Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Influences on Students’ Decisions to Report Cheating: A Laboratory Experiment

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

Abstract

We use a controlled laboratory experiment design to test rational choice theory on student whistleblowing. We examine reporting costs by comparing actual reporting behavior under anonymous and non-anonymous reporting channels. Reporting benefits are explored by considering the influence on reporting of group versus individual reward systems. We find that the type of reporting channel does not significantly influence student reporting behavior. Rewarding students based on group test scores results in significantly higher reporting rates compared to a system rewarding students based on individual test scores. Our laboratory research design allows for the measurement of actual reporting. The high reporting rates in this study emphasize the importance of clearly stating what is considered to be unethical behavior and directly asking students about their ethical environment.

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

  • The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). (2004). Ethics education in business schools. St. Louis: AACSB-International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayers, S., & Kaplan, S. E. (2005). Wrongdoing by consultants: an examination of the employees’ reporting intentions. Journal of Business Ethics, 57, 121–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. S., & Choong, P. (2005). An investigation of academic dishonesty among business students at public and private United States universities. International Journal of Management, 22(2), 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton, B. K., & Near, J. P. (1995). Estimating the incidence of wrongdoing and whistle-blowing: results of a study using randomized response technique. Journal of Business Ethics, 14, 18–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dozier, J. B., & Miceli, M. A. (1985). Potential predictors of whistle-blowing: a prosocial behavior perspective. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 823–836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrell, O., LeClair, D., & Ferrell, L. (1998). The federal sentencing guidelines for organizations: a framework for ethical compliance. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firmin, M. W., Burger, A., & Blosser, M. (2009). Affective responses of students who witness classroom cheating. Educational Research Quarterly, 32(3), 3–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gundlach, M. J., Douglas, S. C., & Martinko, M. J. (2003). The decision to blow the whistle: a social information processing framework. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooks, K. L., Kaplan, S. E., & Schultz, Jr., J. J. (1994). Enhancing communication to assist in fraud prevention and detection. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Fall), 2, 86–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, P. A. (2006). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. College Teaching, 54(1), 171–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. E., Pany, K. S., Samuels, J., & Zhang, J. (2009). An examination of the association between gender and reporting intentions for fraudulent financial reporting. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. E., & Schultz, J. J. (2007). Intentions to report questionable acts: an examination of the influence of anonymous reporting channel, internal audit quality, and setting. Journal of Business Ethics, 71, 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. E., & Whitecotton, S. M. (2001). An examination of auditor’s reporting intentions when another auditor is offered client employment. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory (Spring), 1, 45–64.

  • King, G. (2000). The implications of differences in cultural attitudes and styles of communication on peer reporting behavior. Cross-Cultural Management, 7(2), 11–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2006). Cheating during the college years: how do business school students compare? Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 197–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy, E. S., & Rakovski, C. C. (2006). Academic dishonesty: a zero tolerance professor and student registration choices. Research in Higher Education, 47(6), 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L. (1997). Classroom cheating among natural science and engineering majors. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(4), 433–445.

    Article  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 & Education, 5(3), 294–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments. The Journal of Higher Education, 70(2), 211–234.

    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 

  • Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). Whistleblowing in organizations: an examination of correlates of whistleblowing intentions, actions, retaliation. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 277–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1985). Characteristics of organizational climate and perceived wrongdoing associated with whistle-blowing decisions. Personnel Psychology, 38, 525–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing. Personnel Psychology, 41, 267–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1994). Relationships among value congruence, perceived victimization, and retaliation against whistle-blowers: the case of internal auditors. Journal of Management (20), 773–794.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miethe, T. D., & Rothschild, J. (1994). Whistleblowing and the control of organizational misconduct. Sociological Inquiry, 64(3), 322–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moberly, R. E. (2007). Sarbanes-oxley’s structural model to encourage corporate whistleblowers. Brigham Young University Law Review, 5, 1107–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. R., & Miceli, M. P. (1985). Organizational dissidence: the case of whistle-blowing. Journal of Business Ethics, 4, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. R., & Miceli, M. P. (1987). Whistle-blowers in organizations: dissents or reformers? Research in Organizational Behavior, 9, 321–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. R., & Miceli, M. P. (1995). Effective whistleblowing. Academy of Management Review, 22, 507–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Near, J. P., & Jensen, T. C. (1983). The whistle-blowing process: retaliation and perceived expectiveness. Work and Occupations, 10, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nuss, E. M. (1984). Academic integrity: comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teaching, 32(3), 140–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie, S. C., & Crosby, J. R. (2002). Students’ perceptions of whistle blowing: implications for self-regulation. A questionnaire and focus group survey. Medical Education, 36(2), 173–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierles, F. S., Kushner, B. D., & Krause, P. B. (1988). A controlled experiment with a medical student honor system. Journal of Medical Education, 63, 705–712.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 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(1), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M., Mitchell, S., & Turner, J. (1998). Consideration of moral intensity in ethicality judgments: it’s relationship with whistle-blowing and need-for-cognition. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 527–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, M. L., & Davis, J. R. (2004). Perceptions of dishonesty among 2-year college students: academic versus business situations. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 63–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: a social content perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 38–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevino, L., Weaver, G., Gibson, D., & Toffler, B. (1999). Managing ethics and legal compliance: what works and what hurts. California Management Review, 41(2), 131–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (2006). Implementing an organizational ethics program in an academic environment: the challenges and opportunities for duquesne university schools of business. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 23–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Norbert College, De Pere, WI, USA

    Iris Jenkel & Jason J. Haen

Authors
  1. Iris Jenkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jason J. Haen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Iris Jenkel.

Additional information

Section: Teaching Business Ethics

Ethics Statement: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board committee and has therefore been performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. All participants signed a consent form prior to participating in the study. Due to the deception component of the experimental design, all participants were individually debriefed immediately after the experiment.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jenkel, I., Haen, J.J. Influences on Students’ Decisions to Report Cheating: A Laboratory Experiment. J Acad Ethics 10, 123–136 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9154-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-012-9154-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation