Abstract
The frequency of cheating in today’s classrooms undermines educators’ efforts and threatens students’ learning. Data from 444 high school students in 48 math and science classrooms at two time points were analyzed to examine the classroom and individual influences on students’ attributions of blame for cheating and to examine the relationship between students’ attributions of blame for cheating and subsequent cheating behavior. Hierarchical linear modeling revealed that student-level and aggregate views of teacher characteristics were related to concurrent and subsequent attribution of cheating blame to teachers and to subsequent cheating behaviors, over and above the influence of moral emotion dispositions.
Résumé
La fréquence de la tricherie scolaire met actuellement à mal les efforts des enseignants et menace l’apprentissage des étudiants. L’analyse de données recueillies en deux temps sur 444 étudiants issus de 48 classes de mathématiques et de sciences a permis d’explorer les influences de la classe et les influences individuelles sur l’attribution par les étudiants de la responsabilité de la tricherie et d’examiner la relation entre les attributions de responsabilité de la tricherie par les étudiants et leurs comportements subséquents de tricherie. La modélisation hiérarchique linéaire a indiqué que les mesures au niveau individuel (étudiant) et l’opinion (agrégée au niveau de la classe) qu’ont les étudiants des enseignants étaient liés, au-delà de l’influence de dispositions relatives aux émotions morales, (1) à l’attribution, simultanée et subséquente, de la responsabilité de la tricherie aux enseignants et (2) à des comportements subséquents de tricherie.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Anderman, E.M. (2007). The effects of personal, classroom and school goal structures on academic cheating. In E.M. Anderman & T.B. Murdock, (Eds.),Psychological perspectives on academic cheating (pp. 87–106). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Anderman, E.M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 84–93.
Callahan, D. (2005).The cheating culture. Orlando, FL, Hartcourt.
Cizek, C.J. (2003).Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promoting integrity in assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Danner, F. (2007, April).The effects of negative perceptions of classroom assessment practices and sense of class belonging on high school students’ self-reported academic cheating. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Gardner, W.M., & Melvin, K.B. (1988). A scale for measuring attitude toward cheating.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 2, 429–432.
Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes do. In S. Graham & V.S. Folkes (Eds.),Attribution theory: Applications to achievement, mental health, and interpersonal conflict (pp. 17–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graham, S., & Hudley, C. (1992). An attributional approach to aggression in African-American children. In D.H. Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.),Student perceptions in the classroom (pp 75–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Graham, S., Hudley, C., & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and emotional determinants of aggression among African-American and Latino young adolescents.Developmental Psychology, 28, 731–740.
Haines, V.J., Diekhoff, G.M., LaBeff, E.E., & Clark, R.E. (1986). College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude.Reseach in Higher Education, 25, 342–354.
Hinton, A., Beauchamp, A.S., & Murdock, T. (2008). Dispositional predictors of individualversus classroom perspectives of classroom goal structure. Paper accepted for presentation at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston. Josephson Institute of Ethics (2006, October 15).Report card on the ethics of American youth. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from http://www.josephsoninstitute.org/reportcard/
Kreft, I.G.G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L.S. (1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models.Multivariate Behavioral Research, 30, 1–22.
LaBeff, E.E., Clark, R.E., Haines, V.J., & Diekhoff, G.M. (1990). Situational ethics and college student cheating.Sociological Inquiry, 60, 190–198.
McCabe, D.L., & Trevino, L.K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation.Research in Higher Education, 38, 379–396.
McCabe, D.L., Trevino, L.K., & Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research.Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219–232.
Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002).Goals, goals structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Miller, A.D., & Murdock, T.B. (2007). Modeling latent true scores to determine the utility of aggregate student perceptions as classroom indicators in HLM: The case of classroom goal structures.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 83–104.
Miller, D.T., & Ross, M. (1975). Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction?Psychological Bulletin, 82, 213–225.
Miller, A.D., Murdock, T.B., Anderman, E.M., & Poindexter, A.L. (2007). Who are all these cheaters? Characteristics of academically dishonest students. In E.M. Anderman & T.B. Murdock (Eds.),Psychological perspectives on academic cheating. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Murdock, T.B., & Anderman, E.M. (2006). Motivational approaches to classroom cheating: Towards an integrated model of academic dishonesty.Educational Psychologist, 41, 129–145.
Murdock, T.B., & Miller, A. D. (in press). Issues in the use of multilevel modeling to examine the effects of classroom context. In M. Wosnitza, S.A. Karabenick, & A. Efklides (Eds.),Contemporary motivation research: From global to local perspectives. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe.
Murdock, T.B., & Stephens, J. M. (2007). Is cheating wrong? Students’ reasoning about academic dishonesty. In E.M. Anderman & T.B. Murdock (Eds.),Psychological perspectives on academic cheating (pp. 229–253). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Murdock, T.B., Hale, N.M., & Weber, M.J. (2001). Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Academic and social motivations.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 96–115.
Murdock, T.B., Miller, A., & Goetzinger, A. (2007). Effects of classroom context on university students’ judgments about cheating: Mediating and moderating processes.Social Psychology of Education, 10, 141–169.
Murdock, T.B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom context variables on high school students’ judgments of the acceptability and likelihood of cheating.Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 765–777.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Wolfram, T., & Perry, R.P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research.Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105.
Pulvers, K., & Diekhoff, G.M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and college classroom environment.Research in Higher Education, 40, 487–498.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002).Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stephens, J.M. (2004, April).Beyond reasoning: The role of moral identities, sociomoral regulation and social context in academic cheating among high school adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Tangney, J.P. (1990). Assessing individual differences in proneness to shame and guilt: Development of the Self-Conscious Affect and Attribution Inventory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 102–111.
Tangney, J.P. (1991). Moral affect: The good, the bad, and the ugly.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 598–607.
Tangney, J.P. (1994). The mixed legacy of the superego: Adaptive and maladaptive aspects of shame and guilt. In J.M. Masling & R.F. Bornstein (Eds.),Empirical perpectives on object relations theory (pp. 1–28). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Tangney, J.P., & Dearing, R.L. (2002).Shame and guilt. New York: Guilford.
Tangney, J.P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D.J. (2007). Moral emotions and moral behavior.Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 345–372.
Tangney, J.P., Wagner, P.E., Burggraf, S.A., Gramzow, R., & Fletcher, C. (1991, June).Children’s shame-proneness, but not guilt-proneness, is related to emotional and behavioral maladjustment. Poster session presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Society, Washington, DC.
Tracy, J.L., & Robbins, R.W. (2006). Putting the self into self-conscious emotions: A theoretical model.Psychological Inquiry, 15, 103–125.
Weiner, B. (1995).Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press.
Weiner, B., Figueroa-Munoz, A., & Kakihara, C. (1991). The goals of excuses and communication strategies related to causal perceptions.Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 4–13.
Weiner, B., Amirkhan, J., Folkes, V.S., & Verette, J.A. (1987). An attributional analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naive theory of emotion.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 316–324.
Wentzel, K.R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 411–419.
Whitley, B.E., Jr., (1996). Does “cheating” help? The effect of using authorized crib notes during examinations.College Student Journal, 30, 489–493.
Whitley, B.E., Jr., (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review.Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.
Whitley, B.E., Jr., & Keith-Speigel, P. (2002).Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murdock, T.B., Beauchamp, A.S. & Hinton, A.M. Predictors of cheating and cheating attributions: Does classroom context influence cheating and blame for cheating?. Eur J Psychol Educ 23, 477–492 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172754
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172754