JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN PERSONALITY 25, 285-301 (1991)

Predicting Dishonest Actions Using the Theory of Planned Behavior

LISA BECK AND ICEK AJZEN

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

The prediction of dishonest actions was studied in the context of the theory of
planned behavior. College students completed a questionnaire that assessed at-
titudes, subjective norms, perceptions of behavioral control, intentions, and per-
ceptions of moral obligations, as well as self-reports of behavior with respect to
cheating on a test, shoplifting, and lying to get out of assignments. A subsample
of respondents returned several months later for a second administration of the
questionnaire. Multiple regression analyses showed that the theory of planned
behavior predicted intentions with a high degree of accuracy, and that it was
moderately successful in the prediction of actual behavior. Addition of perceived
moral obligations to the prediction equation improved prediction of reported lying
behavior, but did not help to account for much variance in cheating and shoplifting,
Self-reports of past dishonesty were used to evaluate the sufficiency of the theory
of planned behavior. 0 1991 Academic Press, Inc.

Honesty and dishonesty are topics of longstanding interest to personality

psychologists (e.g., Corey 1937; Hartshorne & May, 1928). This interest
continues despite the fact that empirical research has provided little evi-
dence for stable individual differences in dishonest behavior across situ-
ations or for strong relations between verbal and nonverbal measures of
dishonesty (cf., Mischel, 1968). The disappointing findings concerning the
predictability of dishonest behavior can be understood in terms of the
principle of correspondence (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Whereas dishon-
esty is typically conceptualized and measured as a broad behavioral dis-
position, dishonest behavior is assessed as a single act performed in a
specific situation (e.g., cheating on an exam). Such lack of compatibility
between measures of disposition and behavior tends to produce observed
inconsistencies (see Ajzen, 1988).
The study reported in the present article attempted to overcome this

This article is based on the first author’s master’s thesis that was submitted to the University
of Massachusetts. We thank Robert Feldman and Ervin Staub for their input. Address
correspondence and reprint requests to Lisa Beck, Department of Psychology, University
of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003-0034.

285
0092-6566/91 $3.00
Copyright Q 1991 by Academic Ress, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
286 BECK AND AJZEN

difficulty by assessing dispositions toward dishonesty and dishonest be-

havior at comparable levels of specificity. This was done in the context
of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975) and its recently expanded version, the theory of planned
behavior (Ajzen, 1985, 1988; Ajzen & Madden, 1986). For the most part,
research with these models has concentrated on such socially acceptable
behaviors as voting (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1981) having another child (Vi-
nokur-Kaplan, 1978) attending college (Harrison, Thompson, & Rodgers,
1985) losing weight (Schifter & Ajzen, 1985), and going to church (King,
1975). In contrast, the study reported in this article dealt with cheating,
shoplifting, and lying. Its main objective was to examine the ability of
the theoretical models to predict and explain behaviors of this kind.
THE THEORY OF PLANNED BEHAVIOR
As noted above, the present theoretical framework derives from Ajzen
and Fishbein’s (1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) theory of reasoned action
and from its extention to the prediction of behavioral goals (Ajzen, 1985;
Ajzen & Madden, 1986). As in the original model, a central factor in the
theory of planned behavior is the individual’s intention to perform a given
behavior. Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that
influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard people are willing
to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to
perform the behavior.
The theory of planned behavior postulates three conceptually inde-
pendent determinants of intention. The first is the attitude toward the
behavior and refers to the degree to which the person has a favorable or
unfavorable evaluation of the behavior in question. The second predictor
is a social factor termed subjective norm; it refers to the perceived social
pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior. The third and novel
antecedent of intention, which was not part of the theory of reasoned
action, is the degree of perceived behavioral control. This factor refers to
the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior and it is as-
sumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated impediments and
obstacles. As a general rule, the more favorable the attitude and subjective
norm with respect to a behavior, and the greater the perceived behavioral
control, the stronger should be an individual’s intention to perform the
behavior under consideration.
Intention, in turn, is viewed as one immediate antecedent of actual
behavior. That is, the stronger people’s intentions to engage in a behavior
or to achieve their behavioral goals, the more successful they are predicted
to be. However, the degree of success will depend not only on one’s
desire or intention, but also on such partly nonmotivational factors as
availability of requisite opportunities and resources (e.g., time, money,
 PREDICTING DISHONEST ACTIONS 287

FIG. 1. Theory of planned behavior.

skills, cooperation of others, etc.; see Ajzen, 1985, for a review). Col-
lectively, these factors represent people’s actual control over the behavior.
To the extent that people have the required opportunities and resources,
and intend to perform the behavior, they should succeed in doing so.
The theory of planned behavior, however, deals with perceived, rather
than actual, behavior control. In many situations perceived behavioral
control may not be particularly realistic. This is likely to be the case when
the individual has relatively little information about the behavior, when
requirements or available resources have changed, or when new and un-
familiar elements have entered into the situation. Under those conditions,
a measure of perceived behavioral control may add little to accuracy of
behavioral prediction. A direct path from perceived behavioral control
to behavior is therefore expected to emerge only when there is some
agreement between perceptions of control and the person’s actual control
over the behavior.’ A structural representation of this model is shown in
Fig. 1.

’ The theory of planned behavior also deals with the antecedents of attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control. These antecedents have to do with various beliefs
288 BECK AND AJZEN

For ease of presentation, the model described in Fig. 1 does not show
possible feedback effects of behavior on the antecedent variables. Note
that the predictors in the theory of planned behavior are assumed to be
sufficient to account for intentions and actions, but that they are not all
necessary in any given application. The relative importance of attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control in the prediction of
intention, and the relative importance of intention and perceived behav-
ioral control in the prediction of behavior, are expected to vary across
behaviors and populations. Thus, in some applications it may be found
that only attitudes have a significant impact on intentions, in others that
attitudes and perceived behavioral control are sufficient to account for
intentions, and in still others that all three predictors make independent
contributions. Similarly, to predict behavior it may sometimes be sufficient
to consider only intentions while in other instances intentions as well as
perceptions of behavioral control may be needed.
The original derivation of the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1985)
differed in two major respects from the present model. First, it defined
attitude, subjective norm, perception of control, and intention in terms
of trying to perform a given behavior rather than in relation to actual
performance. However, early work with the model showed strong cor-
relations between measures of the model’s variables that asked about
trying to perform a given behavior and measures that dealt with actual
performance of the behavior (Schifter & Ajzen, 1985; Ajzen & Madden,
1986). Since the latter measures are less cumbersome, they have been
used in subsequent research, and the variables are now defined more
simply in relation to behavioral performance.
Second, the original formulation of the theory postulated interactions
between perceived behavioral control and intention, and between per-
ceived behavioral control and attitude. Research conduced to date, how-
ever, has revealed only main effects of intentions, attitudes, and perceived
behavioral control. This has led to the reformulation of the model shown
in Fig. 1.’
Empirical research over the past 15 years has provided evidence in
support of the theory of reasoned action in a variety of experimental and
naturalistic settings (see, e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen, Timko, &
White, 1982; Bentler & Speckart, 1979; 1981; Fredricks & Dossett, 1983;
Manstead, Proffitt, & Smart, 1983; Smetana & Adler, 1980). The be-
haviors involved have ranged from very simple strategy choices in labo-

about the behavior that constitute the informational foundation on which intentions and
actions are assumed to rest. Although also assessed in the present investigation, these beliefs
are of no interest for the purposes of this article.
’ The results of the present study again revealed no significant interaction effects.
 PREDICTING DISHONEST ACTIONS 289

ratory games to actions of appreciable personal or social significance, such

as having an abortion, smoking marijuana, and choosing among candidates
in an election. Intentions to perform behaviors of this kind can be pre-
dicted from attitudes toward the behaviors and from subjective norms,
and the intentions in turn correlate well with observed actions. For the
most part, however, the behaviors investigated have been behaviors over
which people tend to have considerable volitional control. Recent research
on the theory of planned behavior has demonstrated that when volitional
control is more problematic, the additon of perceived behavioral control
significantly improves prediction of intentions as well as prediction of
behavioral achievement (see Ajzen, 1987, in press; Ajzen & Madden,
1986; Schifter & Ajzen, 1985).
THE QUESTION OF SUFFICIENCY
The theoretical framework described above is, in principle, open to the
inclusion of additional predictor variables (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, p.
247). In fact, the theory of planned behavior expanded the original model
by adding perceived behavioral control to help in the prediction of be-
haviors over which individuals have incomplete volitional control. Of
potential importance in the context of the present study is the suggestion
that we consider not only perceived social pressures but also personal
feelings of moral obligation or responsibility to perform, or refuse to
perform, a certain behavior (Gorsuch & Ortberg, 1983; Pomazal & Jac-
card, 1976; Schwartz & Tessler, 1972). It seems likely that moral issues
are salient in the case of such dishonest behaviors as cheating, shoplifting,
and lying and that a measure of perceived moral obligation could add
predictive power to the model.
The Role of Past Behavior
The question of the model’s sufficiency can be addressed at a more
general level by considering the theoretical limits of predictive accuracy.
If all factors, internal to the individual as well as external, that determine
a given behavior are known, then the behavior can be predicted to the
limit of measurement error. So long as this set of factors remains un-
changed, the behavior also remains stable over time. The dictum, “past
behavior is the best predictor of future behavior” will be realized when
these conditions are met.
Under the assumption of stable determinants, a measure of past be-
havior can be used to test the sufficiency of any model designed to predict
future behavior. A model that is sufficient contains all variables in the
set of determinants, and thus accounts for all nonerror variance in the
behavior. Addition of past behavior should not significantly improve the
prediction of later behavior. Conversely, if past behavior is found to have
290 BECK AND AJZEN

a significant residual effect beyond the predictor variables contained in

the model, it would suggest the presence of other factors that have not
been accounted for. The only reservation that must be added is that
measures of past and later behavior may have common error variance
not shared by measures of the other variables in the model. This is
particularly likely when behavior is observed while other variables are
assessed by means of verbal self-reports, but it can also occur because
self-reports of behavior are often elicited in a format that differs sub-
stantially from the remaining items in a questionnaire. We would thus
often expect a small, but possibly significant, residual effect of past be-
havior even when the theoretical model is in fact sufficient to predict
future behavior.3
The study reported in this article examined the sufficiency of the theory
of planned behavior to predict dishonest actions. The following expec-
tations were developed. First, since behaviors such as cheating on an
exam, shoplifting, and lying to get out of an assignment involve elements
of resources and opportunities over which an individual has only limited
control, perceptions of behavioral control should influence intentions to
perform the behaviors in question. Thus, the addition of perceived be-
havioral control is expected to improve prediction of intentions over and
above the level achieved on the basis of attitudes and subjective norms.
At the same time, however, it is not at all clear that these perceptions
of resources and opportunities correspond accurately to reality. Conse-
quently, perceived behavioral control may contribute little to the predic-
tion of behavior.
A second expectation has to do with perceived moral obligations. As
noted earlier, moral concerns are likely to be salient with respect to the
behaviors under investigation and a measure of these concerns could
improve prediction.
Finally, the relation between past behavior and intention is expected
to be mediated by the various cognitive and affective predictors incor-
porated in the model: attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral
control, and perceived moral obligation. In a similar manner, intention
and perceived behavioral control are expected to mediate the relation
between past and later behavior.
SOCIAL DESIRABILITY AND HONESTY OF SELF-REPORTS
Research in personality and social psychology commonly relies on par-
ticipants to provide information about their thoughts, feelings, and actions

3 Some investigators (e.g., Bentler & Speckart, 1979; Fredricks & Dossett, 1983) have
suggested that past behavior be included as a predictor of later behavior, equivalent to the
other independent variables in the model. It must be realized, however, that although past
behavior may well reflect the impact of factors that influence later behavior, it can usually
not be considered a causal factor in its own right (see Ajzen, 1987).
 PREDICTING DISHONEST ACTIONS 291

in the form of verbal self-reports. Although this widespread practice is

often criticized (e.g., Jones & Sigall, 1971; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977; Ross,
1989), there are few, if any, practical alternatives that could provide
equally interesting and detailed information about an individual. The
practice of relying on self-reports is thus likely to continue, even though
it is well recognized that such reports may be biased by tendencies to
furnish socially desirable responses and to deny holding socially undesir-
able attitudes or performing socially undesirable behaviors (Edwards,
1957). The behaviors of interest in the present study-cheating, shoplift-
ing, and lying-are sufficiently sensitive to be potentially subject to sys-
tematic biases and dishonest reporting due to social desirability concerns.
On the other hand, there is evidence that in many situations, self-reports
of dishonest behavior can be quite accurate (Himmelfarb & Lickteig,
1982). A pilot study was conducted to explore the accuracy of self-reports
in the present context.

PILOT STUDY
The design for the main study required that the experimenter be able
to contact participants for a follow-up questionnaire and match each par-
ticipant’s responses from both sessions. The need to provide identifying
information for the follow-up may appear to participants to be a threat
to anonymity, and therefore may interfere with honest responding. Sixty
participants in the pilot study completed a questionnaire that assessed
how many times in the past 12 months they had cheated on a test or
exam, taken something from a store without paying, and used a false
excuse to get out of taking a test or turning in an assignment on time.4
The pilot study provided information on the participants’ willingness
to admit to the three behaviors under two conditions of threat to ano-
nymity. Each participant in the pilot study was asked to write his or her
name, address and phone number on a form attached to the questionnaire
indicating willingness to participate in a continuation of the study within
the next few weeks. One group of participants was asked for name,
address, and phone number on the initial consent form, and the other
group found a separate page at the end of the questionnaire explaining
the need for a second session and requesting name, address, and phone
number.
If participants were concerned about the lack of anonymity, there should
be fewer admissions to the behaviors among participants who gave iden-
tifying information before filling out the questionnaire. A 2 (item order)
by 2 (identification condition) by 3 (behavior) analysis of variance per-

4 The pilot questionnaire also elicited salient behavioral, normative, and control beliefs
with respect to each of the three behaviors. However, this aspect of the study is of no
relevance for our present purposes and will not be further considered.
292 BECK AND AJZEN

formed on reported frequency of performing the behaviors revealed no

significant main effects or interactions, indicating that participants were
unaffected by threats to anonymity. In addition, relatively high frequencies
of admission to the behaviors suggest that participants were truthfully
reporting their own activities. About 66% of the participants admitted to
cheating at least once in the past year, 39% admitted to shoplifting at
least once, and 57% admitted to lying to get out of a class assignment
at least once.
The results thus indicate that student subjects are relatively truthful in
reporting the behaviors used in the present study, even when they are
aware that the experimenter could match their names with their responses
to the questionnaire.

MAIN STUDY
Methods
Participants. A total of 146 college students (28 males, 118 females) were recruited through
psychology courses to participate in a questionnaire study near the end of the fall semester.
The participants were between the ages of 17 and 30 (M = 19.6, 4 participants did not
report age).
During the following (spring) semester, an attempt was made to recontact all participants
who had completed the first questionnaire and had indicated that they would be willing to
take part in a follow-up study. Some participants had moved and could not be located while
many of those contacted were not currently enrolled in psychology classes and declined the
invitation to return for the follow-up. Of the 146 participants who had completed the first
questionnaire, 34 (23%) returned for the second phase. An additional 46 participants who
had not completed the first questionnaire were also recruited.

Phase 1
The first questionnaire assessed the components of the theory of planned behavior (in-
tentions, attitudes, subjective norms, perceived behavioral control) as well as moral obli-
gation with regard to each behavior. In addition, participants were asked how many times
they had performed each of the behaviors in the previous 12 months.
The three behaviors of interest were defined as follows: cheafirrg, cheating on a test or
exam, shoplifting, taking something from a store without paying, and lying, using a false
excuse to get out of taking a test or turning in an assignment on time. Behavioral self-
reports were obtained by asking participants to indicate how often they had performed each
behavior by checking one of seven response alternatives; never, once, twice, 3 times, 4 times,
5 times, more than 5 times. The average correlation among the three behaviors was SO.
The remaining items used a seven-point semantic differential-type response format. They
are illustrated here with respect to cheating; the same questions were asked with respect
to shoplifting and lying. A measure of attitude toward each behavior was obtained by means
of the following five evaluative semantic differential scales: good-bad, plearant-unpleasant,
foolish-wise, useful-useless, unattractive-uttrucfive. The average interitem correlations were
SO for cheating, .57 for shoplifiting, and .53 for lying.
Three items were used to assess subjective norms with respect to each behavior: (1) “If
I cheated on a test or exam, most of the people who are important to me would not care-
disupprove.” (2) “No one who is important to me thinks it is OK to cheat on a test or
 PBEDICIING DISHONEST ACTIONS 293

exam. ugree-disagree.” (3) Most people who are important to me will look down on me if
I cheat on a test or exam. likely-unlikely.” Average interitem correlations were .61, .47,
and .62 for cheating, shoplifting, and lying, respectively.
Perceived behavioral control with respect to each behavior was measured by four items:
(1) “For me to cheat on a test or exam is eusy-di#icult.” (2) “If I want to, I can cheat on
a test or exam. true-false.” (3) “1 can imagine times when I might cheat on a test or exam
even if I hadn’t planned to. likely-unlikely.” (4) “Even if I had a good reason, I could not
bring myself to cheat on a test or exam. likely-unlikely.” Average interitem correlations
for the three behaviors were 34, .48, and 34.
The measure of intention was based on responses to the following three items: (1) “If I
had the opportunity, I would cheat on a test or exam. likely-unlikely.” (2) “I would never
cheat on a test or exam. true-false.” (3) “I may cheat on a test or exam in the future. true-
false.” The interitem correlations for intentions were .70, .75, and .66.
Finally, moral obligation was also measured by three items: (1) “I would not feel guilty
if I cheated on a test or exam. true-false.” (2) “Cheating on a test or exam goes against
my principles. likely-unlikely.” (3) “It would be morally wrong for me to cheat on a test
or exam. likely-unlikely.” Interitem correlations were .45 for cheating, 54 for shoplifting,
and 55 for lying.
All items for a particular behavior were presented together, and the order in which the
behaviors were presented was counterbalanced. Within each behavior section, items assessing
the same variable were separated from each other except for the five evaluative attitude
scales5 The behavioral self-report item was presented before the other items for half of the
participants and after the other items for the other half, although the pilot study indicated
no differences in rate of admissions to the behaviors with regard to placement of the self-
report item. For all participants, the last part of the questionnaire contained the Marlowe-
Crowne Social Desirability Scale (SDS; Crowne & Marlowe, 1964).6
Participants completed the questionnaires in groups of 20 to 50, near the end of the fall
semester. Before filling out the questionnaire, each participant completed a consent form
which was coded with a three-digit number. The consent form, which was kept separate
from the questionnaire, also requested the participant’s address and phone number as an
indication of interest in participating in a continuation of the study which was to be conducted
in the spring. Each participant returned the consent form before beginning the questionnaire,
which was coded with the same three-digit number as the consent form. Participants were
instructed not to put their names on the questionnaire itself, and they were assured that
their responses would be kept anonymous.

Phase 2
The 34 returning respondents as well as 46 new control participants completed a ques-
tionnaire in Phase 2. The follow-up questionnaire consisted of the same measures of in-
tention, attitude, subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and moral obligation as
on the initial questionnaire. The behavioral self-report items assessed behaviors performed
“in the past six months” in order to limit the participants’ reports to performance since the
initial questionnaire.
As in the fall questionnaire, item order was counterbalanced with regard to presentation

’ In addition, the measures of intention, attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control
were interspersed among sets of items assessing specific beliefs about each behavior (see
Footnote 3).
’ Examination of means and standard deviations revealed no apparent ceiling or floor
effects nor evidence for skewness in responses to the various items.
294 BECK AND AIZEN

TABLE 1
RELIABILITIES AND CORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES

I A SN PBC MO

Cheating
Intention (I) 37
Attitude (A) .67 .81
Subjective norm (SN) .34 46 .81
Perceived behavioral control (PBC) .79 .65 .37 .66
Moral obligation (MO) .69 .64 .50 .66 .n
Self-report of behavior .69 .53 .20 .61 .52
Shoplifting
Intention 38
Attitude .78 .84
Subjective norm .38 .50 .73
Perceived behavioral control .79 .76 .39 .78
Moral obligation .75 .71 .42 .61 .78
Self-report of behavior .74 ho .25 .67 .52
Lying
Intention .&Is
Attitude .53 .85
Subjective norm .37 .39 .a3
Perceived control .75 .52 .35 .67
Moral obligation .74 .67 .42 .64 39
Self-report of behavior .56 .33 .15 .48 .42

Note. AI1 correlation ceofficients are significant at the .05 level.

of the three behaviors, and the behavioral self-report item was located at the beginning of
each behavior section for half of the participants and at the end of each section for the
other half. Precautions for anonymity were again carried out, with returning participants
receiving questionnaires bearing the same three-digit number as on their first questionnaire,
and control subjects receiving questionnaires coded with a different series of digits. Partic-
ipants’ names did not appear on the questionnaires. At the end, participants in the control
group completed the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, but returning participants
did not complete the SDS a second time.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Phase 1: Prediction of Intentions
Reliability of measures. (Yreliability coefficients were computed for each
set of items designed to assess a given construct. The results, displayed
in the main diagonals of Table 1, showed acceptable reliabilities for all
constructs, with coefficients ranging from .66 for perceived behavioral
control over cheating to .90 for shoplifting intentions. (The reliability of
the Social Desirability Scale was found to be .77.) Consequently, with
respect to each behavior, indices were computed for intention, attitude,
subjective norm, perceived behavioral control, and perceived moral ob-
 PREDICTING DISHONEST ACTIONS 295

TABLE 2
HIERARCHICALREGREWON ANALYSES FOR INTENTIONS

Cheating Shoplifting Lying

r b Rr b Rr b R

Step 1: Theory of reasoned action

Attitude .67 .65* .78 .78* .53 .39*
Subjective norm .34 .04 .67 .38 - .Ol .78 .46 .26* .57
Step 2: Theory of planned behavior
Attitude .67 .28* .78 .44* .53 .lO
Subjective norm .34 - .02 .38 .02 .46 .19*
Perceived behavioral control .79 .62* .82 .79 .46* .83 .75 .64* .79
Step 3: Moral obligation
Attitude .67 .21* .78 .25’ .53 -.05
Subjective norm .34 -.08 .38 - .os .46 .08
Perceived behavioral control .79 .52* .79 40 .75 .48*
Moral obligation .69 .26” 34 .75 .34* .87 .75 .42’ .83
Step 4: Self-report of behavior
Attitude .67 .15* .78 .20* .53 -.06
Subjective norm .34 -34 .38 - .03 .46 .lO
Perceived behavioral control .79 .42* .79 .25* .75 .41*
Moral obligation .69 .20* .75 .30* .75 .38*
Self-report of behavior .69 .26* .86 .74 .30* .89 .56 .20* .85

Note. r, correlation coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient; R, multiple cor-

relation. *Significant regression coefficient (p < .05).

ligation by summing the appropriate sets of responses. The remainder of

Table 1 shows the correlations among predictor and criterion variables.
Hierarchical regressions. To examine the extent to which the theory of
planned behavior was able to account for intentions to perform dishonest
actions, the dat,a from the first phase of the study were submitted to
hierarchical regression analyses in which intentions served as the de-
pendent variable. The components of the theory of reasoned action, at-
titudes and subjective norms, were entered on the first step, followed on
the second step by perceived behavioral control, as suggested by the theory
of planned behavior. Step 3 added perceived moral obligation and the
final step included self-reports of past behavior. The results are shown in
Table 2.
It can be seen that the theory of reasoned action (Step 1) performed
quite well, explaining between 33 and 61% of the variance in intentions
(R*). Much of the predictive accuracy was due to attitudes toward the
behaviors; only with respect to lying did subjective norms make a sig-
nificant contribution to the prediction.
The results for Step 2 show that addition of perceived behavioral control
296 BECK AND AJZEN

led to substantial and statistically significant (p < .05) improvements in

prediction. In fact, of the three predictors at Step 2, only perceived
behavioral control had a significant regression coefficient across all three
intentions. The proportion of variance accounted for ranged from 62 to
69%, representing increments (changes in R*) of 8 to 29% in comparison
to Step 1. The theory of planned behavior thus proved clearly superior
to the more limited theory of reasoned action, indicating that intentions
to perform dishonest behaviors are strongly affected by beliefs about
potential obstacles and opportunities.
Some further improvements in prediction were obtained with the ad-
dition of perceived moral obligation (Step 3). Although the increment in
predictive accuracy was significant in each case (p < .05), the additional
variance accounted for was of moderate magnitude (3 to 7%). Perceived
moral obligation thus seems to contribute to the formation of intentions
to perform dishonest behaviors, but from a practical point of view, in-
cluding a measure of this variable in the prediction equation is of only
modest utility.
We have, with Step 3, exhausted the predictor variables of theoretical
interest. The analysis at Step 4 adds past behavior to the equation in an
attempt to explore the possibility that still other factors may contribute
to the formation of intentions, factors not captured in attitudes, subjective
norms, perceived behavioral control, or perceived moral obligation. The
results show that self-reports of past behavior did in fact attain significant
regression coefficients, but that the added predictive accuracy was quite
small, ranging from 3% in the case of lying to 5% for shoplifting. Inten-
tions to perform dishonest behaviors thus seem well accounted for by the
variables considered in the present study.
Honesty of responding. Before turning to the study’s second phase, we
consider briefly the questions of response honesty and possible social
desirability biases. The responses of participants appeared to be relatively
free of social desirability tendencies. The most obvious support for this
claim comes from the high frequency of admitted dishonest behaviors. In
response to the behavioral self-report questions, 70% of the respondents
admitted to having cheated at least once in the past year, 36% admitted
to having shoplifted at least once, and 60% admitted to having used a
false excuse to get out of taking a test or turning in an assignment on
time. The frequencies of the admissions are quite similar to those obtained
in the pilot study.
Further analyses were conducted to discover more subtle effects at-
tributable to social desirability responding. In order to control for the
possible effects of social desirability, the hierarchical regression analysis
reported above was repeated, with SDS scores on the first step, followed
by attitudes and subjective norms, perceived control, moral obligation,
 PREDICTING DISHONEST ACTIONS 297

and past behavior. In this analysis, only 3 to 5% of the variance in

intentions was accounted for by social desirability (p < .05 for all three
behaviors). More importantly, the results displayed in Table 2 remained
essentially the same after controlling for the effects of social desirability.
The final multiple correlations ranged from .86 to .90, (versus .85 to .89
for the regressions without SDS).
To assess the effects of the placement of the behavioral self-report item
(at the beginning or end of each behavior section), and of the sequence
in which the behaviors were presented, 2 (placement) x 3 (sequence)
multivariate analyses of variance were performed on self-reports of past
behavior, intention, attitude, subjective norm, perceived control, and per-
ceived moral obligation. The results showed no significant main effects
or interactions with respect to any of these variables.
Phase 2: Prediction of Behavior
Characteristics of the subsample. The variables assessed in the first phase
were used to predict subsequent behavior, as reported by the 34 partic-
ipants who returned for the second phase. Since the returning participants
constituted a small subsample of the original respondents, it was important
to examine their comparability to the total sample. Reanalysis of the
Phase 1 data for the 34 returning participants indicated that they were
quite representative of the entire original sample. The subsample was
composed of 24% males (compared to 19% in the total sample), and the
mean age of the 34 participants was 20.0 years at the time of Phase 1
(compared to 19.6 for the total sample). Of greater interest, however,
were the comparisons of attitudes, subjective norms, perceptions of con-
trol, intentions, perceived moral obligations, and self-reports of behavior.
These comparisons showed that the subsample did not differ appreciably
or systematically from the total sample in any of the major variables
assessed in Phase 1, with the exception of behavioral self-reports. Phase
1 self-reports of cheating, shoplifting, and lying in the subsample were
somewhat lower than for the entire sample (56, 32 and 47% compared
to 66, 39 and 57%).
A second concern with respect to the subsample is the possibility that
repeated assessment might influence responses. The Phase 2 only control
group provided appropriate comparison data, revealing that there were
no systematic differences between the two groups. A multivariate analysis
of variance resulted only in a main effect due to behavior; neither the
main effect of group, nor the group by behavior interaction, reached
statistical significance.
Note that the Phase 2 behavioral admissions were lower than those
obtained in Phase 1. Whereas in Phase 1 admissions to cheating, shop
lifting, and lying among members of the subsample had been 56, 32,
298 BECK AND AJZEN

TABLE 3
HERARCHICAL REGRESSION ANALYSES M)R BEHAVIOR

Cheating Shoplifting Lying

r b R r b Rr b R

Step 1: Theory of planned behavior

Intention .74 As* .48 .43* .35 .30*
Perceived behavioral control .66 .11 .74 .38 .05 .48 .29 .08 .35
Step 2: Moral obligation
Intention .74 .40* .48 .44* .35 - .21
Perceived behavioral control .66 .05 .38 .05 .29 -.09
Perceived moral obligation .73 .41* .79 .24 -.02 .48 .42 .82* .62
Step 3: Past behavior
Intention .74 .06 .48 - .21 .35 -.42
Perceived behavioral control .66 .14 .38 -.17 .29 -.lO
Perceived moral obligation .73 .34* .24 .22 .42 .70*
Past behavior .74 .37* .82 .43 .86* .69 .47 .60* 30

Note. r, correlation coefficient; b, standardized regression coefficient; R, multiple cor-

relation. *Significant regression coefficient (p < .OS).

and 47%, in Phase 2, the corresponding percentages were 47, 29, and
21% in the same group and 48, 20, and 40% in the control group. This
can be explained by the fact that the Phase 2 questionnaire only asked
for self-reports of behaviors in the past 6 months, whereas the original
questionnaire had asked for behavior in the past year.
Overall, then, repeated questionnaire administration did not seem to
have a systematic impact on responses. This conclusion is confirmed by
the relatively high test-retest correlations over the 6 months of the study.
The test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from .53 for subjective norms
concerning lying to .83 for cheating intentions; the average test-retest
reliability across all measures was .71. Finally, hierarchical regressions for
the prediction of intentions in the subsample revealed results comparable
to those obtained in the total sample (Table 2).
Hierarchical regressions. Table 3 presents the results of hierarchical
regressions of behavior, as reported in Phase 2, on Phase 1 intentions
and perceived behavioral control, the predictors in the theory of planned
behavior, as well as on Phase 1 perceived moral obligation and past
behavior (self-reports of behavior in Phase 1). It can be seen that the
theory of planned behavior was moderately successful in predicting self-
reports of actual behavior; the multiple correlations ranged from .35 for
lying to .74 for cheating. Addition of perceived moral obligation raised
the multiple correlation appreciably (from .35 to .62) only in the case of
lying, while the further addition of past behavior improved prediction for
 PREDICTING DISHONEST ACTIONS 299

lying as well as shoplifting, These results suggest that the theory of planned
behavior was not totally sufficient to account for performance of dishonest
activities. Although the variables specified in the theory did predict the
three behaviors quite well, and they accounted for most of the systematic
variance in cheating behavior, in the case of shoplifiting and lying they
left an appreciable proportion of the systematic variance unaccounted for.
CONCLUSIONS
Like much research in social and personality psychology, work with the
theory of planned behavior relies on self-reports to assess the theory’s
major constructs. This can involve problems of social desirability respond-
ing in the case of socially undesirable behaviors. The data of the present
study suggest, however, that there seemed to be no major systematic
distortions in responses concerning cheating, shoplifting, and lying. Par-
ticipants admitted to these behaviors in relatively large numbers, and
there was little evidence for strong effects due to measured social desir-
ability tendencies.
In addition to deliberately denying socially undesirable attitudes or
behaviors, people may also be unaware of socially undesirable tendencies
and thus provide inaccurate self-reports. It was noted in the introduction
that, according to the theory of planned behavior, inaccurate perceptions
of control will tend to reduce the ability of the model to predict behavior,
although it should not affect the model’s ability to predict intentions. The
results of the present study are consistent with these considerations. As
expected, prediction of intentions was quite accurate, whereas a consid-
erable proportion of systematic variance in behavior remained unac-
counted for. Moreover, the model was more successful in predicting cheat-
ing than it was in predicting shoplifting or lying. This finding can also be
explained in terms of inaccuracies in the predictor variables. One would
expect that experience will increase the accuracy of perceived behavioral
control and that, therefore, prediction will be better for behaviors with
which respondents have had more experience. In fact, more participants
in the present study had cheated in the preceding 6 months (47%) than
had shoplifted (29%) or lied to get out of class assignments (21%). It
thus appears that lack of experience and lack of insight into one’s own
motivations and capabilities may result in reports of beliefs, attitudes, and
intentions that are not sufficiently reflective of a person’s true dispositions
to permit accurate prediction of later behavior. It is also possible that
shoplifting and lying occur more impulsively than does cheating.
The role of prior behavior is also of interest in this context. We have
argued that prior behavior has no direct effect on later behavior, that
people do not behave in a certain way today because they behaved that
way in the past. Rather, prior and later behavior are expected to correlate
300 BECK AND AJZEN

well with each other to the extent that the underlying determinants of
the behavior have not changed. The relation between prior and later
behavior is thus assumed to be mediated by the underlying determinants.
The results of the present study showed that there is considerable con-
sistency in dishonest behaviors over time, and that this consistency is not
fully reflected in the constructs of the theory of planned behavior. The
above discussion suggests that inaccuracies and misperceptions in self-
reports may provide an explanation for the failure of the theory’s con-
structs to mediate the relation between prior and later behavior. It is of
course also possible that dishonest behaviors are influenced by factors not
included in the model and not assessed in the present study. One additional
factor that was considered, perceived moral obligation, did aid in the
prediction of lying, but it had less of an effect on cheating or shoplifting,
and even with its inclusion in the prediction equation, systematic variance
in behavior was left unaccounted for.
Overall, however, the results of this investigation provide considerable
support for the theory of planned behavior. Intentions with respect to
cheating, shoplifting, and lying were strongly related to attitudes, sub-
jective norms, and perceptions of behavioral control, and self-reports of
behavior could be predicted significantly from intentions and perceived
behavioral control. At the same time, it appears that understanding the
determinants of dishonest behaviors can be more problematic than un-
derstanding performance of socially acceptable behaviors. Further re-
search is needed to identify factors not included in the theory of planned
behavior that may influence peformance of such dishonest actions as cheat-
ing, shoplifting, and lying.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl and
J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Heidel-
berg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositional prediction of behavior in
personality and social psychology. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental
social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. l-63). New York: Academic Press.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attifudes, personality, and behavior. Chicago: Dorsey Press.
Ajzen, I. (in press). The theory of planned behavior. Organizationul Behnvior and Human
Decision Processes.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin 84, 888-918.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, inten-
tions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22,
453-474.
Ajzen, I., Timko, C., & White, J. B. (1982). Self-monitoring and the attitude-behavior
relation. Journal of Personaliv and Social Psychology, 42, 426-435.
 PREDICTING DISHONEST ACTIONS 301

Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1979). Models of attitude-behavior relations. Psychological

Review, 86, 452-464.
Bentler, P. M., & Speckart, G. (1981). Attitudes “cause” behavior: A structural equation
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 226-238.
Corey, S. M. (1937). Professed attitudes and actual behavior. Journal of Educational Psy-
chology, 28, 271-280.
Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York: Wiley.
Edwards, A. L. (1957). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1981). Attitudes and voting behaviour: An application of the
theory of reasoned action. In G. M. Stephenson and J. M. Davis (Eds.), Progress in
Applied Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 253-313). London: Wiley.
Fredricks, A. J., & Dossett, D. L. (1983). Attitude-behavior relations: A comparison of
the Fishbein-Ajzen and the Bender-Speckart models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 501-512.
Gorsuch, R. L., & Ortberg, J. (1983). Moral obligation and attitudes: Their relation to
behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1025-1028.
Harrison, W., Thompson, V. D., & Rodgers, J. L. (1985). Robustness and sufficiency of
the theory of reasoned action in longitudinal prediction. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 6, 25-40.
Hartshome, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character: Studies in deceit
(Vol. 1). New York: Macmillan.
Himmelfarb, S., & Lickteig, C. (1982). Social desirability and the randomized response
technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 710-717.
Jones, E. E., & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect
and attitude. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349-364.
King, G. W. (1975). An analysis of attitudinal and normative variables as predictors of
intentions and behavior. Speech Monographs, 42, 237-244.
Manstead, A. S. R., Proffitt, C., & Smart, J. L. (1983). Predicting and understanding
mothers’ infant-feeding intentions and behavior: Testing the theory of reasoned action.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 657-671.
Mischel, W. (1%8). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
Nisbett, R. W., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports
on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231-259.
Pomazal, R. J. & Jaccard, J. J. (1976). An informational approach to altruistic behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 317-326.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the construction of personal histories.
Psychological Review, %, 341-357.
Schifter, D. B., & Ajzen, I. (1985). Intention, perceived control, and weight loss: An
application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 49, 843-851.
Schwartz, S. H., & Tessler, R. C. (1972). A test of a model for reducing measured attitude-
behavior inconsistencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 225-236.
Smetana, J. G., & Adler, N. E. (1980). Fishbein’s value x expectancy model: An ex-
amination of some assumptions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 89-96.
Vinokur-Kaplan, D. (1978). To have-or not to have-another child: Family planning
attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 29-46.