The study employs a sequential explanatory mixed-method design and aims to understand contract cheating behavior by conducting a survey of 1,081 undergraduate students in Indonesia and following up with five respondents to explore those results in more depth. In the first quantitative phase, we collected a variety of information from questionnaires about students’ practice with contract cheating. However, the interviews provided considerable depth of the students’ experiences, motivations, and attitudes toward contract cheating. Of the 1,081 participants, 73 students (6.75%) reported (...) engaging in contract cheating. The survey responses revealed preliminary insight into students’ experiences with contract cheating and the prevalence of this phenomenon in Indonesia. In the semi-structured interviews with a subsample of survey participants (n = 5), we applied the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to elicit attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral controls toward contract cheating. Our study revealed that students will have a higher chance of pursuing contract cheating when: (a) they believe that contract cheating provides various benefits (positive attitude toward contract cheating), (b) many of their friends are doing the same thing and expect them to do the same (subjective norms), and (c) they can control their contract cheating behavior to avoid being caught (perceived behavioral control). (shrink)

Contract cheating refers to students paying a third party to complete university assessments for them. Although opportunities for comercial contract cheating are widely available in the form of essay mills, only about 3% of students engage in this behaviour. This study examined the reasons why most students do not engage in contract cheating. Students (n = 1291) completed a survey on why they do not engage in contract cheating as well as measures of several individual differences, including self-control, grit and (...) the Dark Triad traits. Motivation for learning and morality received the greatest endorsement for why students do not engage in contract cheating. Controlling for gender, individual differences predicted students’ reasons for not contract cheating. This study supports the use of criminological theories relating to self-control and opportunity to explain why students do not engage in contract cheating. Practically, this study may inform academic policies and assessment design that may reduce contract cheating. (shrink)

Contract cheating services are marketing to students at discipline level, using increasingly sophisticated techniques. The discipline level reach of these services has not been widely considered in the academic integrity literature. Much of the academic understanding of contract cheating is not discipline specific, but the necessary solutions to this problem may need to vary by discipline. This paper reviews current knowledge about contract cheating services at the discipline level, including summarising four studies that rank the relative volume of contract cheating (...) within different academic disciplines. The reviewed studies show high volumes of contract cheating transactions in the disciplines of Business and Computing. Examples of discipline level contract cheating research and service advertising are provided. The main contribution of the paper is an analysis of the discipline level reach by contract cheating services as seen through an analysis of Google search results from the United Kingdom. This analysis of 19 discipline groups uses measures of organic search engine results, paid results and competition. Three discipline groups are shown as currently being heavily exploited by essay mills; these are: Architecture, Building and Planning, Computer Science and Law. In addition, the discipline group of Creative Arts and Design is shown to be at risk of future exploitation. The paper recommends that academics are made aware about continual change in the contract cheating industry including the involved marketing taking place at discipline level. The paper concludes with a call to action for academia to develop discipline specific solutions to contract cheating. (shrink)

A total of 1390 university students from five public Moldovan universities completed a survey reporting their experiences and beliefs with respect to 22 types of academic misconduct. An interpretable five-factor solution to the frequencies of these behaviors accounted for more than half of the total variance. The two most reliable predictors were 1) how often students witnessed other students engage in these behaviors, and 2) perceived acceptability of the behaviors. Demographic predictors of these behaviors (gender, academic specialty, year in school, (...) institution, grade average, and scholarship status) predicted minimal variance. Implications and limitations of the findings are discussed. (shrink)