Mediating Role of Justice Sensitivity in Relationship between Attachment Styles and Academic Dishonesty
akhlāq-i pizishkī i.e., Medical Ethics,
Vol. 16 No. 47 (1401),
28 Tir 2022
,
Page 1-14
https://doi.org/10.22037/mej.v16i47.37942
Abstract
Background and Aim: Justice sensitivity is a stable personality trait that relates to prosocial behavioral tendencies and altruistic orientation. Secure attachment and deep emotional bond with others will increase justice sensitivity in students and prepare the ground for academic honesty and efficiency of education system. Considering the role of this personality trait in healthy educational behaviors; the purpose of this study is to investigate the antecedents and outcomes of justice sensitivity in a frame of a causal model.
Methods: The present study is descriptive and in the form of structural equation modeling in which, the attachment styles were considered as independent variables, justice sensitivity as a mediating variable and academic dishonesty as a dependent variable. Participants were 240 (boys and girls) M.S. Shiraz University students. They completed Justice Sensitivity Scale, Revised Adult Attachment Scale and Academic Dishonesty Scale. Factor analysis method was used to verify validity and the Cronbach Alpha was applied to determine the reliability of the scales؛ Also, bootstrapping method in AMOS 24 was conducted to examine the mediational effects of the intervening variables.
Ethical Considerations: Participants completed the scales online after they were informed of the study aims and were ensured on paper that the responses would remain confidential.
Results: Results showed that attachment styles were significant predictor of academic dishonesty through which secure attachment style was negative significant predictor of academic dishonesty (β=-0/44, p=0/0001) and insecure attachment styles (avoidant and anxious) were respectively positive significant predictors of academic dishonesty (β=0/13, p=0/0001) and (β=0/36, p=0/0001). Results also revealed that secure attachment style predicted justice sensitivity positively (β=0/41, p=0/0001) and avoidant style predicted justice sensitivity negatively (β=-0/35, p=0/0001). Furthermore, results demonstrated that justice sensitivity mediated the relationship between attachment styles and academic dishonesty. In general; findings confirmed that secure attachment style decreases academic dishonesty through increasing the justice sensitivity.
Conclusion: According to the hypothesis testing results, it can be concluded that Secure adults tended to hold positive self-image and positive image of others; meaning that they had both a sense of worthiness and an expectation that other people were generally responsive and trustworthy. This means that secure students will apply effective and ethical strategies to achieve their educational goals and never intend to violate the rights of others to gain academic legitimacy.
Please cite this article as:
Mohebbi L, Jowkar B. Mediating Role of Justice Sensitivity in Relationship between Attachment Styles and Academic Dishonesty. Faṣlnāmah-i akhlāq-i pizishkī, i.e., Quarterly Journal of Medical Ethics. 2022; 16(47): e4.
- Academic Dishonesty; Justice Sensitivity; Secure and Insecure Attachment Styles; Students
How to Cite
References
Schmitt M, Baumert A, Gollwitzer M, Maes J. The Justice Sensitivity Inventory: Factorial validity, location in the personality facet space, demographic pattern and normative data. Soc Justice Res. 2010; 23(2): 211-238.
Baumert A, Adra A, Li M. Justice Sensitivity in Intergroup Contexts: A Theoretical Framework. Soc Justice Res. 2022; 35(1): 7-32.
Strauß S, Bondü R, Roth F. Justice sensitivity in middle childhood: Measurement and location in the temperamental and social skills space. J Pers Assess. 2021; 103(4): 476-488.
Sabag Ḳ, Schmitt M. Handbook of social justice theory and research. New York: Springer; 2016.
Miller AD, Murdock TB, Grotewiel MM. Addressing academic dishonesty among the highest achievers. Theory into Practice. 2017; 56(2): 121-128.
Henry C, Jurdi-Hage R, Hage HS. Justifying academic dishonesty: A survey of Canadian university students. International Journal of Academic Research in Education. 2021; 7(1): 16-28.
Peled Y, Eshet Y, Barczyk C, Grinautski K. Predictors of Academic Dishonesty among undergraduate students in online and face-to-face courses. Computers & Education. 2019; 131: 49-59.
Götmann A, Bechtoldt MN, Fetchenhauer D. Breathing to the path of virtue-The effects of justice sensitivity and state mindfulness on cheating behavior in a group performance task. Pers Individ Dif. 2021; 178: 110851.
Chudzicka-Czupała A. Psychological and moral determinants in accepting of cheating and plagiarism among university students in Poland. Polish Journal of Applied Psychology. 2014; 12(1): 75-98.
Bondü R, Elsner B. Justice sensitivity in childhood and adolescence. Social Development. 2014; 24(2): 420-441.
Govrin A. The ABC of moral development: An attachment approach to moral judgment. Front Psychol. 2014; 5: 6.
Nelson N, Peleg-Koriat I, Ben-Ari R. Perceived procedural justice and conflict management in intimate relationships: The moderating effects of anxious attachment and personal power. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. 2018; 7(1): 34-46.
Koleva S, Selterman D, Iyer R, Ditto P, Graham J. The moral compass of insecurity: Anxious and avoidant attachment predict moral judgment. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2013; 5(2): 185-194.
Esmaeili F, Tahmsebi S, Mohammadi Arya A, Soltani PR. The Relationship between Parenting Styles and Moral Development of Preschool Children Mediated by Children’s Attachment. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2021; 22(3): 362-377.
Hojjati G, Naghsh Z, Khodayarifard M. The Relationship between Attachment Style and Moral Identity: The Mediating Role of Empathy. Journal of Psychology. 2021; 2(98): 215-235.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3. Baskı). New York: Guilford; 2011.
Davis SF, Drinan PF, Gallant TB. Cheating in school: What we know and what we can do. No Place: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
Bashir H, Bala R. Development and validation of academic dishonesty scale (ADS): Presenting a multidimensional scale. International Journal of Instruction. 2018; 11(2): 57-74.
Collins NL, Read SJ. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1990; 58(4): 644-663.
Farhadi M, Mohagheghi H, Nesai Moghadam B. The relationship between attachment styles and student interpersonal problems: The role of mediating emotional intelligence. Razi J Med Sci. 2020; 27(1): 73-84.
Linick J. Attachment: Theory, application & clinical tools. Not Just Bad Kids: Elsevier. 2022: 39-66.
Schmitt M, Gollwitzer M, Maes J, Arbach D. Justice sensitivity: Assessment and Location in the Personality Space. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2005; 21(3): 202-211.
Philipp R, Krüger A, Lindner R, Mehnert-Theuerkauf A, Vehling S. Understanding avoidant attachment in a patient with terminal cancer: A psychoanalytic perspective. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy. 2022; 17: 1-19.
Sigelman CK, Rider EA. Life-span human development. No Place: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company; 2003.
- Abstract Viewed: 657 times