Further Reading
  • Cheating in School: What We Know and What We Can Do
    Cheating in School: What We Know and What We Can Do
    by Stephen F. Davis, Patrick F. Drinan, Tricia Bertram Gallant
  • Psychology of Academic Cheating
    Psychology of Academic Cheating
    Academic Press
  • Academic Dishonesty: An Educator's Guide
    Academic Dishonesty: An Educator's Guide
    by Bernard E. Whitley Jr., Patricia Keith-Spiegel
  • My Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture
    My Word!: Plagiarism and College Culture
    by Susan D. Blum
  • Doing Honest Work in College: How to Prepare Citations, Avoid Plagiarism, and Achieve Real Academic Success, Second Edition (Chicago Guides to Academic Life)
    Doing Honest Work in College: How to Prepare Citations, Avoid Plagiarism, and Achieve Real Academic Success, Second Edition (Chicago Guides to Academic Life)
    by Charles Lipson
  • Plagiarism: A How-Not-to Guide for Students
    Plagiarism: A How-Not-to Guide for Students
    by Barry Gilmore
  • Quick Coach Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism
    Quick Coach Guide to Avoiding Plagiarism
    by Rosemarie Menager-Beeley, Lyn Paulos
  • Creating the Ethical Academy: A Systems Approach to Understanding Misconduct and Empowering Change
    Creating the Ethical Academy: A Systems Approach to Understanding Misconduct and Empowering Change
    Routledge
Search
RECENT ARTICLES
« Yes, It Can Be Done: "Creating The Ethical Academy" | Main | Football and Cheating at UNC Chapel Hall »
Thursday
Oct072010

Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010

Academic dishonesty has been a subject of scholarly research for decades. This body of research has grown in recent years and pushed into new areas.

1915: A New York Times story, “College Honor System a Success,” reports that one hundred twenty-three honor codes are in effect. Story quotes Professor Edward S. Joynes of the University of South Carolina says that “the only true system for the education of a gentleman by gentlemen is the honor system – that is, the system of mutual respect and confidence.’”[1]

1927: Charles Franklin Thwing, Professor Emeritus, Western Reserve University: “Students have become less observant of the accidents and incidents of moral conduct and of religious belief.” Among the evidence he cites: more card playing, more smoking.[2]

1930: “The incidence of cheating in the classes under observation was apparently a function of the task or motive and the ease with which misrepresentation could be accomplished.”[3]

1930: Study of college cheaters discovered that cheaters could not be distinguished from non-cheaters with reference to age, mental test score, grade point average, or class standing. The study apparently did not control for socio-economic factors. The study, by William Campbell and Helen Koch, found that college students endorsed the principle of honor systems, but suggested they were most comfortable with a code that did not require them to report offenses or to judge accused students in an honor council.[4]

1938: Survey finds that a majority of students who indicated they thought it was “right to cheat” justified cheating on the grounds that “it gives one a chance to keep up with those who do cheat.” A similarly large number insisted that cheating did not reflect badly on the aptitude of the cheater. In fact, they argued that the ability to make the best of a testing situation might even be a sign of intelligence. The same study suggested that the incidence of cheating increased as students got older, with eight grade and senior year being the juncture at which students seemed most likely to break the rules.[5]

1941: In an article in the Journal of Higher Education, “Why Students Cheat,” Charles Drakes reports a dramatically higher incidence of cheating among members of fraternities – a jump attributed to the requirement that members maintain a high grade point average. Drake also reports that “Considering the true [grade point] averages of the students, unaffected by the attempts to cheat, no A students cheated; 4 percent of the B students, 23 per cent of the C students, 75 per cent of the D students, and 67 per cent of the F (failure) students cheated. From this it may be inferred that the poorest students tend to cheat the most; that is, they tend to cheat in proportion to their needs.”[6]

1964: William J. Bowers publishes landmark study Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College. Survey finds that deans and student body presidents of accredited colleges in the United States ranked academic dishonesty second among the various problems of student discipline. Complaints of dishonesty accounted for 23 percent of the cases referred to the dean’s office, while drinking, disorder, and sexual misconduct comprised a total of 62 percent of disciplinary actions. Bowers writes: “… social class, as reflected in parents’ income plays little or no part in determining the student’s likelihood of cheating in college.” students from poorer backgrounds were neither more likely to be dishonest in school, or more likely to select schools that seemed more likely to tolerate cheating. “In fact, in most cases there is no difference in the likelihood of cheating among students of different social backgrounds who were attending the same type of school.” Most parents of college students surveyed in the 1964 study placed tremendous importance on college grades. Forty-six percent insisted grades were “extremely important,” while the remainder described grades as “quite important,” or “fairly important.” A majority of students – in contrast to their parents – saw grades as only “fairly important.” Students who ranked social and professional aspirations at the top of their list of college priorities tended to be more likely to cheat than students who saw college as a training ground for moral and intellectual development.[7]

1966: Study finds as many as 49 percent of college students to be guilty of cheating. Another study detailed the incidence of cheating at some major universities: 26 percent of the students at Columbia, 30 percent at Cornell, 52 percent at Fordham, and 54 percent at Notre Dame.[8]

1966: In academic programs that emphasize vocational training – including agricultural science and engineering – the incidence of cheating was nearly double the rate among students enrolled in the college of liberal arts.[9]

1966: A 1966 study indicated a higher incidence of cheating among fraternity members than either dormitory residents or commuting students. In contrast to previous studies, which emphasized anti-intellectualism in American fraternities, the study found that fraternity members tended to have higher grade point averages and SAT scores than other students. Nearly half of the students who identified themselves as intellectuals, moreover, were residents of fraternity houses.[10]

1966: Cheating scandal at Miami University provokes comment: “The episode attracted nationwide attention, partly perhaps because academic cheating has become a matter of concern on many campuses. A study, conducted by statistical experts under the auspices of Columbia University last year showed the practice to be widespread. Publication of these facts coincided with the disclosure of a major cheating scandal at the Air Force Academy last winter.”[11] President Henry King Stanford of Miami University attributed the high-profile cheating episode – in which a student assistant sold as many as 40 copies of a freshman science examination – to an increase of anxiety among students. “Once the word is out that new standards are in effect,” observed Stanford, who has worked to raise the national standing of the Midwestern university, “the pressure builds up automatically.”[12]

1967: Study finds that parents who aspired for their children to ascend the ranks of management or the professions were more likely to become preoccupied with their children’s academic performance. Within this group, the parents with the most limited resources of their own exerted the most pressure on their children to succeed at school. Study: “Cheating, then, appears to be an unintended consequence of a process that has important roots in culturally cherished goals. … Children, either to avoid disappointing their parents in an area of obvious importance to them or because they share with their parents a cynical view of accepted means, respond to this pressure by cheating.”[13]

1977: A study of civil service examinations in ancient China revealed such rampant cheating that elaborate procedures were established to prevent it. Though both test takers and their supervisors were subject to the death penalty if apprehended, ingenious means of cheating the examination system persisted for hundreds of years.[14]

1977: A study showed that 40 percent of graduate students in the United States had resorted to cheating.[15]

1980: Today’s Education article: “Competition for law and medical schools has not brought out the best in some candidates. A Columbia University student tinkered with his classmates’ alarm clocks so they would oversleep a critical exam. When a grad school candidate at Cornell dropped his pencil during his exam, his feverish teammates kicked it away.”[16]

1991: F. Schab publishes “Schooling Without Learning: Thirty Years of Cheating in High School,” in the journalAdolescence, based on extensive survey data collected over three decades starting in 1969. His points and findings include:

  • A downward spiral in high school students’ perceptions of honesty in school and in society. The decline took place amid a general rise in cheating on tests and homework, and a growing sense that cheating was necessary to achieve minimum standards of success.
  • High school students increasingly perceived success in business as the outcome of fraudulent activities.Compared to their counterparts in the 1960s and early 1970s, a larger number of parents in the 1980s admitted that they sometimes helped their children cheat at school.
  • In 1969, only 20 percent of the students surveyed believed that the majority of their peers were guilty of cheating. By 1989, the percentage of skeptics had increased to almost 30 percent.
  • Good students were not exempt from suspicion, and their standing grew increasingly tenuous during the decades under review. In 1969, only 16.7 percent of students thought that good students cheated, while 25.4 percent suspected their high-achieving peers twenty years later.
  • “The respondents were then asked if economic status was a factor in honesty. Over 80% were convinced that the poor were more honest than the rich. [no indication of change over time]”
  • Politicians ranked near the bottom of professions that students perceived as honest, while business leaders, bankers, and factory workers also absorbed their share of skepticism. Doctors, lawyers, and scientists appeared near the top of the list.
  • Even Girl Scouts could not be trusted not to cheat. In a 1989 survey, 65 percent of scouts surveyed indicated they would cheat on an exam if it was sufficiently “important.”
  • Students polled in 1969, 1979, and 1989 indicated a striking shift in attitudes about the morality and practicality of cheating practices. Between 1969 and 1989, the number of students who responded affirmatively to the statement, “Sometimes it is necessary to be dishonest,” nearly doubled, from 33.5 percent in 1969 to 66.6 percent in 1989.
  • Between 1969 and 1989, the number of students who responded affirmatively to the statement, “Honesty is the best policy,” declined precipitously, from 82.3 percent in 1969 to 59.9 percent in 1989.
  • Between 1969 and 1989, the number of students who responded affirmatively to the statement, “Crime does not pay,” declined significantly, from 88.7 percent in 1969 to 65.4 percent in 1989.
  • Between 1969 and 1989, the number of students who responded affirmatively to the statement, “To succeed in business requires some dishonesty,” increased, from 32.3 percent in 1969 to 44.6 percent in 1989.
  • The most striking decline appeared in students’ responses to the question, “Are most people in the USA today honest?” While nearly half of the students (49.1 percent) had responded affirmatively in 1969, fewer than a quarter of respondents (23.8 percent) thought that most people were honest in 1989.
  • In 1969, 60.9 percent of students indicated that they would return a one-dollar bill they found at school. By 1989, the percentage that said they would do so had declined to 9.2 percent.
  •  In 1969, 22.6 percent of students admitted that their parents had written them a false excuse from school or schoolwork. By 1989, that figure had increased to 50.8 percent.[17]

1992: “Forty to 60 percent of college students today would cheat, reports Kansas psychologist Stephen F. Davis, Ph.D. The number has skyrocketed since 1941, when the first study of academic dishonesty counted 23 percent of undergraduates as cheaters.” The increase in cheating, according to one professor, stemmed from the transformation of the American university into “a glorified vocational tech school” in recent decades. “Students are not here for knowledge, just for a meal ticket – their diploma,” he complained. “And if cheating helps them get it, why not?” Davis objected that there was little professors could do to prevent cheating “unless they’re ready to get a good lawyer” and weather legal challenges from the students and their parents.[18]

1993: A 1990 survey at Miami University concluded that 91 percent of all college students had cheated.[19]

1994: Journal article reports that students reported that the pressure to succeed sometimes required them to cheat; when breaking the rules seemed to be “the best way to get ahead,” some found the temptation irresistible. Many students blamed the university itself for their willingness to cheat; because the organization was inherently unfair, some found it difficult to adhere to its standards of fair play. Most respondents to a 1994 student survey insisted that they had to cheat to succeed in a competitive, results-oriented world.[20]

1994: In a survey of students affairs administrators at a representative sample of American colleges, 60 percent reported that faculty at their institutions were more likely to handle incidents of cheating independently than to subject student violations to procedural review. More than 40 percent believed that most members of their faculty were not even aware of proper procedural guidelines for handling academic dishonesty. Most college administrators insisted that “cheating increases when students perceive tests or grading practices to be unfair.”[21]

1995: Comparisons of the incidence of academic dishonesty over time must take into account significant variations in the methodology and conclusions of the various cheating studies prepared by psychologists, sociologists, and educators. Cheating studies published since the 1960s have tended to rely on self-reporting by students and faculty participants. Earlier studies tended to rely upon observations of actual cheating incidents. A comprehensive statistical review of twentieth-century cheating studies concluded that it is not possible to document an increase in the incidence of cheating before 1995.[22]

1995: Study finding: The results of forty years of academic studies of cheating confirm that nearly all cheating behavior falls into one of two categories. Without regard to personality characteristics or religious convictions, students are dishonest either because their peers and environment appear to sanction the behavior or because the apparent benefits of cheating outweigh the potential hazards. Students who admitted to cheating justified their behavior with reference to the irresistible benefits of doing so. “It helps me get better grades, a good job, or admitted to graduate school,” admitted some respondents. “My parents would go berserk if I got bad grades,” others said. “If I didn’t cheat, I’d be at a disadvantage compared to those who do cheat,” observed the most cynical.[23]

1997: Study finding: College students are most likely to cheat in classes taught by non-tenure-track faculty. Incidence of cheating also goes up as class size increases.[24]

1998: In a landmark study prepared by Donald McCabe in 1991, a majority of graduate students admitted to cheating on at least one important assignment while they were undergraduates. Within the sample, MBA candidates proved themselves most likely to cheat, with 76 percent reporting improprieties. Other major degree programs, however, showed similarly dismal results, with 63 percent of law students, 68 percent of medical students, and 71 percent of engineering students admitting guilt.  Between 1990 and 1963, the level of academic dishonesty on U.S. campuses actually declined slightly. “That finding surprised me,” said Donald McCabe, “and surprises nearly everyone who hears it.” Within only a few years, however, McCabe determined that the downward trend had reversed itself. In the early 1990s, according to his surveys, the incidence of cheating increased. “Although the number of students who cheat has increased only modestly,” he acknowledged, “the students who do cheat are engaging in a wider variety of test cheating behaviors today and are also cheating more often.”[25]

1998: College seniors who conducted a survey of their peers in 1997 concluded that many students did not agree on a clear definition of academic dishonesty. “What some consider acts of cheating, which give an unfair advantage,” they observed, “others consider resourcefulness.” The second-most common excuse that students at Santa Clara University cited for cheating was “High grades needed for jobs or graduate school.”[26]

1998: Gary Pavela, author of a code of academic honesty adopted at many colleges and universities, insists that today’s generation of young people has succumbed to moral relativism on issues of personal integrity. “Concepts like ‘morality,’ ‘virtue,’ and ‘truth’ have no meaning [for them],” he explains, “except to disguise and facilitate the use of power by those who have it, or seek it.”[27]

1998: Survey finding: “Students said that they felt immense pressure to get A or at least B grades so they could successfully compete for a good job or be admitted to a prestigious graduate school.” “Cheating – either self-reported or witnessed – occurred most frequently in large, lecture-oriented introductory courses.”[28]

1999: Psychologists have blamed parental pressure for some of the cheating behavior observed in younger students. Even when they act to censure children who cheat, parents sometimes raise the stakes for academic performance. “Pure anger from the parents just puts more pressure on the child and may lead to more cheating,” noted Dr. John E. Schowalter, chief of child psychiatry at the Yale Child Studies Center in New Haven.[29]

1999: “In an effort to better understand student thinking about cheating, four focus group discussions – led by the Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University and funded by [ETS] – were held on the issue of academic dishonesty. Thirty-two high school and college students in northern New Jersey participated.”[30]

1999: According to McCabe, the two groups of students most likely to cheat come from the opposite ends of the spectrum of academic achievement. Willingness to cut corners characterizes students from the bottom ranks of the class as well as the top students who are competing for prestigious jobs or admissions.[31]

2000: Survey: MBA candidates at four U.S. universities admitted to copying homework assignments from other students about half of the time. In a similar study conducted in 1976, only a handful of students claimed to have engaged in this kind of cheating.[32]

2000: In the 29th annual survey of high achievers, Who’s Who Among American High School Students identified a record-high number of grade-A cheaters, with 80 percent admitting to some form of academic dishonesty. Not only was the number of self-identified cheaters the largest in the history of the Who’s Who survey, but a majority of students indicated that cheating was “no big deal.”[33]

2000: At the same time they appeared to shed moral qualms about cheating, high school students surveyed by Who’s Who were more likely than previous samples to refrain from drinking and driving and unprotected sexual intercourse.[34]

2000: A sample of discarded cheat sheets (collected for a 2000 study) indicated that students were most likely to smuggle contraband information into business and physical science classes, where examinations tend to assess a large amount of easily recorded data.[35]

2001: The research team captained by Donald McCabe of the Center for Academic Integrity at Duke University shared finds from landmark studies of academic dishonesty in American colleges and universities. McCabe and his colleagues undertook major surveys of academic integrity on campus in the school years that spanned 1990-1991, 1993-1994, and 1995-1996. . Authors wrote:  “With increasing competition for the most desired positions in the job market and for the few coveted places available at the nation’s leading business, law, and medical schools, today’s undergraduates experience considerable pressure to do well. Research shows that all too often these pressures lead to decisions to engage in various forms of academic dishonesty . . . . Research also shows that these transgressions are often overlooked or treated lightly by faculty who do not want to become involved in what they perceive as bureaucratic procedures designed to adjudicate allegations of academic dishonesty on their campus. . . . Students who might otherwise complete their work honestly observe this phenomenon and convince themselves they cannot afford to be disadvantaged by students who cheat and go unreported or unpunished. Although many find it distasteful, they too begin cheating to ‘level the playing field.’” Other points: Students tend to look to their peers in order to gauge the acceptability of cheating behavior. Where fellow students censure and disdain cheating, incidence tends to be lower, while the proliferation of cheating behaviors tends to create “a kind of normative support for cheating,” that makes students who do not cheat feel as if they are disadvantaged.[36]

2001: In a study of people who graduated from liberal arts colleges between 1962 and 1989, McCabe, Treviño, and Butterfield found that a strong ethics orientation in undergraduate education helped to foster integrity outside of school and in the long term. Alumni of colleges and universities with honor codes proved far more likely than their counterparts in the study to engage in dishonest practices at work.[37]

2001: “[A 1999 study by McCabe et al] analyzed data from more than 1,700 students at 31 U.S. colleges and universities, approximately half of which employed an honor code. Data for this study were collected in the form of open-ended comments made by students at the end of a larger survey on college cheating. At the end of the survey, students were asked to offer ‘any comments that you care to make or if there is anything else you would like to tell us about the topic of cheating in college.’ Although this question was added to the survey in a somewhat perfunctory manner, more than 40% of the almost 4,300 respondents offered comments, many of which were quite detailed in nature. We believe this kind of response underscores the importance of the topic of academic cheating to students.”[38]

2001: A study conducted in the United Kingdom in the 1990s drew sharp conclusions about the relationship between academic cheating and goal orientation. Students who aimed to master a subject in keeping with a program of personal development proved far less likely to break the rules than students who listed standard of living, career development, and competitiveness as their primary aim.[39]

2001: Responses U.S. students at a private liberal arts college to a 2001 survey confirmed the findings of the British report. Those who strove for mastery of a topic tended to engage in cheating behavior at a much lower rate than those with extrinsic interests in academic subjects.[40]

2002: “I think kids today are looking to adults and society for a moral compass,” said Donald McCabe, “and when they see the behavior occurring there, they don’t understand why they should be held to a higher standard.”[41]

[1] “College Honor System a Success,” New York Times, June 20, 1915, p. SM19.

[2] “Variety of Methods and Forces Applied In Institutions of Higher Learning,” New York Times, June 5, 1927, pXXII.

[3] William Giles Campbell and Helen Lois Koch, “Student Honesty in a University with an Honor System,” School and Society 31 (February 15, 1930), p. 240.

[4] William Giles Campbell and Helen Lois Koch, “Student Honesty in a University with an Honor System,” School and Society 31 (February 15, 1930), p. 240.

[5] Walter W. Ludeman, “A Study of Cheating in Public Schools,” School Board Journal, March 1938, p. 45.

[6] Charles A. Drake, “Why Students Cheat,” Journal of Higher Education 12, November 1941, p. 419.

[7] William J. Bowers, Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College (New York: Columbia University Bureau of Applied Social Research, 1964)..

[8] John Harp and Philip Taietz, “Academic Integrity and Social Structure: A Study of Cheating Among College Students,”Social Problems 13 (Spring 1966), p. 365.

[9] John Harp and Philip Taietz, “Academic Integrity and Social Structure: A Study of Cheating Among College Students,”Social Problems 13 (Spring 1966), p. 367.

[10] John Harp and Philip Taietz, “Academic Integrity and Social Structure: A Study of Cheating Among College Students,”Social Problems 13 (Spring 1966), p. 368.

[11] Fred M. Hechinger, “Miami U. Expects Scandal to Fade,” New York Times, January 30, 1966, p. 54.

[12] Fred M. Hechinger, “Miami U. Expects Scandal to Fade,” New York Times, January 30, 1966, p. 54.

[13] Leonard I. Pearlin, Marian Radke Yarrow, and Harry A. Scarr, “Unintended Effects of Parental Aspirations: The Case of Children’s Cheating,” American Journal of Sociology 73, July 1967, p79.

[14] Ann Bushway and William R. Nash, “School Cheating Behavior,” Review of Educational Research 47 (Fall 1977), 623.

[15] Ann Bushway and William R. Nash, “School Cheating Behavior,” Review of Educational Research 47 (Fall 1977), 623.

[16] “Symposium on Cheating,” Today’s Education, November-December 1980, p. 44.

[17] F. Schab, “Schooling Without Learning: Thirty Years of Cheating in High School,” Adolescence, Winter 1991, p. 845.

[18] Quoted in “Your Cheatin’ Heart,” Psychology Today 25, November 1992, p. 9.

[19] Randi L. Sims, “The Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices,” Journal of Education for Business 68, March/April 1993, p. 207.

[20] Stephen L. Payne and Karen S. Nantz, “Social Accounts and Metaphors about Cheating,” College Teaching 42, Summer 1994, p. 95.

[21] Ronald M. Aaron and Robert T. Georgia, “Administrator Perceptions of Student Academic Dishonesty in Collegiate Institutions,” NASPA Journal 31, Winter 1994, p. 86.

[22] Shane Spiller and Deborah F. Crown, “Changes Over Time in Academic Dishonesty at the Collegiate Level,”Psychological Reports 76, 1995, p. 767.

[23] Alfred S. Altschuler and Gregory S. Blimling, “Curbing Epidemic Cheating Through Systemic Change,” College Teaching 43, Fall 1995, p. 125.

[24] Doug Laufer and Clifford Nowell, “Undergraduate Student Cheating in the Fields of Economics and Business,”Journal of Economic Education 28, Winter 1997, p. 8.

[25] Quoted in Miriam Schulman, “Cheating Themselves,” Issues in Ethics 9, Winter 1998, p.1.

[26] Miriam Schulman, “Cheating Themselves,” Issues in Ethics 9, Winter 1998, p. 4.

[27] Quoted in Miriam Schulman, “Cheating Themselves,” Issues in Ethics 9, Winter 1998, p. 3.

[28] Teresa L. Hall and George D. Kuh, “Honor Among Students: Academic Integrity and Honor Codes at State-Assisted Universities,” NASPA Journal 36, Fall 1998, p. 11.

[29] Quoted in “Don’t Panic; Just Be Very Clear,” New York Times

[30] Donald L. McCabe, “Academic Dishonesty Among High School Students,” Adolescence 34, Winter 1999, p. 681.

[31] “Competitive World’s Acceptance of Cheating Confuses Students,” California Educator 4, October 1999, p. 3.

[32] Sharon K. Johns and Carolyn A. Strand, “Survey Results of the Ethical Beliefs of Business Students,” Journal of Education for Business 75, July/August 2000, p. 318.

[33] “Cheating and Succeeding: Record Numbers of Top High School Students Take Ethical Shortcuts,” Who’s Who Among American High School Students, 29th Annual Survey of High Achievers, p. 1.

[34] “Cheating and Succeeding: Record Numbers of Top High School Students Take Ethical Shortcuts,” Who’s Who Among American High School Students, 29th Annual Survey of High Achievers, p. 2.

[35] Robert Pullen, Victor Ortloff, Saundra Casey, and Jonathan B. Payne, “Analysis of Academic Misconduct Using Unobtrusive Research: A Study of Discarded Cheat Sheets,” College Student Journal 34, December 2000, p. 618.

[36] Donald L. McCabe, Linda Klebe Treviño, and Kenneth D. Butterfield, “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research,” Ethics and Behavior 11, 2001, p. 222.

[37] Donald L. McCabe, Linda Klebe Treviño, and Kenneth D. Butterfield, “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research,” Ethics and Behavior 11, 2001, p. 225.

[38] Donald L. McCabe, Linda Klebe Treviño, and Kenneth D. Butterfield, “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research,” Ethics and Behavior 11, 2001, p. 226.

[39] Augustus E. Jordan, “College Student Cheating: The Role of Motivation, Perceived Norms, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Institutional Policy,” Ethics and Behavior 11, 2001, p. 235.

[40] Augustus E. Jordan, “College Student Cheating: The Role of Motivation, Perceived Norms, Attitudes, and Knowledge of Institutional Policy,” Ethics and Behavior 11, 2001, p. 243.

[41] Quoted in Kathy Slobogin, “Survey: Many Students Say Cheating’s OK,” CNN.com/Education, April 5, 2002, p. 2.

 



References (59)

References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
  • Response
    Response: %anchor_text%
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: kredyt online
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: bikini hair
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: anxiety centre
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: bolibompaspel.net
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: vw car stereo Gps
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: plumber
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: mike teel
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: www.finanse.pl
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: mike teel
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: www.youtube.com
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: garcinia advanced
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: Procellix Review
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Response: Muscle Zx90 Review
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture
  • Response
    Academic Dishonesty: Studies and Reports, 1915-2010 - Academic Dishonesty - CheatingCulture

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.