Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the Type of Cheating Influence Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of Cheating?

  • Published:
Journal of Academic Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There has been a plethora of studies outlying the various factors which may affect undergraduate student cheating, generally focusing on individual, situational and deterrent factors. But beyond these factors, does the type of cheating affect students’ perceptions of cheating? We found that there were differences in regards to gradable cheating such as cheating on homework, tests and papers versus non-gradable cheating such as illegally downloading software/music from the Internet or photocopying materials which violate the university’s academic integrity policy. Gender, discussion of ethical issues in class and enforcement of cheating reduces the acceptance of cheating across types of cheating. Less time spent on the Internet reduces the acceptance of only non-gradable cheating and the type of institution and knowing the consequences of cheating reduces the acceptance of only gradable cheating.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beck, L., & Ajzen, I. (1991). Predicting dishonest actions using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 285–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodkin, C., & Stevenson, T. (2007). University students’ perceptions regarding ethical marketing practices: affecting change through instructional techniques. Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2007). Self-reports of student cheating: does a definition of cheating matter? The Journal of Economic Education, 38(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrus, R. T., Edward Graham, J., & Walker, M. (2011). Are my colleagues soft on (Academic) crime? Journal of Economics & Economic Education Research, 12(3), 55–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corcoran, K. J., & Rotter, J. B. (1987). Morality-conscience guilt scale as a predictor of ethical behavior in a cheating situation among college females. The Journal of General Psychology, 114(2), 117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronan, T. (2008). Factors that influence the intention to pirate software and media. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crown, D., & Spiller, M. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: a review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 683–700.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O. C., Jr., & Gresham, L. G. (1985). A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating: who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education, 20(2), 159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Futurist. (2001). The Web-Connected Generation, 35(5), 9–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: a questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerdeman, R. (2000). Academic dishonesty and the community college. ERIC Digest, ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges, L. A.

  • Greening, T., Kay, J. and Kummerfeld, B. (2004). Integrating ethical content into computing curricula. Conferences in Research and Practice in Information Technology 30. Sixth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Dunedin, NZ.

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, B. (2003). The issues. CQ Researcher, 13(32), 775–782.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houston, J. P. (1977). Cheating behavior: anticipated success-failure, confidence, and test importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 55–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houston, J. P. (1986). Classroom answer copying: roles of acquaintanceship and free versus assigned seating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 230–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Internet Retailer (2002). Worldwide internet users grow their time spent online, http://www.internetretailer.com/stats.htm.

  • Kisamore, J., Stone, T., & Jawahar, I. (2007). Academic integrity: the relationship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplations. Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleiner, C. and Lord, M. (1999). The cheating game. U.S. News & World Report, 127(20), 54.

  • Koch, K. (2000). Cheating in schools. The CQ Researcher Online, 10, 745–768. http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2000092200&type=hitlist&num=2.

  • Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Klug, M. (1986). Learning to cheat: the interaction of moral-development and social learning theories. Deviant Behavior, 7, 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaSalle, R. E. (2009). The perception of detection, severity of punishment and the probability of cheating. Journal of Forensic Studies in Accounting & Business, 1(2), 93–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung, S. F. (1995). Dynamic deterrence theory. Economics, 62, 65–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Love, P. G., & Simmons, J. (1998). Factors influencing cheating and plagiarism among graduate students in a College of Education. College Student Journal, 32(4), 539.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, K. M., & Loyd, B. H. (1993). Academic dishonesty: the honor system and students’ attitudes. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 125–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 520–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college. Change, 28(1), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: a metacarpus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Dishonesty in academic environments. Journal of Higher Education, 72(1), 29–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Megehee, C. M., & Spake, D. F. (2008). The impact of perceived peer behavior, probable detection and punishment severity on student cheating behavior. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, K., Kletke, M., & Chongwatpol, J. (2008). Ethics vs. IT ethics: do undergraduate students perceive a difference? Journal of Business Ethics, 83(4), 657–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molnar, K., Kletke, M. and Jenkel, I. (2009). Does the type of institution influence undergraduate students’ ethical opinions? Decision Sciences Institute, 2009 Proceedings, New Orleans, LA.

  • Oz, E. (2001). Organizational commitment and ethical behavior: an empirical study of information system professionals. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(2), 137–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rakovski, C. C., & Levy, E. (2007). Academic dishonesty: perceptions of business students. College Student Journal, 41, 466–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simkin, M., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94(3), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, C. A., Carr, J. R., McCullough, S. M., Morgan, S. J., Oleson, T., & Ressel, M. (2004). Gender, student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty: who reports in academic dishonesty cases? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, L. S., Davis, J. R. and Kroncke, C. O. (2009). Students’ perceptions of business ethics: using cheating as a surrogate for business situations. Journal of Education for Business, March/April, 229–238.

  • Tibbetts, S. G. (1999). Differences between women and men regarding decisions to commit test cheating. Research in Higher Education, 40, 323–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, J., & Szabo, A. (2003). Academic offences and e-learning: individual propensities in cheating. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winter, S., Stylianou, A., & Giacalone, R. (2004). Individual differences in the acceptability of unethical information technology practices: the case of Machiavellianism and ethical ideology. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zey-Ferrell, M. K., Weaver, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1979). Predicting unethical behavior among marketing practitioners. Human Relations, 32, 557–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business Administration, St. Norbert College, 100 Grant St., DePere, WI, 54115, USA

    Kathleen K. Molnar

  2. Department of MSIS, Oklahoma State University, 406 Business Building, Stillwater, OK, 74078, USA

    Marilyn G. Kletke

Authors
  1. Kathleen K. Molnar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marilyn G. Kletke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen K. Molnar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Molnar, K.K., Kletke, M.G. Does the Type of Cheating Influence Undergraduate Students’ Perceptions of Cheating?. J Acad Ethics 10, 201–212 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9164-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9164-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation