Explanation of Computer Violations among University Students: An Empirical Application of Rational Choice Theory

Document Type : Case Study

Authors

• Akbar Aliverdinia ¹
• Nader Razeghi ²
• Esmail Nazari ³
• Dariush Ghahramanian ⁴

¹ Professor in Sociology, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

² Associate Professor in Sociology, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

³ MA in Social Research, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

⁴ PhD Candidate in Sociology, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/social.2024.85184.1442

Abstract

Internet and computer technology is a very important and extensive resource that has a great impact on people’s personal and professional life. Considering the increase in the number of users and the growing concerns on computer technology (such as fraud, harassment, hacking, virus transmission, unauthorized access to personal information), it is important for academics and professionals to investigate the prevalence of these behaviors among users and why people are involved in such activities. This study aimed to investigate computer violations among students of Mazandaran University using rational choice theory. A questionnaire was used as a tool for collecting the data needed for the survey. The population consisted of all students of Mazandaran University (13,428 people) in the academic year of 2014-2016, of which 400 people were selected using stratified sampling. SPSS software was used for data analysis. The descriptive results of the research indicated that the mean of computer crimes committed by students between 0 and 4 is 0.29. In addition, the results of the regression analysis showed that the independent research variables (self-control, utilitarian need, informal sanction, moral beliefs, perceptual pleasure and thrills, investment, and attachment), were able to explain 0.32% of the changes related to computer violations among the students of Mazandaran University. The results of multiple regression showed that the variables of perceptual pleasure and emotion (effect coefficient = 0.28), moral beliefs (effect coefficient = -0.23), family dependence (effect coefficient = -0.14), and investment (effect coefficient = 10. -0), respectively, have the most significant impact on the students’ computer violations. Moreover, the results indicated that the variables of self-control, utilitarian need, and informal punishment do not have a significant impact on computer violations.
 

Keywords

• Rational Choice
• Perceptual Pleasure and Excitement
• Computer Violations
• Computer Technology

References

1. ابراهیم‌پور، ا. (1400). مروری بر جرائم رایانه‌ای و تبیین ماهیت تاریخی و تقنینی آن. قضاوت، 21(107)، 157-179.
2. امیریان، ا.، مالمیر، م.، و حیدری، م. (1400). تحلیل قانون جرایم رایانه‌ای در بستر جرم‌شناسی نظری. مجله علوم خبری، 1(37)، 224-199.
3. براتی، ع. (1401). بررسی جرم کلاه‌برداری رایانه‌ای در نظام حقوقی ایران و انگلستان. مجله قانون‌یار، 6(22)، 21-32.
4. بهره‌مند، ح.، و داوودی، ذ. (1397)، پیشگیری اجتماعی از جرایم امنیتی سایبری. مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، 1(48)، 46-27.
5. حسینی‌نثار، م.، و فیوضات، آ. (1390). نظریه‌های انحرافات اجتماعی. تهران: انتشارات پژواک.
6. دالوند، س.، و حاجی ده ‌آبادی، م. (1395). بررسی جرم‌شناختی جرایم رایانه‌ای در کشور ایران. مقاله ارائه شده در اولین همایش ملی آینده پژوهی، علوم انسانی و امنیت اجتماعی، خرم آباد.
7. دیلمی معزی، ن.، اسماعیلی، م.، و حاجی‌تبار، ح. (1400). راهکارهای تقویت سیاست جنایی مشارکتی ایران در جرایم رایانه‌ای در پرتو رویه اتحادیه اروپا. ماهنامه علمی جامعه‌شناسی سیاسی ایران، 5(2)، 509-457.
8. ذوالفقاری، س.، و توانگر، ع. (1398). سیاست تقنینی جمهوری اسلامی ایران در زمینه جرایم رایانه‌ای. مجله مطالعات حقوقی بین‌الملل، 19(1)، 163-198.
9. سایت پژوهشکده آمار. (1399). https://srtc.ac.ir
10. سایت پلیس فتا. (1399). https://cyberpolice.ir
11. صفدری، ا.، و بابائی‌پور، ه. (1401). نگاهی حقوقی به پیدایش جرایم رایانه‌ای. دستاوردهای نوین در مطالعات علوم انسانی، 5(54)، 1-8.
12. علیوردی نیا، ا.، و قهرمانیان، د. (1395). مطالعه جامعه‌شناختی رفتارهای انحرافی دانشجویان: کاربست تجربی نظریه انتخاب عقلانی. جامعه‌شناسی نهادهای اجتماعی، 3(8)، 42-9.
13. علیوردی نیا، ا.، ملک‌دار، ا.، و حسنی، م. (1393). تخلفات رایانه‌ای در میان دانشجویان دانشگاه مازندران: آزمون تجربی نظریه یادگیری اجتماعی ایکرز. مجله جامعه شناسی ایران، 15(2)، 56-24.
14. علیوردی‌نیا، ا.، و انواری، ا. (1394). جرایم سایبری در ایران، مصادق جرایم سایبری و راهکارهای مقابله با آن. مقاله ارائه‌شده در کنفرانس بین‌المللی علوم انسانی، تهران: مرکز همایش‌های بین‌المللی صدا و سیما.
15. علیورد‌ی‌نیا، ا.، و میرزایی، س. (1395). تبیین نگرش دانشجویان نسبت به مصرف الکل از دیدگاه نظریه انتخاب عقلانی. مطالعات و تحقیقات اجتماعی در ایران، 5(4)، 539-511.
16. علیوردی‌نیا، ا.، قربانعلی، ا.، و صالح نژاد، ص. (1390). بررسی جامعه‌شناختی تاثیر انتخاب‌های عقلانی بر رفتارهای انحرافی: مطالعه موردی دانشجویان دانشگاه ارومیه. بررسی مسائل اجتماعی ایران، ١(56)، 168-143.
17. محمدی برزگر، ج. (1399). موانع و راهکارهای پیشگیری انتظامی از جرایم هرزه‌نگاری در فضای سایبر. انتظام اجتماعی، 12(4)، 164-141.
18. میر خلیلی، م. (1388). پیشگیری وضعی از بزهکاری با نگاهی به سیاست جنایی اسلام. تهران: سازمان انتشارات پژوهشگاه فرهنگ و اندیشه اسلامی.
19. ویلیامز، ف.، و مک‌شین، م. (1393). نظریه‌های جرم‌شناسی (ح. ملک‌محمدی، مترجم). تهران: نشر میزان.

 

20. Abdulai, M. A. (2020). Examining the effect of victimization experience on fear of cybercrime: University students' experience of credit/debit card fraud. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 14(1), 157-174.
21. Agnew, R. (1990). The origins of delinquent events: An examination of offender accounts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,27(3), 267-294.
22. Akers, R. L. (1990). Rational choice, deterrence, and social learning theory in criminology: The path not taken. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(3), 653-676.
23. Aliverdinia, A., & Pridemore, W. A. (2007). A first glimpse at narcotics offenders in an Islamic Republic a test of an integrated model of drug involvement among a sample of men incarcerated for drug offenses in Iran. International Criminal Justice Review, 17(1), 27-44.
24. Baker, D. (2015). Mass higher education and the super research university. International Higher Education, 1(49).9-11.
25. Bohm, R. M., & Vogel, B. (2010). A primer on crime and delinquency theory. Cengage Learning.
26. Broadhurst, R., Skinner, K., Sifniotis, N., Matamoros-Macias, B., & Ipsen, Y. (2019). Phishing and Cybercrime Risks in a University Student Community. International Journal of Cyber security Intelligence and Cybercrime, 2(1), 4-23.
27. Cherry, A. (1993). Combining cluster and discriminant analysis to develop a social bond topology of runaway youth. Journal of Research on Social Work Practice, 3(2), 175-190.
28. Choi, K. S. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 308-333.
29. Christo, G., & Franey, C. (1995). Drug users' spiritual beliefs, locus of control and the disease concept in relation to Narcotics Anonymous attendance and six-month outcomes. Journal of Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 38(1), 51-56.
30. Clarke, R. V. G., & Felson, M. (Eds.). (1993). Routine activity and rational choice(Vol. 5). Transaction Publishers.
31. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, (16), 41-96.
32. Donner, C. M., Jennings, W. G., & Banfield, J. (2015). The general nature of online and off-line offending among college students. Social Science Computer Review, 33(6), 663-679.‏
33. Dornbusch, S. M., Erickson, K. G., Laird, J., & Wong, C. A. (2001). The relation of family and school attachment to adolescent deviance in diverse groups and communities. Journal of Adolescent Research, 16(4), 396-422.
34. Felson, M., & Clarke, R. V. G. (1998). Opportunity makes the thief: Practical theory for crime prevention(Vol. 98). London: Home Office, Policing and Reducing Crime Unit, Research, Development and Statistics Director.    
35. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5-29.
36. Guerette, R. T., & Santana, S. A. (2010). Explaining victim self-protective behavior effects on crime incident outcomes: A test of opportunity theory. Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 198-226.
37. Higgins, G. E, Marcum. D, Freiburger, T. L & Ricketts, M. L. (2012). Examining the role of peer influence and self-control on downloading Deviant Behavior, 33(5), 412-423.
38. Higgins, G. E., Wolfe, S. E., & Marcum, C. D. (2008). Digital piracy and neutralization: A trajectory analysis from short-term longitudinal data. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(2), 324-336.
39. , J., Bossler, M., & May, C. (2010). Low self-control, deviant peer associations and juvenile cyber deviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 378-395.
40. Kong, J., & Lim, J. (2012). The longitudinal influence of parent–child relationships and depression on cyber delinquency in South Korean adolescents: A latent growth curve model. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 908–913.
41. Krohn, M. D., Lizotte, A. J., & Hall, G. P. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook on crime and deviance. Cham: Springer Science & Business Media.
42. Li, H., Luo, X. R., Zhang, J., & Sarathy, R. (2018). Self-control, organizational context, and rational choice in Internet abuses at work. Information & Management, 55(3), 358-367.‏
43. Li, H., Zhang, J., & Sarathy, R. (2010). Understanding compliance with internet use policy from the perspective of rational choice theory. Decision Support Systems, 48(4), 635-645.
44. Matsueda, R. L., Kreager, D. A., & Huizinga, D. (2006). Deterring delinquents: A rational choice model of theft and violence. American Sociological Review, 71(1), 95-122.
45. Mehlkop, G., & Graeff, P. (2010). Modelling a rational choice theory of criminal action: Subjective expected utilities, norms, and interactions. Rationality and Society, 22(2), 189-222.
46. Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, (27), 467-496.
47. Özbay, Ö., & Özcan, Y. Z. (2006). A test of Hirschi’s social bonding theory juvenile delinquency in the high schools of Ankara, Turkey.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(6), 711-726.
48. Paternoster, R. (1989). Decisions to participate in and desist from four types of common delinquency: Deterrence and the rational choice perspective. Law and Society Review, 23(4), 7-40.
49. Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 549-583.
50. Seipel, C., & Eifler, S. (2008). Opportunities, rational choice, and self-control: On the interaction of person and situation in a general theory of crime. Crime & Delinquency, 56(2), 167-197.
51. Shechory, M., & Laufer, A. (2008). Social control theory and the connection with ideological offenders among Israeli youth during the Gaza Disengagement Period. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52(4), 454-473.
52. Shoemaker, D. J. (2009). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of delinquent behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
53. Smith, R. G. (2010). Identity theft and fraud. In Handbook of Internet crime (pp. 273-301). Willan Publishing.
54. Sung, H. E., & Richter, L. (2007). Rational choice and environmental deterrence in the retention of mandated drug abuse treatment clients. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51(6), 686702.
55. Tittle, C. (2000). Theoretical developments in criminology. Criminal Justice, 1, 51-101.
56. Tittle, C. R., Ward, D. A., & Grasmick, H. G. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(4), 333-365.
57. Vito, G. F., Maahs, J. R., & Holmes, R. M. (2005). Criminology: Theory, Research, and Policy. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
58. Walsh, A., & Hemmens, C. (2010). Introduction to criminology: A text/reader. Sage.
59. Wilsem, J. V. (2013). Hacking and harassment—Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(4), 437-453.
60. Wordu, H., Uche, C., & Wali, C.B. (2022). Influence of computer-related crimes on adolescent delinquency among secondary school students in Obio-Akpor local government area rivers State. International Journal of Contemporary Academic Research, 3(1), 52-64.