"A diminishing sense of academic integrity" is one reason for academic dishonesty (Davis et al., 1992). Today, education is not valued for knowledge. It’s valued as the ticket to get a good job. As reported by Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, and Armstead (1996), behavior that involves high striving for achievement correlates positively with observed and reported cheating. It has also been found that those who study to learn are less likely to cheat than those who study to get good grades (Weiss et al., as cited by Newstead et al., 1996).
Much research shows a negative correlation between intelligence and cheating (Barnett & Dalton, 1981). This could be because of a relationship between intelligence and moral development. Individuals with a higher level of moral development are less likely to cheat because that sort of behavior is morally wrong. William Kibler (1993) who studied moral development went so far as to develop a program that could provide a way for campuses to evaluate academic integrity.
According to a study by Lynch and Clark (1985), there is evidence that self-esteem is an important determinant of achievement. A student with high self-esteem is likely to see their ability and performance as higher than a student with low self-esteem. In this case, it would seem that the student with higher self-esteem would be less likely to cheat. However, research has shown because of their need for social approval, the student with high self-esteem is actually more likely to cheat than a student with low self-esteem (Jacobson, Berger, & Millham, 1970).
Social approval whether it be from parents, faculty, or friends, is a factor in cheating. Crowne and Marlow (1964) found college students with a high need for approval cheated more often because they are concerned about negative evaluations if they do not succeed (as cited by Jacobson et al., 1970). These findings are similar to a reported Bowers (1964) study where a relationship was found between cheating and both peer group attitudes and the "college climate" for cheating (as cited in Eve & Bromley, 1981, p. 5).
Along with social approval another important factor in cheating is competition and pressure for grades. Barnett and Dalton (1981) reported a survey by Keller (1976) in which 69% of students at Miami University cited "pressure for good grades from parents, relatives, and the university" (p.545) as the major reason for cheating. More recently, Singhal (1982) found that 68% of students believe the main reason for cheating is competition for grades. Keller (1976) classified this emphasis on grades as one of the six conditions under which cheating occurs, while Barnett and Dalton(1981) ranked it as the most important cause of academic dishonesty.
They also said that cheating is less likely to be reported by faculty when suspension or expulsion are probable. Not only are some faculty lenient in cases of academic suspension; they may be aware when a grade will affect scholarship retention and act in favor of the student. Faculty should be made more aware of the academic pressures and stress that students face, but punishment for cheating should be communicated in advance and uniformly applied (Barnett & Dalton, 1981).
This study examined the opinions and occurrences of academic dishonesty among honors students, non-honors students, and students who qualify for honors but are not classified as such. Because so much of the past research is contradictory, I was unsure what this study would find. It is possible there is no difference between honors and non-honors students and occurrences of academic dishonesty, but due to extraordinary pressure for grades, it is also possible that honors students cheat more.
A chi-square test of independence examining the relationship between engaging in cheating behavior and feeling that a professor's strict penalties would prevent cheating was performed. Chi-square (1) = .006, p <<> .05 indicating a significant relationship was found as 86.7% of the students who do not cheat believe that strict penalties are preventative. Also, 41.2% of the students who do cheat do not believe such penalties are preventative.
Fifty-nine percent of respondents feel that cheating improves a person's exam score. A chi-square test of independence was performed examining whether the likelihood of cheating in college is influenced by thinking that cheating improves a person's exam score, chi-square (1) = .038, p <<> .05. These results are significant with 82.4% of students who have cheated in college feel that cheating does improve a person's exam score, while 44.7% of students who have not cheated in college feel that cheating does not improve a person’s exam score.
A chi-square test of independence examining the relationship between group and high school cheating showed non-honors students were in the group most likely to have cheated in high school. Chi-square (2) = .034, p <<> .05 indicating a significant relationship between classification and cheating in high school. Twenty-five percent of honors students and 66% of non-honors students cheated in high school, while only 9% of the group who qualified for but did not participate in honors cheated in high school.
A one-way analysis of variance between group and influence of pressure as a reason for cheating yielded significant results (F (2, 102) = 4.20, p <<> .05). Significant differences were found between the group of honors students, 3%, and the group that qualified for the honors program, 33.3%.
Findings in my study showed 56% of students in the honors program and 78% of non-honors students cheated on at least on test in high school. In the remaining group, those who qualify but do not participate, only 50 % cheated on a test in high school. Unlike previous research, no significance was found to indicate cheating in high school influences cheating in college.
These results do not generalize to other studies as only 16.7% of participants reported cheating in college. Other studies indicate a much higher percentage of students cheating on exams. Moreover, results of this survey indicate 100% of students who cheat in college have never been caught. Also, most participants indicated getting 0% on that test or assignment to be the penalty most likely to prevent cheating.
In future research it will be necessary to determine what the sample considers cheating behavior to include. The survey specifically states questions of academic dishonesty as cheating on a test. It does not include other forms of academic dishonesty like plagiarism, or bribery.
Overall, not much difference was found between the different groups of students in this study. It is probable that a larger sample would yield different results, especially with the results from previous studies which report higher levels of cheating. However, it is impossible to know if the students were being honest on s survey concerning academic dishonesty.
Chovan, W. & Freeman, N. L. (1993). Moral reasoning and personality components in gifted and average students. Perceptual and Motor Skills , 77, 1297-1298.
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic Dishonesty: Prevalence, Determinants, Techniques, and Punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16-20.
Davis, S. F., & Ludvigson, H. W. (1995). Additional Data on Academic Dishonesty and a Proposal for Remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22, 119-121.
Eve, R. A. & Bromley, D. G. (1981). Scholastic Dishonesty Among College Undergraduates: Parallel Tests of Two Sociological Explanations. Youth & Society, 13, 229-241.
Jacobson, L. I., Berger, S. E., & Millham, J. (1970). Individual Differences in Cheating During a Temptation Period When Confronting Failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 48-56.
Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty Reactions to Academic Dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 401-406.
Kibler, W. L. (1993). A Framework for Addressing Academic Dishonesty From a Student Development Perspective. NASPA (National Association of Student Personnel Administrators) Journal, 31, 8-18.
Lynch, A. D. & Clark, P. (1985). Relationship of Self-Esteem, IQ, and Task Performance for a Sample of USA Undergraduates. Psychological Reports, 56, 955-962.
Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual Differences in Student Cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 229-241.
Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in Students’ Dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 51, 775-780.