More is known about the pervasiveness of college cheating than reasons why students cheat. This article reports the results of a study that applied the theory of reasoned action and partial least squares methodology to analyze the responses of 144 students to a survey on cheating behavior. Approximately 60% of the business students and 64% of the non-business students admitted to such behavior. Among cheaters, a “desire to get ahead” was the most important motivating factor – a surprising result given the comprehensive set of factors tested in the study. Among non-cheaters, the presence of a “moral anchor” such as an ethical professor was most important. The article also includes a set of important caveats that might limit this study and suggests some avenues for further study.
Keywordscheating ethical behavior student dishonesty student misconduct theory of reasoned action
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
The authors wish to thank the editors and four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions in revising earlier drafts of this manuscript.
- AACSB. (2009). Eligibility Procedures and Accreditation Standards for Business Accreditation (pp. 1-78). Tampa, FL: The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.Google Scholar
- Abdolmohammadi, M. J., & Baker, C. R. (2008). Moral Reasoning and Questionable Behavior. The CPA Journal, 78(11), 58-60.Google Scholar
- Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student Dishonesty and its Control in College. Columbia, NY: Bureau of Applied Social Research.Google Scholar
- Chin, W. W. (1998a). Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.Google Scholar
- Chin, W. W. (Ed.). (1998b). The Partial Least Squares Approach for Structural Equation Modelling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Chin, W. W., Marcolin, B. L., & Newsted, P. R. (2003). A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results from a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189-217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Conlin, M.: 2007, ‘Cheating - Or Postmodern Learning’, Business Week, Vol. 4034, p. 42Google Scholar
- Crown, D. F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(6), 683-700.Google Scholar
- Damast, A.: 2008, ‘Fuqua Puts Scandal Behind It’, Business Week, p. 5Google Scholar
- Etter, S., Cramer, J., & Finn, S. (2006). Origins of Academic Dishonesty: Ethical Orientations and Personality Factors Associated with Attitudes about Cheating with Information Technology. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 39(2), 133-155.Google Scholar
- Gefen, D., & Straub, D. (2005). A Practical Guide to Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and Annotated Example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16, 91-109.Google Scholar
- Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 4(7), 1-77.Google Scholar
- Gulli, C., Kohler, N., & Patriquin, M. (2007). The University Cheating Scandal. Maclean’s, 120(5), 32-36.Google Scholar
- Harding, T. S., Mayhew, M. J., Finelli, C. J., & Carpenter, D. D. (2007). The Theory of Planned Behavior as a Model of Academic Dishonesty in Engineering and Humanities Undergraduates. Ethics & Behavior, 17(3), 255-279.Google Scholar
- Harris, J. (1989). Ethical Values and Decision Processes of Male and Female Business Students. Journal of Education for Business, 64(5), 234-238.Google Scholar
- Knowledge: 2004, College Cheating is Bad for Business [Electronic Version]. (W.P. Carey School of Business), http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1679.
- Lavelle, L.: 2008, ‘GMAT Cheating Controversy Grows’, Business Week, p. 13Google Scholar
- McCabe, D. L., & Bowers, W. J. (1994). Academic Dishonesty Among Males in College: A Thirty Year Perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 5-10.Google Scholar
- McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic Dishonesty in Graduate Business Programs: Prevalence, Causes, and Proposed Action. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 294-305.Google Scholar
- Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: perspectives, processes and contexts. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Ogilby, S. (1995). The Ethics of Academic Behavior: will it Affect Professional Behavior? Journal of Education for Business, 71(2), 92-97.Google Scholar
- Ringle, C. M., S. Wende and S. Will: 2005, ‘SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) Beta’, Hamburg, http://www.smartpls.de.
- Rokovski, C., & Levy, E. (2007). Academic Dishonesty: Perceptions of Business Students. College Student Journal, 41(2), 466-481.Google Scholar
- Sims, R. (1993). The Relationship between Academic Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207-211.Google Scholar
- Swift, C., Denton, L., & Nonis, S. (1998). Cheating Internet Style: Guarding Against Online Term Paper Mills. Marketing Education Review, 8(2), 19-27.Google Scholar
- Thibodeau, P. (2007). Cheating on IT Exams May Cast Doubt on Their Value. Computerworld, 41(18), 1-3.Google Scholar
- Thompson, N.: 2000, ‘Survey Finds 1 in 3 Workers Sees Abuses’, The Sun, pp. C1–C3. 14 JuneGoogle Scholar
- Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & van Oppen, C. (2009). Using PLS Path Modeling for Assessing Hierarchical Construct Models: Guidelines and Empirical Illustration. MIS Quarterly, 33(1), 177-195.Google Scholar