A controlled experiment was conducted with a cohort of graduate accounting students, which involved a mild form of deception during a class ethics quiz. One of the answers to a difficult question was inadvertently revealed by a visiting scholar, which allowed students an opportunity to use the answer in order to maximise test scores and qualify for a reward. Despite an attempt to sensitize students prior to the test to the importance of moral codes of conduct, a high incidence of (...) cheating was reported. Students who took the opportunity to cheat were more condoning of the behaviour compared to control group members and this difference in attitudes was consistent regardless of the intensity of the issue specified in the survey. The cognitive dissonance associated with the academic dishonesty is believed to reveal behavioural orientations that reflect conscious and unconscious desires to alleviate the discomfort associated with the behaviour by attempting to condone it. This inappropriate behaviour appears to attract students professing no religious faith and is significantly influenced by the reported level of religious commitment. (shrink)

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)

Using Reidenbach and Robin’s Multidimensional Ethics Scale, this study designs three scenarios related to academic dishonesty dilemmas to explore students’ moral philosophies, behavioral intentions, and ethical judgments and further examines whether students with different individual factors have differences in the above variables. A total of 605 students from two areas, Taiwan and Mainland China, participated in this study. The results indicated that Taiwanese students had stricter moral equity, relativism, and contractualism philosophies in the duplicate submission scenario than Mainland China students. (...) They also had stricter moral equity and relativism philosophies in the incomplete citation scenario. Similarly, relatively harsh relativism and contractualism philosophies accompanied by a low level of willingness to be a perpetrator in the failure to cite research published in other countries scenario were found. In addition, females applied relatively harsh moral equity and utilitarianism to all scenarios, reporting that they and their peers were less likely to engage in all AD activities. Graduates had a stricter egoism attitude toward duplicate submission and had stricter moral equity, relativism, and contractualism philosophies toward the behavior of incomplete citation. Graduate students also had strict moral equity, relativism, egoism, and contractualism beliefs in the failure to cite the foreign research scenario. Finally, regression analysis showed that moral equity, contractualism, and self-behavioral intention are significant predictors of students’ ethical evaluations in the three scenarios. (shrink)

This article presents the results of a research that aimed to examine the phenomenon of student cheating on exams in faculties of education in Quebec universities. A total of 573 preservice teachers completed an online survey in 2018. The questionnaire consisted of 28 questions with a Likert scale related to individual and contextual factors associated with the propensity to cheat on exams as well as two yes/no items on the arguments for cheating. Descriptive and hierarchical linear regression analyses highlighted the (...) existence of cheating but also how three factors influenced the students’ propensity to cheat: influence of peers, methods of cheating, and institutional context. (shrink)