Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes

  • Published:
Research in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cheating among college students has generally been studied from a student perspective. The research discussed here looks at student cheating from a faculty perspective. Utilizing the responses of 789 faculty members at 16 institutions located throughout the United States, it examines typical faculty responses to incidents of student cheating and how the presence of a student honor code influences faculty responses. These findings are compared to student perspectives on how faculty address incidents of cheating using data collected from over 3,000 students at the same 16 institutions in an earlier phase of this research project.

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

  • Baird, J. S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating.Psychology in the Schools 17(4):515–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, W. J. (1964).Student Dishonesty and Its Control in College. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research, Columbia University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C. M., Cunningham, R., Hinson, N., Brown, S., and Weaver, B. (1981). Student attitudes toward a medical school honor code.Journal of Medical Education 56(8):669–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, W. G. (1935).A Comparative Investigation of Students Under an Honor System and a Proctor System in the Same University. Los Angeles: University of Southern California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canning, R. (1956). Does an honor system reduce classroom cheating? An experimental answer.Journal of Experimental Education 24(4):291–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collison, M. (1990). Survey at Rutgers suggest that cheating may be on the rise at large universities.The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 24:A31-A32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake, C. A. (1941). Why students cheat?Journal of Higher Education 12(November):418–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberger, R., and Shank, D. M. (1985). Personal work ethic and effort training affect cheating.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(2):520–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fass, R. A. (1986). By honor bound: Encouraging academic honesty.Educational Record 67(4):32–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartshorne, H., and May, M. A. (1928).Studies in Deceit. New York: The Macmillan Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hetherington, E. M., and Feldman, S. E. (1964). College cheating as a function of subject and situational variables.Journal of Educational Psychology 55(4):212–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty.Journal of College Student Development 30(5):401–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, D. L., and Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences.Journal of Higher Education, in press.

  • Michaels, J. W., and Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating.Social Science Quarterly 70(4):870–885.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavela, G. R., and McCabe, D. L. (1992). Changing strategies for promoting academic integrity. Working paper, University of Maryland, College Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, A. R., Kane, K. M., Bernesser, K. J., and Spicker, P. T. (1990). Type A behavior, competitive achievement-striving, and cheating among college students.Psychological Reports 66(2):459–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhal, A. C. (1982). Factors in students' dishonesty.Psychological Reports 51(3):775–780.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, E. B., and Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys.Journal of Allied Health 15(2):129–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabor, M. B. W. (1987). Honor codes get a second look.Christian Science Monitor, January 30:B3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tittle, C. R., and Rowe, A. R. (1973). Moral appeal, sanction threat, and deviance: An experimental test.Social Problems 20(4):488–497.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D. A. (1986). Self-esteem and dishonest behavior revisited.Journal of Social Psychology 126(6):709–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D. A., and Beck, W. L. (1990). Gender and dishonesty.Journal of Social Psychology 130(3):333–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. C., and Kelly, R. (1974). Cheating: Student/faculty views and responsibilities.Improving College and University Teaching 22(1):31–34.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, 92 New Street, 07102, Newark, NJ

    Donald L. McCabe (Graduate School of Management)

Authors
  1. Donald L. McCabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCabe, D.L. Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. Res High Educ 34, 647–658 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991924

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991924

Keywords

Search

Navigation