Advertisement

Student Cheating: A Dramaturgical Analysis of Identity, Deception, and Self-deception

  • Susan A. StearnsEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This study offers a dramaturgical analysis of college students’ cheating behavior. All students who participated in the study claimed to have never cheated in college, yet many of their responses describe their own cheating behaviors. Three socially constructed identities emerged from their deceptive performances: the entertainer, the confessor, and the justifier. Each social identity offers an opportunity for understanding various forms of deception within instructional contexts. Further analysis offers insight regarding how deception is designed for particular audiences and addresses the topic of self-deception.

Keywords

Deception Self-deception Dramaturgy Accounts Cheating Academic dishonesty Erving Goffman 

References

  1. Antaki, C. (1994). Explaining and arguing: The social organization of accounts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Avner, C., & Gorsky, P. (2006). Online deception: Prevalence, motivation, and emotion. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 9(1), 54–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F. (1993). Lying to yourself: The enigma of self-deception. In C. Saarni & M. Lewis’s (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 166–183). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Blumstein, P. W., Carssow, K. G., Hall, J., Hawkins, B., Hoffman, R., Ishem, E., …, Zimmerman, D. L. (1974). The honoring of accounts. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 551–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2011). Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(3), 15655–15659.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conte, M. (2008). Little naked pangs of the self: The real performance of the self and the function of trust in Goffman’s action theory. International Review of Sociology, 18(3), 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ford, C. V. (1996). Lies! Lies!! Lies!!! The psychology of deceit. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gawrylowicz, J., Fairlamb, S., Tantot, E., Qureshi, Z., Redha, A., & Ridley, A. M. (2016). Does practice make the perfect liar? The effect of rehearsal and increased cognitive load on cues to deception. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30, 250–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giluk, T. L., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2015). Big five personality and academic dishonesty: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goffman, E. (1959). Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  11. Greenwald, A. G., & Breckler, S. J. (1985). To whom is the self presented? In B. R. Schlenker’s (Ed.), The self and social life (pp. 126–145). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  12. Horowitz, M. W. (1956). The psychology of confession. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 47(2), 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knapp, M. L. (2008). Lying and deception in human interaction. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  14. Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonnsson, G. H. (2004). The psychology of confessions: A review of the literature and issues. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5(2), 33–67.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levine, T. R., & McCornack, S. A. (2014). Theorizing about deception. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33(4), 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lulz. (2018). Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved January 28, 2018, from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/lulz.
  17. Mansoor, F., & Ameen, K. (2016). Promoting academic integrity in South Asian research culture: The case of Pakistani academic institutions. South Asian Studies, 31(2), 77–90.Google Scholar
  18. McCabe, D. L., Feghali, T., & Abdallah, H. (2008). Academic dishonesty in the Middle East: Individual and contextual factors. Research in Higher Education, 49, 451–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McEntire, N. C. (2002). Purposeful deceptions of the April Fool. Western Folklore, 61(2), 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Rourke, J., Barnes, J., Deaton, A., Fulks, K., Ryan, K., & Rettinger, D. A. (2010). Imitation is the sincerest form of cheating: The influence of direct knowledge and attitudes on academic dishonesty. Journal of Ethics and Behavior, 20(1), 47–64.Google Scholar
  21. Paik, J. E., & Van Swol, L. M. (2017). Justifications and questions in detecting deception. Group Decision and Negotiation, 26, 1041–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peer, E., Acquisti, A., & Shalvi, S. (2014). “I cheated, but only a little”: Partial confessions to unethical behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 202–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Presser, L. (2004). Violent offenders, moral selves: Constructing identities and accounts in the research interview. Social Problems, 51(1), 82–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Scheff, T. J. (2006). Goffman unbound! A new paradigm for social science. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33(1), 46–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sendag, S., Duran, M., & Fraser, M. R. (2012). Surveying the extent of involvement in online academic dishonesty (e-dishonesty) related practices among university students and the rationale students provide: One university’s experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 849–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shulman, D. (2017). The presentation of self in contemporary social life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Solomon, R. C. (1993). What a tangled web: Deception and self-deception in philosophy. In C. Saarni & M. Lewis’s (Eds.), Lying and deception in everyday life (pp. 30–58). New York: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Stearns, S. A. (2001). The student-instructor relationship’s effect on academic integrity. Journal of Behavior & Ethics, 11, 275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stearns, S. A. (2007). Not ever: Eschewing academic dishonesty. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the Center for Academic Integrity, Newport News, VA.Google Scholar
  32. Stearns, S. A., & Cantu, J. (2006). More than once: Repetitive acts of academic dishonesty. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the Center for Academic Integrity, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  33. VanDeGrift, T., Dillon, H., & Camp, L. (2017). Changing the engineering student culture with respect toward academic integrity and ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics, 4, 1159–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van Dongen, E. (2002). Theatres of the lie: ‘Crazy’ deception and lying as drama. Anthropology & Medicine, 9(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (2014a). Channel choice, justification of deception, and detection. Journal of Communication, 64, 1139–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Swol, L. M., & Braun, M. T. (2014b). Communicating deception: Differences in language use, justifications, and questions for lies, omissions and truths. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(6), 1343–1367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wood, L. A., & Kroeger, R. O. (2000). Doing discourse analysis: Methods for studying action in talk and text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Yang, Y., Guyll, M., & Madon, S. (2017). The interrogation decision-making model: A general theoretical framework for confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 80–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Eastern Washington UniversityCheneyUSA

Personalised recommendations