culture and institutions. Specifically, this study will test the robustness of IAT by operationalizing these IAT variables (values and institutions) and the dependent variable at the microlevel.

640


Dependent Variables The current study examines students’ self-reported cheating behaviors from an IAT perspective. Utilizing a cheating scale originally developed by Bichler and Tibbetts (2003), respondents were asked in a yes-no format (0 = no, 1 = yes) whether they had ever engaged in 11 separate cheating behaviors. Table 3 presents the questions asked. The cheating behaviors most often reported were related to cheating that occurs during an examination. Nearly half of all respondents reported having looked at someone else’s exam to get an answer (56.7%), having copied answers off another student’s test (51.8%), and having received or given answers to questions on an exam (48.2%). The next most commonly reported cheating behavior was having done someone else’s homework for him or her (37.2%). One fourth of students (25.6%) reported having written test answers on an object or body part to cheat on an exam. When asked about plagiarism, 19.5% of students reported having copied essay material from a published document without citing, and 11.6% of students admitted to having copied material from the Internet and handed it in as their own work without citing, and 6.7% reported having downloaded a paper from the Internet. A very small number of students reported having handed in someone else’s work as their own (8.5%), having paid someone to do their homework (4.3%), or having threatened (physically or verbally) someone to do their homework for them (1.2%). Overall, the vast majority of students (65.9%) reported at least one cheating behavior in the past. Because the current study is interested in whether or not IAT variables measured at the microlevel are associated with student cheating, a dummy variable was created to separate students who have cheated from students who have never cheated. Thus, the dependent variable for this study is whether or not the student has ever cheated (0 = never cheated, 1 = ever cheated).

Independent Variables According to Messner and Rosenfeld (2001), it is the influence of both culture and institutions that affects crime rates in the United States. As such, microlevel measures that consist of cultural values and institutional properties as specified by IAT were constructed. Cultural values. As stipulated by IAT, there are four cultural values that constitute the foundation of the American Dream: achievement, individualism, universalism, and the fetishism of money (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001). Respondents were asked a variety of questions on a 7-point, Likert-type scale designed to capture separate but related elements of the four cultural value systems. For instance, respondents were asked how much they agree with the following statements (5 representing strongly agree and 1 representing strongly disagree): “It’s not how you play the game, it’s whether you win or lose,” and “I will sacrifice a lot of other things to have a lot of money.” Factor analyses were conducted for each subset of value categories, producing


641

Table 3 Cheating Variablesa Item

Percentage

(1) Looked at someone else’s exam to get an answer (2) Copied answers off another student’s test (3) Received or gave answers to questions on an exam (4) Done someone else’s homework for them (5) Wrote test answers on an object or body part in order to cheat on an exam (6) Copied essay material from a published document without citing (7) Copied material off the Internet and handed it in as your own work without citing (8) Downloaded a paper from the Internet and handed it in as your own work (9) Handed in someone else’s work as your own (10) Paid someone to do your homework (11) Threatened (physically or verbally) someone to do homework for you

56.7 51.8 48.2 37.2 25.6 19.5 11.6 6.7 8.5 4.3 1.2

Having ever cheated

65.9

a. N = 162.

a composite consisting of one to seven separate questions comprising each of the four cultural value categories. Separate scales were created to represent each of these four cultural values. Higher summed responses indicate a higher adherence to the values composing the American Dream. Cronbach’s alphas were calculated to determine internal consistency for each scale. Table 4 depicts each of the separate scale composites. A final variable composing the concept of the American Dream was calculated by summing up all the individual value variables (i.e., achievement, individualism, universalism, and the fetishism of money). For the purposes of constructing interactive models, a dichotomous variable representing high (students whose sum American Dream value was at or above the 50th percentile) and low adherence (students whose sum American Dream value was below the 50th percentile) to the American Dream was created.4 Institutions. IAT proposes that society is composed of institutions that function to regulate human conduct (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001). These four institutions are the economy, the political system (or polity), the institution of the family, and the institution of education. Respondents were asked a variety of questions on a 7-point, Likert-type scale that was designed to capture separate but related elements of two of the four institutions. For instance, respondents were asked how much they agree with the following statements (5 representing strongly agree and 1 representing strongly disagree): “I am getting a college education so I can be a better person,” and “I am getting a college education so I can be a better citizen.” Factor analyses were conducted for each subset of institutional categories, producing a composite consisting of one to seven separate questions comprising each of the two institutional

642


Table 4 Institutional Anomie Scales Item Individualism (α = .6883) Being successful is more important than being happy. I intend to do whatever it takes to have some of the really expensive things in life. I expect to make as many sacrifices as are necessary in order to advance my work/career. I expect to devote whatever time and energy it takes to move up in my job/career. Being happy is more important than being successful. Achievement (α = .6643) I will sacrifice a lot of other things to have a lot of money. I don’t need help from others to succeed. I am getting a college education because it’s expected by my friends. Success is measured by the amount of money a person makes. I am getting a college education because it’s expected by my parents. Universalism (α = .5044) Anyone that works hard enough can be successful. You only have yourself to blame for your failures in life. Fetishism of Money (α = .6867) Having lots of money is one of my major goals in life. I am getting a college education so I can get a good job. I am getting a college education so I can make more money. Family (α = .7028) How important to you is the opinion of your mother? How important to you is the opinion of your father? How important to you is the opinion of your siblings? How important to you is the opinion of your friends? Education (α = .6883) I am getting a college education so I can be a better person. I am getting a college education so I can be a better spouse/parent. I am getting a college education so I can learn about different cultures. I am getting a college education so I can be a better citizen.

M

SD

Factor Loading

12.1585 1.82 2.21

3.5289 0.980 1.164

.671 .626

3.06

1.128

.694

3.36

1.085

.557

4.29 11.9207 2.33 2.15 3.07

0.912 3.9475 1.128 1.115 1.325

–.634

2.22

1.229

.599

2.15

1.235

.800

7.6424 4.23 3.41 15.3963 3.31 4.26 3.91 12.9875 4.52 4.39 4.09 3.85 17.3293 3.87 3.21

1.8178 1.034 1.184 3.1048 1.238 0.968 1.071 2.3552 0.900 0.995 1.065 0.949 3.9756 1.149 1.211

2.86

1.267

.612

3.27

1.195

.752

.487 .454 .570

.606 .830 .692 .690 .816 .843 .760 .709 .730 .714 .682

categories. Separate scales were then created to represent the family and education. Higher scores indicate higher participation in or commitment to the institution, whereas lower scores reflect lower involvement or commitment. Cronbach’s alphas were calculated to determine internal consistency for each scale. Table 4 depicts each of the separate scale composites.


643

Categorical variables were used to measure two institutions, the economy and the polity. As a measure of the economy, students were asked whether they were currently employed (1 = yes, 0 = no). Consistent with IAT, it was hypothesized that students who are employed while attending college have a higher involvement in the institution of the economy. To measure the respondents’ involvement in the polity, students were asked if they regularly perform community service (1 = yes, 0 = no).5 Research has found that students who are civically engaged are more likely to develop political capital, which in turn is related to participation in the political arena (Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998; Niemi, Hepburn, & Chapman, 2000; Smith, 1999). For purposes of the current study, students who regularly perform community service are considered to also be more involved in the political system.

Control Variables Several variables were included in the current study as control variables. They include respondent demographics such as gender, age, and nationality. Respondents were asked to self-report their gender (0 = female, 1 = male) and age. To separate American students from international students, nationality was operationalized in two manners. First, respondents were asked whether they were born in the United States (0 = no, 1 = yes). Second, respondents were asked whether they were an American citizen (0 = no, 1 = yes). For purposes of the current study, international students were categorized as those respondents who reported having been born outside of the United States. Because of the overlap between race and nationality in this sample (77.1% of non-U.S.-born students were non-Caucasian, whereas only 7.0% of U.S.-born students were non-Caucasian), race was not included in the analyses used in this study.

Results Adherence to the American Dream The first hypothesis examined was whether U.S.-born students have a higher adherence to the cultural values of the American Dream than do non-U.S.-born students. One-way ANOVAs were calculated to test the first hypothesis and found significant differences in adherence to three out of four IAT cultural values between U.S.-born and non-U.S.-born students (see Table 2). Specifically, significant differences were found in relation to the cultural values of individualism (t = 4.516, df = 95, p < .001), universalism (t = –2.938, df = 77, p < .001), and the fetishism of money (t = –2.940, df = 78, p < .01). In support of IAT, U.S.-born students have a higher adherence to the cultural value of universalism (M = 7.95, SD = 1.60) compared to non-U.S.-born students (M = 7.00, SD = 2.00). Also supporting the theory, U.S.-born students reported higher adherence to the cultural value of the fetishism of money (M = 15.92, SD = 2.53) compared to

644


non-U.S.-born students (M = 14.29, SD = 3.46). Non-U.S.-born students, however, reported a higher adherence to the cultural value of individualism (M = 13.88, SD = 3.61) compared to U.S.-born students (M = 11.39, SD = 3.47). Likewise, nonU.S.-born students reported a higher adherence to the cultural value of achievement (M = 12.48, SD = 3.99) compared to U.S.-born students (M = 11.66, SD = 4.27), although this difference was not statistically significant. In sum, partial support was found for the first hypothesis that stated that the adherence to the cultural values of the American Dream would be higher among U.S.-born students compared to non-U.S.-born students. Specifically, support was found for differences between U.S.- and non-U.S.-born students related to the cultural values of universalism and the fetishism of money. A statistically significant difference was also found for the cultural value of individualism, however, not in the direction stipulated by the theory.

Differences in Involvement or Commitment to Social Institutions Previous tests of IAT have found support for Messner and Rosenfeld’s (2001) contention that noneconomic social institutions such as education, family, and the polity may provide a buffering effect from the anomic influences of the economy (Chamlin & Cochran, 1995; Maume & Lee, 2003; Piquero & Piquero, 1998; Savolainen, 2000). A series of logistic regression models was computed to examine whether individual involvement or commitment to noneconomic social institutions (i.e., education, family, and the polity) moderates the influence of involvement in the economy on student cheating. The three models examined included continuous measures for institutions (family, education) and age. Categorical institutional variables were scored as polity (0 = does not perform community service regularly, 1 = regularly performs community service) and economy (0 = not employed, 1 = employed). Categorical control variables were scored as place of birth (0 = non–U.S. born, 1 = U.S. born) and gender (0 = female, 1 = male). In partial support of Hypothesis 4, it appears that involvement and/or commitment to noneconomic social institutions may reduce the likelihood of cheating among employed students. Specifically, interactive models exploring the moderating impact of noneconomic social institutions found that students who were employed but had higher levels of familial bonding (β = –.307, p < .01) were less likely to cheat. Although the moderating effects of education and polity on cheating were in the direction hypothesized (i.e., employed students who reported a higher commitment to education and a greater involvement in the polity were less likely to have cheated), this finding was not statistically significant.

Differences in Cheating Confronted with the pressure to succeed by any means necessary, U.S.-born students, it was hypothesized, would report higher occurrences of cheating compared


645

Table 5 Logistic Regression Coefficients for the Impact of Social Institutions on Student Cheatinga Independent Variable

Additive Modela β

(ExpB)

Employedb SE

β

(ExpB)

Unemployedc SE

β

(ExpB)

SE

Constant 8.225** 3.382 8.991** .574 –5.004 13.713 Age –1.91* (.826) .114 –.205† (.815) .136 –.783 (.457) .712 Female –.423 (.655) .508 .083 (1.086) .574 –2.889 (.278) 2.662 Born in the 2.980*** (19.682) .592 2.681*** (14.595) .684 15.132 (3731688.9) 61.090 United States Education –.063 (.939) .075 –.039 (.962) .083 .457 (1.580) .550 Family –.155* (.857) .092 –.307** (.736) .128 .977 (2.656) .831 Polity –.297 (.743) .598 –.512 (.599) .718 –2.307 (.100) 2.820 Economy –1.891** (.151) .676 R2 = .363, χ2(7, N = 150) = 67.593, p = .000

R2 = .350, χ2(6, N = 103) = 44.407, p = .000

R2 = .460, χ2(6, N = 47) = 28.951, p = .000

a. N = 150. b. n = 103. c. n = 47. † p = .07, one-tailed. *p < .05, one-tailed. **p < .01, one-tailed. ***p < .001, one-tailed.

to non-U.S.-born students. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, bivariate statistics revealed significant differences in cheating behavior between student samples, with U.S.-born students reporting a higher incidence of cheating behaviors. In fact, U.S.-born students were almost four times more likely to report having cheated (86.0%) compared to non-U.S.-born students (23.3%, χ2 = 57.189, p < .001). This difference held up statistically controlling for other variables (including age and gender). Results from both additive and interactive logistic regression models revealed that U.S.-born students were more likely to have cheated compared to non-U.S.-born students (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). For instance, results from the additive model indicated that when other variables were held constant, U.S.-born students had a log odds of cheating of 9.7 (β = 2.272, p < .001).

Microlevel IAT Models Finally, to test whether IAT variables, operationalized at the microlevel, are robust enough to explain student cheating, a series of logistic regression models was computed. The first model examined included a simple additive framework. An additive model assumes that the magnitude of the impact of individual variables within the model is equal and constant (Mendenhall & Sincich, 2003). The additive model

646


Table 6 Logistic Regression Coefficients for an Additive Modela Cheating Independent Variable Constant* Age* Female* Born in the United States*** Cultural values Individualism** Achievement Universalism† Fetishism money* Institutions Economy** Education Family* Polity*

β

(ExpB)

SE

8.866 –.199 –1.270 2.272

.819 .281 9.703

4.198 .123 .639 .648

–.272 .018 .249 .229

.762 1.019 1.238 1.257

.107 .077 .172 .105

–2.155 –.115 –.201 –.557

.116 .892 .818 .573

.729 .084 .112 .626

R2 = .406, χ2(11, N = 150) = 78.165, p = .000. a. N = 150. † p = .07, one-tailed. *p < .05, one-tailed. **p < .01, one-tailed. ***p < .001, one-tailed.

included continuous measures for institutions (family, education), cultural values (achievement, individualism, universalism, fetishism of money), and age and categorical measures for polity, economy, place of birth, and gender. All variables were scored in the same manner as previously described. Consistent with Hypothesis 4, student cheating was inversely related to the institutions of the family and the polity. Students who were more bonded to family members (β = –.201, p < .05) and students who reported greater involvement in the polity (β = –.557, p < .05) were less likely to have cheated. Although the effect of education on cheating was in the direction hypothesized (i.e., students who reported a higher commitment to education were less likely to have cheated), this finding was not statistically significant. A statistically significant effect was found for the relationship between a student’s involvement in the economy and likelihood of cheating (β = –2.155, p < .01), although not in the direction expected. It was hypothesized that students who were more involved in the economy (i.e., employed) while attending school would have a higher likelihood of engaging in cheating behaviors. However, results from the additive model indicated that employment decreased a student’s likelihood of cheating, controlling for other variables in the model.


647

Table 7 Logistic Regression Coefficients for an Interactive Modela High American Dreamb Independent Variable Constant Age Female Born in the United States Economy Education Family Polity

Low American Dreamc

β

(ExpB)

SE

β

(ExpB)

SE

6.724 –.186 –.647 4.183***

6.746 (.830) (1.909) (65.550)

7.224* .254 .998 1.213

4.207 –.140 –.698 2.563***

(.870) (.498) (12.974)

.141 .671 .766

(.321) (.936) (.834) (.749)

.796 .087 .133 .835

–3.342** –.044 –.067 –.373

(.035) (.957) (.935) (.689)

1.424 .164 .150 1.115

R2 = .444, χ2(7, N = 77) = 45.234, p = .000

–1.137 –.066 –.181 –.289

R2 = .310, χ2(7, N = 73) = 27.058, p = .000

a. N = 150. b. n = 77. c. n = 70. *p < .05, one-tailed. **p < .01, one-tailed. ***p < .001, one-tailed.

In partial support of Hypothesis 5, the cultural values of universalism and fetishism of money predicted cheating, controlling for other factors in the model. Higher levels of fetishism of money (β = .229, p < .05) and higher levels of universalism (β = .249, p = .07) were both related to cheating. The cultural value of individualism was also found to be significantly related to cheating (β = –.272, p < .01), however, not in the direction expected. Except for achievement, the cultural values of individualism, universalism, and the fetishism of money were found to be related to cheating at both the bivariate and multivariate levels. As predicted by the theory, the institutions of the family, education, and polity were found to be inversely related to cheating. Specifically, it appears that noneconomic institutions may provide a protective factor against the anomic pressures of the American Dream. The institution of the economy, on the other hand, was not found to be correlated to cheating in the manner predicted by the theory. In sum, the use of an additive model, which treated each variable as having an independent effect on cheating, found partial support for IAT at the microlevel. Student cheating is more prevalent among individuals who are born in the United States, who have higher adherence to the cultural values of universalism and the fetishism of money, and who are less involved in the institutions of the family and the polity.

648


The second model examines the moderating relationship between culture and social institutions on deviance. Specifically, separate models were calculated that examined the impact involvement in or commitment to social institutions have on student cheating behaviors while separating out high and low adherence to the American Dream. Both models included continuous measures for social institutions (economy, education, family, and polity) and control variables (place of birth, gender, and age). All variables were scored in the same manner as previously described for the additive model. Neither Hypothesis 7 nor Hypothesis 8 held up when interactive models were conducted examining the moderating effect social institutions have on the relationship between adherence to the American Dream and deviance. In fact, the only variable found to have a statistically significant relationship with the dependent variable across both models (i.e., the high adherence and low adherence models) was whether the student was born in the United States. In the model that included only students who ranked in the top 50th percentile on adherence to the American Dream, after holding other variables constant, students who were born in the United States had a log odds of cheating of 65.6 (β = 4.183, p < .001). Likewise, among U.S.-born students who ranked in the bottom 50th percentile on adherence to the American Dream, the log odds of cheating was 13.0 (β = 2.563, p < .001).

Discussion The current study set out to test the robustness of IAT by examining the ability of the theory to explain minor deviant behavior (student cheating) through the operationalization of IAT principles at the microlevel utilizing two separate models (additive and interactive). In partial support of the theory, students with higher adherence to the cultural values of universalism and the fetishism of money had a higher likelihood of cheating. Also in support of the theory, students who were more committed to their families or more involved in the polity had a lower likelihood of cheating. When an interactive model was used, support for the theory was not found. Specifically, involvement in noneconomic institutions did not appear to have a moderating impact on cultural values and cheating. Location of birth (i.e., born in the United States) appeared to have the strongest impact on cheating, regardless of the statistical model used. A somewhat surprising finding was the moderating influence the economy appeared to have on student cheating. Drawing from the theory, it was proposed that students who were employed while attending school would be more success oriented and hence have a higher likelihood of engaging in cheating behaviors. In both statistical models, the opposite effect was found. Students who were employed while attending school had a significantly lower probability of cheating. The lack of a statistically significant finding may be an artifact of how the variable was operationalized. The economy was measured as participation in the labor force. It was hypothesized that students who were employed while going to school were more likely to cheat. The


649

Age-Graded Theory of Information Social Control, however, argues that employment may provide a protective factor (much like the institutions of the family, education, and polity proposed by IAT) against criminogenic pressures (Laub & Sampson, 2003; Sampson & Laub, 1993). Studies that have examined the impact employment has on deviance and criminality have generally found that employment has a protective, rather than criminogenic, effect (Uggen, 2000; Wright, Cullen, & Williams, 2002). Another important finding is that the assumption of the homogeneity of cultural values among individual members of a social group is erroneous. The data indicated that adherence to the American Dream is not universal among all Americans. This is in direct contrast to the assumptions of the theory. IAT, with roots in the classical strain tradition, is built around the assumption that all Americans strive to achieve the components of the American Dream (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2001). For instance, Messner and Rosenfeld (2001), in their description of success goals, write that these goals (i.e., cultural values) “are the goals that ‘everyone’ knows about, that ‘everyone’ thinks are important, and that ‘everyone’ strives for” (p. 53). Likewise, classic strain theory has been criticized for assuming that American culture operates in an egalitarian manner, failing to account for (or even recognize the possibility of) within-group variance in cultural values and goals (see Bernard, 1987). The findings from the current study, however, are suggestive that we cannot assume that all Americans have equal adherence to cultural ideals. Future studies of IAT and other research examining the impact culture has on criminality and deviance need to consider this finding. Defining culture as a sociopsychological dimension may prove especially useful to theories that have traditionally treated culture as a macrosocial construct. Treating culture in this manner ignores the fluidity, flexibility, and dynamic nature of culture. It also fails to recognize that although culture is shared among members of a social group, it can be dissimilar for each individual member (Matsumoto et al., 1996). The current study provided the first microlevel test of IAT and the first test to include measures for the cultural values comprising the American Dream, a critical component of the theory. However, although an important first step, the current study is not without its limitations. One such limitation is reliance on a fairly homogeneous sample. Students in the current study were overwhelmingly Caucasian, as is the population from which the sample was drawn. As such, the results of the study may not be generalizable to populations that are more heterogeneous. Another difficulty faced is the overall small sample size. This was partly the reflection of the small international student population at the university where the study was conducted. As such, collecting a larger sample was not possible. The limitations with a small sample size relate to the sensitivity of statistical analyses. Although several meaningful differences were found related to the impact social institutions play in moderating the relationship between culture and deviance, these differences were not statistically significant in the interactive models, possibly because of small sample sizes. In addition, the reliance of Likert-type scales in the current study to measure culture at the individual level is somewhat problematic. Marsden and Swingle (1994),

650


in their evaluation of the General Social Survey, argue that “surveys do not allow for the complex, multiple, and sometimes contradictory interpretations highlighted by concepts of culture stressing differentiation and (especially) ambivalence or ambiguity” (p. 287). Future studies should include the triangulation of research methods, which may provide richer analyses of the cultural differences across social groups. Finally, another possible weakness of the study is the reliance on international students residing in the United States as a comparison group to American-born students. Students who attend university in the United States may be markedly different from college students residing outside of the United States, particularly in relation to cultural values held. Studies that have examined the process of acculturation have generally found that international students residing in the United States adopt at least some American cultural beliefs (Hsu, Grant, & Huang, 1993). Considering that the average time in the United States was 4 years (range of less than 1 year to 12 years), it is not far fetched to assume that the international students surveyed for the current study have been exposed, and have acculturated to, American culture. In fact, time in the United States was statistically related to adherence to the cultural values composing the American Dream among non-U.S.-born students. Bivariate statistics reveal that students who have resided in the United States for a longer period have a higher adherence to the American Dream (t = 7.667, p < .01). Clearly, a more precise microlevel test of IAT should be conducted in the future with samples drawn from the United States and abroad. Future tests of the theory should expand the current microanalysis to include different types of crime (i.e., expressive violent crime), larger sample sizes, and samples that are more heterogeneous. At the microlevel, triangulation would provide a richer understanding of differences in cultural values across social groups and between individuals. The use of a comparison group who is not residing in the United States may also provide a better understanding of the differences between cultural groups. Finally, a richer, more detailed explanation of differences in crime rates across nationstates (one that is inherently missing in single-level theoretical explanations of crime) may be possible through the micro-macro integration of IAT, where institutions are measured at the macrolevel and cultural values at the micro. The ability to integrate multilevel theoretical explanations has largely been made possible through advancement in statistical techniques during the past two decades. Techniques such as hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) allow researchers to nest individual-level variables into community structural variables. Multilevel analysis is possible because such techniques permit the researcher to control for the effect of both proximal (micro) and distal (macro) level variables on crime and delinquency. In addition, HLM provides the researcher a way in which to model the implicit hierarchy involved between characteristics of individuals and the communities in which they live (Rountree, Land, & Miethe, 1994). The use of HLM and other similar statistical techniques has not only created renewed interest but also produced more empirical support for traditionally macrolevel


651

theories such as social disorganization theory. Recent studies that have included both microlevel (neighborhood cohesiveness, levels of informal social control) and macrolevel (poverty, family disruption, racial heterogeneity, and social mobility) variables in their multilevel analyses find more support for social disorganization theory compared to previous research that included only structural variables (Rountree et al., 1994; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). As such, macro-micro integration may provide not only a more complete test of IAT but also more support for the theory.

Notes 1. For instance, LaBeff, Clark, Haines, and Diekhoff (1990) surveyed nearly 5,000 college students in the Southwest and found that the majority of students (54.0%) had reported at least one incidence of cheating while in college. 2. Definitions of what constitutes student cheating are typically set by university policy and may vary by university. At the university where the current study was conducted, student cheating is defined under the Code of Academic Responsibility Conduct as “students who cooperate on oral or written examinations or work without authorization.” It should be noted, however, that faculty members are primarily responsible for providing guidelines concerning cheating and plagiarism at the beginning of each course. For purposes of the current study, student cheating was defined as including any of the behaviors listed in Table 3. 3. Unfortunately, there were not enough questions completed on the discarded surveys to allow for any meaningful comparisons to be made regarding differences between students who completed the surveys and students who did not complete the surveys. 4. Because not all the variables that were included in the interaction terms were continuous (i.e., economy and polity were both dichotomous variables), the components of the American Dream were collapsed, and a dummy variable representing high and low adherence was created. 5. Another proxy measure considered was voting (i.e., had the student voted in the 2000 and 2004 U.S. presidential elections). However, because foreign-born students who have not been naturalized are ineligible to vote in the United States, this complicated the interpretation of the measure. In addition, some of the students who completed the survey were not eligible to vote in either election because of age restrictions (i.e., younger than 18), thus further obscuring matters. As such, performance of community service was used as the sole measure of political involvement in the current study.

References Batton, C., & Jensen, G. (2002). Decommodification and homicide rates in the 20th-century United States. Homicide Studies, 6(1), 6-38. Bernard, T. J. (1987). Testing structural strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 264-270. Bichler, G., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2003). Conditional covariation of binge drinking with predictors of college students’ cheating. Psychological Reports, 93, 735-749. Bichler-Robertson, G., Potchak, M. C., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2003). Low self-control, opportunity, and strain in students’ reported cheating behavior. Journal of Crime and Justice, 26(1), 23-53. Chamlin, M. B., & Cochran, J. K. (1995). Assessing Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional anomie theory: A partial test. Criminology, 33, 411-429. Chamlin, M. B., & Cochran, J. K. (1997). Social altruism and crime. Criminology, 35, 203-228. Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M. B., Wood, P. B., & Sellers, C. S. (1999). Shame, embarrassment, and formal sanction threats: Extending the deterrence/rational choice model to academic dishonesty. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 227-255.

652


Farrington, D. P., Langan, P. A., & Tonry, M. (2004). Cross-national studies in crime and justice (NCJ 200988). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Hsu, T. K., Grant, A. E., & Huang, W. (1993). The influence of social networks on the acculturation behavior of foreign students. Connections, 16(1/2), 23-36. Jensen, G. F. (2002). Institutional anomie and societal variations in crime: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 22(7/8), 45-74. Kim, S. W., & Pridemore, W. A. (2005). Social change, institutional anomie and serious property crime in transitional Russia. British Journal of Criminology, 45, 81-97. LaBeff, E. E., Clark, R. E., Haines, V. J., & Diekhoff, G. M. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating. Sociological Inquiry, 60, 190-198. Lake, R. L., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political participation. Political Psychology, 19, 567. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Marsden, P. V., & Swingle, J. F. (1994). Conceptualizing and measuring culture in surveys: Values, strategies, and symbols. Poetics, 22, 269-289. Matsumoto, D., Kudoh, T., & Takeuchi, S. (1996). Changing patterns of individualism and collectivism in the United States and Japan. Culture & Psychology, 2, 77-107. Maume, M. O., & Lee, M. R. (2003). Social institutions and violence: A sub-national test of institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 41, 1137-1172. Mendenhall, W., & Sincich, T. (2003). A second course in statistics: Regression analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672-682. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2001). Crime and the American Dream (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Niemi, R. G., Hepburn, M. A., & Chapman, C. (2000). Community service by high school students: A cure for civic ills? Political Behavior, 22(1), 45-69. Piquero, A. R., & Piquero, N. L. (1998). On testing institutional anomie theory with varying specifications. Studies of Crime and Crime Prevention, 7, 61-84. Rountree, P. W., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32, 387-413. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924. Savolainen, J. (2000). Inequality, welfare state, and homicide: Further support for the institutional anomie theory. Criminology, 38, 1021-1039. Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562. Sims, R. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 69, 207-211. Slobogin, K. (2002). Survey: Many students say cheating’s OK. Retrieved October 26, 2005, from http:// cnn.com Smith, E. S. (1999). The effects of investments in the social capital of youth on political and civic behavior in young adulthood: A longitudinal analysis. Political Psychology, 20(3), 553-580. Tibbetts, S. G. (1997a). College student perceptions of utility and intentions of test cheating. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Tibbetts, S. G. (1997b). Gender differences in students’ rational decisions to cheat. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 18, 393-414. Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 179-200.


653

Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age, employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65, 529-546. Wright, J. P., Cullen, F. T., & Williams, N. (2002). The embeddedness of adolescent employment and participation in delinquency: A life course perspective. Western Criminology Review, 4(1), 1-19.