Use of the Social Cognitive Theory to Frame University Students’ Perceptions of Cheating
- 1.7k Downloads
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the perceptions related to ethics and cheating among a representative sample of primarily female undergraduate students, compared to trends reported in the literature. Focus groups were organized to discuss nine scripted questions. Transcripts and audiotapes were analyzed and four main themes emerged: demographics of those who cheat, students’ perceptions of cheating, the role of technology in cheating, and consequences of cheating, including students’ attitudes and behaviors related to reporting cheating incidents. Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) served as the theoretical framework to understand students’ varying perceptions of and justification for cheating, as well as the dynamics of honor code violations, via group discussion. Viewpoints on cheating were regularly discussed and contradictory views were identified related to frequency and justification for cheating. Utilizing the constant comparative method, students mentioned time limitations, and pressure from peers, parents, and professors as reasons to cheat. They also discussed pressures to achieve high grades for acceptance into graduate programs. Students were also reluctant to report their classmates for cheating incidents. Repeated and comprehensive education on ethical behavior is warranted.
KeywordsQualitative research Cheating Students Ethical code
The authors do not have any potential, perceived or real, conflicts of interest. There was no study sponsor for this project or manuscript. All listed authors contributed to the first draft of the manuscript and no honorariums were provided.
- Athanasou, J. A., & Olasehinde, O. (2002). Male and female differences in self-report cheating. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(5). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8&n=5.
- Baker College. (2014). Academic honor code. Retrieved from http://www.baker.edu/policies/academic-honor-code/.
- Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of child development. Six theories of child development (pp. 1–60). Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (pp. 45–103). Hillsdale: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 94–124). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Davis, C. S., Powell, H., & Lachlan, K. L. (2012). Straight talk about communication research methods (2nd ed.). Dubuque: Kendall Hunt Publishing.Google Scholar
- Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
- Glaser, B. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis’ in social problems. Oakland: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Huberman, M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- International Center for Academic Integrity. (2013). Fundamentals value project: Project Overview. Retrieved from http://www.academicintegrity.org/icai/resources-2.php.
- King, C. K., Guyette, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2009). Online exams and cheating: an empirical analysis of business students’ views. The Journal of Educators Online, 6(1), 1–11.Google Scholar
- Lau, L. K., Caracciolo, B., Roddenberry, S., & Scroggins, A. (2011). College students’ perception of ethics. Journal of Academic and Business Ethics, 5, 1–13.Google Scholar
- Marshall, S. & Garry, M. (2005). How well do students really understand plagiarism? Australiasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Retrieved from http://ascilite.org.au/conferences/brisbane05/blogs/proceedings/52_Marshall.pdf.
- Pastorino, E. E., & Doyle-Portillo, S. M. (2013). What is psychology?: Essentials. Belmont: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
- Sharma, M., & Romas, J. A. (2012). Social cognitive theory. Theoretical foundations of health education and health promotion (Secondth ed., pp. 174–200). Sudbury: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Watson, G. R., & Sottile, J. (2010). Cheating in the digital age: do students cheat more in online courses? Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 13(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
- Weitzman, E. A. (2000). Software and qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 803–820). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar