Some students do not cheat. Students high in measures of bravery, honesty, and empathy, our defining characteristics of heroism, report less past cheating than other students. These student heroes also reported that they would feel more guilt if they cheated and also reported less intent to cheat in the future than nonheroes. We find general consensus between students and professors as to reasons for the nonreporting of cheating, suggesting a general impression of insufficient evidence, lack of courage, and denial. Suggested (...) interventions in academia are based in positive psychology and an understanding of academic heroes. (shrink)

Cheating is a serious issue among business students worldwide. However, research investigating the social factors that may help prevent cheating in Chinese higher education is rare. The present study examined two key social relationship factors of perceived teacher-student relationships and peer relationships by the students. It attempted to build a model which addressed the effects of two variables on Chinese business students’ cheating behaviour: the teacher’s approachability and the relationship goal of the students. Two important social influence factors were also (...) tested as mediators: neutralizing attitudes and perceived cheating norms of the students. A student survey was conducted with 1329 questionnaires collected. The results showed the negative effects of both social relationship variables on cheating, and that their effects were fully mediated by neutralizing attitudes. Moreover, perceived cheating norms fully mediated the effect of the teacher’s approachability, but not so for the relationship goal of the students. This study provided novel insights and recommendations for promoting academic integrity in Chinese business schools and universities. (shrink)

The purpose of the present studies was to evaluate and predict academic cheating with regard to a national examination in a Middle East country. In Study 1, 4,024 students took part and potential cheaters were classified as those having discrepant scores in multiple administrations that exceeded 1 SD in absolute terms. A latent class mixture analysis suggested two pathways for potential cheating: (a) The first path involved students—most male—who changed city or region of examination during test taking, and (b) the (...) second path described students—most male—who did not change city, region, or center of administration. Study 2 profiled cheaters using a sample of examinees who were actually caught cheating. Participants were 545 students, 253 of whom were caught cheating between 2002 and 2012. Both samples were selected from a pool of 319,219 testees using random sampling procedures. Results indicated that a 4-class solution best fitted the data as in Study 1. Furthermore, a predictive model was tested with an independent cross-validation sample of 112 examinees (56 cheaters, 56 noncheaters). Results indicated that the model classified correctly 78.57 of the new cheating cases (sensitivity) and 94.64% of noncheaters (specificity). (shrink)

College cheating is prevalent, with rates ranging widely from 9 to 95%. Research has been exclusively conducted with enrolled college students. This study examined the prevalence of cheating in a sample of college alumni, who risk less in disclosing academic dishonesty than current students. A total of 273 alumni reported on their prevalence and perceived severity of 19 cheating behaviors. The vast majority of participants report having engaged in some form of cheating during their undergraduate career. The most common forms (...) of cheating were “copying from another student's assignment” and “allowing others to copy from your assignment.” More students reported cheating in classes for their major than other classes. Males and females cheated at the same rates in classes for their major, and males reported higher rates of cheating than females in nonmajor classes. Respondents reported that their top reasons for cheating were “lack of time” and “to help a friend.”. (shrink)

A controlled experiment was conducted with a cohort of graduate accounting students, which involved a mild form of deception during a class ethics quiz. One of the answers to a difficult question was inadvertently revealed by a visiting scholar, which allowed students an opportunity to use the answer in order to maximise test scores and qualify for a reward. Despite an attempt to sensitize students prior to the test to the importance of moral codes of conduct, a high incidence of (...) cheating was reported. Students who took the opportunity to cheat were more condoning of the behaviour compared to control group members and this difference in attitudes was consistent regardless of the intensity of the issue specified in the survey. The cognitive dissonance associated with the academic dishonesty is believed to reveal behavioural orientations that reflect conscious and unconscious desires to alleviate the discomfort associated with the behaviour by attempting to condone it. This inappropriate behaviour appears to attract students professing no religious faith and is significantly influenced by the reported level of religious commitment. (shrink)

Forty-four high school students took part in focus-type group that used an induced hypocrisy paradigm developed from cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) to reduce cheating behavior. Posttesting following the intervention showed that, contrary to expectations, these students' attitudes toward cheating and self-reported cheating behaviors did not decrease relative to those of 65 control participants who did not participate in the group intervention. All participants reported a greater intention to cheat in the future at posttest as well as an increase in (...) cheating behavior. Although participants did not view cheating favorably, a large majority admitted cheating and indicated that they had never been caught. (shrink)

This study examines ethical transgressions of school psychology graduate students using the critical incidents technique. Program directors of school psychology programs listed in the Directory of School Psychology Graduate Programs were asked to describe ethical violations committed by their students during the past 5 years. Violations dealt primarily with issues involving confidentiality, competence, and professional and academic honesty. Directors believed that the majority of students would not find most ethical issues problematic. Implications for training are discussed.

The purpose of the present study was to predict and explain the academic cheating behaviors of elementary school students with learning disabilities by applying the cusp catastrophe model. Participants were 32 students with identified LD from state governmental agencies although all both them and the typical students participated in the experimental manipulation. Academic cheating was assessed using an empirical paradigm where true achievement was subtracted from achievement in a test without proper invigilation. Data analysis supported the proposed cusp catastrophe models, (...) where mastery-related motives acted as asymmetry and performance goals as bifurcation variables respectively. These findings were confirmed with application of the interactive goal hypothesis, where the interactive approach and avoidance performance goal term functioned as a splitting factor in the relationship between adaptive motivation and performance. (shrink)

In this study, we examined students' attitudes toward cheating and whether they would report instances of cheating they witnessed. Data were collected from three educational institutions in Singapore. A total of 518 students participated in the study. Findings suggest that students perceived cheating behaviors involving exam-related situations to be serious, whereas plagiarism was rated as less serious. Cheating in the form of not contributing one's fair share in a group project was also perceived as a serious form of academic misconduct, (...) although a majority of the students admitted having engaged in such behavior. With regard to the prevalence of academic cheating, our findings suggest that students are morally ambivalent about academic cheating and are rather tolerant of dishonesty among their peers. On the issue of whether cheating behaviors should be reported, our findings revealed that a majority of students chose to take the expedient measure of ignoring the problem rather than to blow the whistle on their peers. Implications of our findings are discussed. (shrink)

To address growing concerns about academic integrity, college students (n?=?758) at honor system and non-honor system institutions were presented with eight scenarios to determine the influence of an honor system on their perceptions of and responses to academic dishonesty. Main effects for honor code status emerged. Students from traditional honor system schools considered the behaviors to be more dishonest, and were more likely to respond that they would report the incident when compared to students attending modified and non-honor system institutions. (...) Findings suggest traditional honor systems, with specific rules and regulations in place, are more effective at cultivating academic integrity among students; modified honor systems may not be as effective as previous research suggests. (shrink)

For over half a century there have been concerns about increases in the occurrence of academic misconduct by higher education students and this is now claimed to have reached crisis proportions (e.g. Mostrous & Kenber, 2016a ). This study explores the extent to which multi-national faculty judge the effectiveness of higher education institutions in dealing with such misconduct. A survey of multi-national higher education faculty was conducted to explore the perceived barriers to the implementation of academic integrity processes. It asked (...) faculty how likely some hypothetical scenarios of failures of such processes were to occur in the real world of higher education institutions. 63% of our participants perceived there to be institutional and/or faculty barriers to effectively dealing with academic misconduct. Mostly, they blamed the higher education model for this which, in the interests of mass education, has come to prioritise the need for institutions to focus more on their quantity of output as corporate business enterprises than on the integrity of their output as educators. In discussing participants’ comments, about the relationship of faculty to their employing institutions, Schein and Scheins’ ( 2016 ) theory of three levels of organisational culture was used. Participants’ comments suggested that, at the deepest level of organisational culture i.e. basic underlying taken-for-granted assumptions about beliefs and values, inadequate integrity measures have tended to become normalised. Despite the often considerable, efforts of the institutions, organisational barriers were noted which mitigate against faculty behaving professionally i.e. from doing a ‘good job’ in respect of student academic misconduct. Some blame was also placed on faculty. We argue that apparent institutional inability to effectively manage the integrity process, has potentially significant consequences for wider society. We discuss ways in which this situation might be improved including a recommendation that governments regulate this aspect of the corporate social responsibility of higher education institutions as they do other aspects, requiring that it be managed effectively. (shrink)

The present study aimed at investigating the status of cheating on exams in the Iranian EFL context. One hundred thirty two university students were surveyed to this end. They were selected through convenient sampling. The results indicated that cheating is quite common among the Iranian language students. The most important reasons for this behavior were found to be “not being ready for the exam”, “difficulty of the exam”, “lack of time to study” and “careless and lenient instructors”. The study also (...) indicated that the most common methods of cheating are “talking to the adjacent individuals”, “copying from others' test papers”, and “using gestures to get the answers from others”. It was also found that the student’s field of study, academic level, and occupational status had a significant effect on cheating whereas gender and marital status had no effect in this regard. Furthermore, it became clear that field of study and occupational status had a significant effect on students’ attitude toward cheating whereas gender, academic level and marital status had no effect. Finally, the study indicated that age significantly correlated with cheating and attitude toward cheating. (shrink)

Most research on student plagiarism defines the concept very narrowly or with much ambiguity. Many studies focus on plagiarism involving large swaths of text copied and pasted from unattributed sources, a type of plagiarism that the overwhelming majority of students seem to have little trouble identifying. Other studies rely on ambiguous definitions, assuming students understand what the term means and requesting that they self-report how well they understand the concept. This study attempts to avoid these problems by examining student perceptions (...) of more complex citation issues. We presented 240 students with a series of examples, asked them to indicate whether or not each should be considered plagiarism, and followed up with a series of demographic and attitudinal questions. The examples fell within the spectrum of inadequate citation, patchwriting, and the reuse of other people’s ideas. Half were excerpted from publicized cases of academic plagiarism, and half were modified from other sources. Our findings indicated that students shared a very strong agreement that near verbatim copy and paste and patchwriting should be considered plagiarism, but that they were much more conflicted regarding the reuse of ideas. Additionally, this study found significant correlation between self-reported confidence in their understanding and the identification of more complex cases as plagiarism, but this study found little correlation between academic class status or exposure to plagiarism detection software and perceptions of plagiarism. The latter finding goes against a prevailing sentiment in the academic literature that the ability to recognize plagiarism is inherently linked to academic literacy. Overall, our findings indicate that more pedagogical emphasis may need to be placed on complex forms of plagiarism. (shrink)

Evidence is provided on faculty use of cheating deterrents for in-class exams. The evidence comes from a survey of students who report on their most recent in-class exam in a randomly selected course that they are taking. Three types of cheating are considered: (i) advance knowledge of exam questions; (ii) copying; and (iii) other improper student actions during the exam. The deterrents examined consist of the following: (i) a rate of repeating questions; (ii) multiple versions of the exam and seating (...) arrangements; and (iii) monitoring. The sample size is small but may cover about one-fourth of the faculty at the institution at which the survey was conducted. (shrink)

Student cheating has always been a problem in higher education, but detection of cheating has become easier with technology. As a result, more students are being caught and reported for cheating. While reporting cheating is not a negative, the rippling effects of reported cheating may be felt by some populations more than others. Thus, preventing cheating would be a preferable option for all involved.Identifying those at risk for being reported for cheating is a first step in developing preventive measures. Previous (...) research has attempted to do this through the use of self-report surveys, but such research takes considerable time and resources to conduct and suffers from low response rates and social desirability bias. To address this limitation in existing research, this study links existing data from records of other-reported cheating to university registration data in order to examine 6 cheating risk factors identified in previous research: maturity level, gender, grade point average, major, international student status, and fear of punishment. The results of the study suggest that international and transfer students, particularly those who are male, in high-risk majors, and have lower grade point averages, are in particular need of preventative education. Likewise, those faculty who teach in computer science, engineering and economics majors should do more to educate implement practices to reduce the likelihood of cheating. (shrink)

Numerous academic studies and reports indicate that as many as half of all students cheat on exams. Cheating on exams undermines the central purpose of a university, corrupts the meaning of grades as a measure of subject matter mastery, and significantly harms honest students. Although instructors are aware that many students cheat and they clearly oppose the behavior, they do little to punish cheaters. Accusing, prosecuting and convicting cheaters are time intensive, stressful and potentially costly activities for which faculty members (...) receive few rewards. In this paper, we derive an equation to estimate the benefit that can be gained by a student who copies on a multiple choice exam. We then propose an exam design that not only eliminates the benefit, but also proportionately punishes cheaters, with little to no cost to instructors. Moreover, the exam system we propose can allow an instructor to determine, with a high degree of certainty, the odds that any student seated anywhere in the classroom cheated on any part of the exam. (shrink)

Despite recent growth in distance education, there has been relatively little research on whether online examinations facilitate student cheating. The present paper utilizes an experimental design to assess the difference in student performance between students taking a traditional, proctored exam and those taking an online, unproctored exam. This difference in performance is examined in a manner which considers both the effect of the different physical test environments and the possible effect of a difference in the opportunity for students to cheat. (...) This study, utilizing regression models that also account for relevant control variables, examines 44 undergraduate statistics students, finds evidence that the difference in the testing environment creates a disadvantage to students taking the online exam which somewhat offsets the advantage that the unproctored students gain from greater opportunities to cheat. (shrink)

Dealing with students who cheat can be one of the most stressful interactions that faculty encounter. This study focused on faculty responses to academic integrity violations and utilized the Theory of Planned Behaviour model to predict the target behaviour of whether faculty would speak face-to-face with a student suspected of cheating. After an elicitation phase to determine modal salient beliefs, a questionnaire was developed to measure the model’s variables. The respondent database contained 206 tenured and non-tenured faculty from two large (...) comprehensive universities. A stepwise multiple regression demonstrated the usefulness of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Overall the model explained 43 % of the variance in predicting faculty members’ intention to speak face-to-face with a student suspected of cheating. The most significant contribution was made by subjective norms ( β = 0.39), followed by attitude ( β = 0.34), and perceived behavioural control ( β = 0.24). (shrink)

In this study, 40.3% of faculty members admitted to ignoring student cheating on one or more occasions. The quality of past experience in dealing with academic integrity violations was examined. Faculty members with previous bad experiences were more likely to prefer dealing with cheating by ignoring it. The data were further analysed to determine beliefs and attitudes that distinguish between faculty who have never ignored an instance of cheating and those who indicated that they have ignored one or more instances (...) in the past. The stated reasons for ignoring cheating included insufficient evidence, triviality of the offense, and insufficient time; however, it was demonstrated that faculty who ignored academic integrity violations felt more stressed when speaking to students about cheating, preferred to avoid emotionally charged situations, and indicated that if a student were likely to become emotional, they were less likely to speak to him or her. (shrink)

This study examines the methods students use to cheat on class examinations and suggests ways of deterring using an international sample from Australia, China, Ireland, and the United States. We also examine the level of cheating and reasons for cheating that prior research has highlighted as a method of demonstrating that our sample is equivalent to those in prior studies. Our results confirm the results of prior research that primarily employs students from the United States. The data indicate that actions (...) such as having multiple versions of the examination and scrambling the questions on these versions would deter cheating. In addition, given the increased level of cheating and students' increased perception of the social acceptability of cheating in college, the data provided by our international sample also suggest that some relatively simple precautions by instructors could dramatically reduce the level of cheating on in-class examinations. (shrink)

Only a small proportion of academically dishonest students ever receive an official report of academic dishonesty, and the sociology of deviance literature is ripe with studies illustrating disproportionalities in detecting, policing, and prosecuting crimes. This study addresses the degree to which disproportionalities exist in the application of relatively few official sanctions levied upon students for academic dishonesty. I compared the demographics of those who have been reported for cheating with those of an entire undergraduate student body and of self-reported cheaters (...) in the literature. I found that international students are much more likely than domestic students to get reported. (shrink)

Academic staff owe a duty of fidelity to uphold institutional standards of integrity. They also have their own values and conceptions of integrity as well as personal responsibilities and commitments. The question of how academic practitioners address or reconcile conflicting values and responsibilities has been underexplored in the literature. Before we can examine effectiveness of academic integrity strategies and develop best practices, we need to examine the breadth of integrity decisions. To this end we posited the academic integrity problem as (...) a set of seven dilemmas and presented them to post-secondary education staff located in Europe, North America, Oceania, and Asia. We asked the participants to recommend a solution to each dilemma. This yielded a modest sample of 498 themes across 30 categories. We expected the responses to fall on a binary scale where decisions either support the integrity or ignore it. However, the data suggests that academic integrity decisions are better suited to continuum where participants aim to reconcile personal and institutional obligations. We further argue that academic integrity decisions are predicated on personal experience and therefore pose a challenge for policy standardization and enforcement. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of the findings for practice. (shrink)