College students from small, medium, and large institutions with either a modified or no honor code were presented with cheating scenarios and asked to rate how dishonest they perceived the behavior to be and the likelihood that they would report it. No main effects were found for institution size or type of honor code. Student–faculty ratio was not correlated with responses to the cheating scenarios. Students from modified honor code schools perceived more severe punishments for cheating and understood the reporting (...) process better than students from non–honor code schools. Implications for modified honor code systems are discussed. (shrink)

This article examines the process of one institution’s efforts to develop an educational academic integrity seminar through an ethnographic study approach. The educational program developed allowed the institution to transition from a punitive sanctioning system to an educational one. The institution cultivated cross-campus partnerships to develop the program. Both quantitative and qualitative data revealed that students had a positive experience attending the program and found it useful. This article serves as a framework for institutions to utilize when building their own (...) educational-based academic integrity on-campus seminar and sanctioning program. (shrink)

This study examined self-reported academic dishonesty at a midsize public university. Students (N = 492) rated the likelihood they would cheat after accepting to abide by each of eight honor code pledges before Internet-based assignments and examinations. The statements were derived from honor pledges used by different universities across the United States and varied in length, formality, and the extent to which the statements included consequences for academic dishonesty. Longer, formal honor codes with consequences were associated with a lower likelihood (...) to cheat. Results showed a significant three-way interaction and suggest how to best design honor codes. (shrink)