Traditional approaches to measurement of violations of academic integrity may overestimate the magnitude and severity of cheating and confound panic with planned cheating. Differences in the severity and level of premeditation of academic integrity violations have largely been unexamined. Results of a study based on a combined sample of business students showed that students are more likely to commit minor cheating offenses and engage in panic-based cheating as compared to serious and planned cheating offenses. Results also indicated there is a (...) significant interaction between severity and type of cheating. We hypothesized serious and planned cheating offenses would be related to justifications and found the largest differences were between panic and planned. Finally, panic and minor cheating were associated with two self-control-related personality traits. Implications for cheating research are discussed. (shrink)

More is known about the pervasiveness of college cheating than reasons why students cheat. This article reports the results of a study that applied the theory of reasoned action and partial least squares methodology to analyze the responses of 144 students to a survey on cheating behavior. Approximately 60% of the business students and 64% of the non-business students admitted to such behavior. Among cheaters, a "desire to get ahead" was the most important motivating factor - a surprising result given (...) the comprehensive set of factors tested in the study. Among non-cheaters, the presence of a "moral anchor" such as an ethical professor was most important. The article also includes a set of important caveats that might limit this study and suggests some avenues for further study. (shrink)

A sample of students from a private, multicampus, midsize university completed 2 copies of Gardner and Melvin's (1988) Attitudes Toward Cheating Scale a semester before the implementation of a modified honor code. The authors instructed students to complete 1 copy of the scale according to their own opinions and the other copy according to what they thought would be the opinion of a "typical college professor." During the following semester when the honor code went into effect, the authors recruited a (...) second sample of 1st-year students and asked them to complete the 2 scales in the same manner. Although both samples of students reported attitudes toward cheating that were significantly more tolerant than the attitudes they ascribed to professors, scores were virtually identical for both samples. The authors speculate that variables associated with how the honor code was implemented, together with certain demographic characteristics of the institution, mediated the results obtained. (shrink)