For over 70 years, research has tackled the issue of academic misconduct in the university setting. However, a review of the literature reveals that (a) consensus on the magnitude of such behavior has not been reached, and, (b) no one with expertise in quantitative methodology has attempted to classify the behaviors that describe cheaters until Ferrell and Daniel proposed the use of the Academic Misconduct Survey (AMS). Even they, following their 1995 study, made a call for the development of understandable (...) constructs in the measurement of cheating. Seventeen years later, the present study sought to produce such constructs. In a series of three phases of data collection, 4,100 participants completed a revised version of the AMS. A factor solution containing five factors proved to be the most interpretable. The five factors are as follows: creative padding, interactive cheating, false personal excuses, taking credit for others’ work, exam cheating. The present paper outlines the constructs proposed and discusses implications in this area for (1) scholars within the area of measurement and (2) educators with regard to student accountability and performance. (shrink)

What effect does witnessing other students cheat have on one's own cheating behavior? What roles do moral attitudes and neutralizing attitudes (justifications for behavior) play when deciding to cheat? The present research proposes a model of academic dishonesty which takes into account each of these variables. Findings from experimental (vignette) and survey methods determined that seeing others cheat increases cheating behavior by causing students to judge the behavior less morally reprehensible, not by making rationalization easier. Witnessing cheating also has unique (...) effects, controlling for other variables. (shrink)

Cheaters and noncheaters were assessed on 2 types of motivation, on perceived social norms regarding cheating, on attitudes about cheating, and on knowledge of institutional policy regarding cheating behavior. All 5 factors were significant predictors of cheating rates. In addition, cheaters were found lower in mastery motivation and higher in extrinsic motivation in courses in which they cheated than in courses in which they did not cheat. Cheaters, in courses in which they cheated, were also lower in mastery motivation and (...) higher in extrinsic motivation than were noncheaters. Finally, cheaters differed from noncheaters on perceived social norms regarding cheating, on their knowledge of institutional policy regarding cheating, and on their attitudes toward cheating. Implications of these findings for institutional interventions are discussed. (shrink)

One hundred and ninety‐six Israeli middle‐school students participated in a study that explored the effects of moral orientation (moral versus conventional)and of three situational variables on attitudes toward two types of cheating in school exams—copying from others (‘active’)and letting others copy (‘passive’). Several vignettes that were comprised of different combinations of the three situational variables—exam importance, supervision level and peers' norms—were used as the main instrument. It was found that a‐morally oriented students approved significantly more of cheating than morally oriented (...) students. Importance of exam had marginally significant effects on active copying. Level of supervision during exam and classmates' norms had significant effects on both active and passive cheating attitudes. (shrink)

This study investigated students? perceptions of their own and their peers? academic dishonesty (AD), their reasons for this dishonesty, their achievement goals, and their willingness to report AD (WRAD) within a Chinese cultural context. The results identified students? belief that their peers had a greater likelihood of engaging in AD and had more motivation to do so than did the students themselves. Gender and academic major did not affect students? WRAD. However, students were significantly more willing to report classmates than (...) friends. In terms of the participants? self-perceptions and peer perceptions concerning motivations for AD, more female students cited the lack of penalties as the reason for their own and their peers? AD, whereas male students more frequently cited their lack of attention to schoolwork as the reason for their own AD. In contrast to students in the social sciences, business students more frequently cited inadequate capabilities as the reason for their AD, and engineering students more frequently attributed their AD to self-interest. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that three motivations for AD (opportunism, inadequacy, and self-promotion) could positively predict AD, whereas mastery-approach goals could negatively predict AD. (shrink)