Cheating is fairly commonplace at both Tiers 1 and 2 AACSB accredited business schools. Distinct differences exist between Tiers 1 and 2 students with regard to cheating. Tier 1 students are more likely to cheat on written assignments, they believe sanctions impact cheating, and that a stigma is attached to cheating. Tier 2 students are more likely to cheat on exams, and nearly as likely to cheat on written assignments. Tier 2 students accept the notion that moral and ethical people (...) cheat. Tier 2 students who are Business Administration majors, those who are employed 40 h or more per week, married students, and married students with children are more likely to cheat. At both Tiers 1 and 2 schools Asian students are less likely to cheat, but resident members of fraternities and sororities and those who drink frequently are more likely to cheat. (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)

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)

This study explored the relationship of current incidences of academic dishonesty with future norm/rule-violating behavior. Data were collected from 154 college students enrolled in introductory and upper-level psychology students at a large Midwest public university who received credit for participating. The sample included students from many different majors and all years of study. Participants completed a self-report survey that included a measure of Academic Dishonesty (including three subscales: Self-Dishonest, Social Falsifying, and Plagiarism) and an Imagined Futures Scale (five subscales that (...) included Norm/Rule Violating, Physically Threatening, Culturally Diverse, Emotionally Distressing, and Agentic Futures). Correlation analyses indicated a significant positive relationship between all three Academic Dishonesty subscales and an imagined norm/rule-violating future. Further, regression analyses revealed social falsifying as being significantly predictive of a norm/ rule-violating future. Suggestions are made alerting educators to the importance of monitoring and discouraging academic dishonesty as it may lead to rule-violating behavior in the future. (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)