literature review about academic dishonesty

Staff Directory
Workshops and Events
For Students

Literature Review: Academic Dishonesty – What Causes It, How to Prevent It

by Thomas Keith | Nov 16, 2018 | Instructional design

literature review about academic dishonesty

Note: For further information on academic dishonesty and academic integrity, please see our series Combating Academic Dishonesty . Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

Academic dishonesty, which encompasses behaviors such as cheating, plagiarism, and falsification of data or citations, is a widespread and troubling phenomenon in higher education. (For the full spectrum of behaviors that qualify as academic dishonesty, see Berkeley City College’s What Is Academic Dishonesty? ) It may be as simple as looking over a classmate’s shoulder during a quiz or as elaborate as hiring a ghostwriter online for a course paper, but whatever the method employed, academic dishonesty harms the learning experience and gives cheaters an unfair advantage over those who abide by the rules. This post examines some of the chief factors that lead to academic dishonesty among college students, as determined by empirical research in the field, and offers suggestions to faculty and instructors on ways to reduce the likelihood of dishonest conduct among their students.

What Causes Academic Dishonesty?

There is no single explanation for the occurrence of dishonest behavior in college. Studies suggest that most students realize academic dishonesty is morally wrong, but various outside factors or pressures may serve as “neutralizers,” allowing students to suppress their feelings of guilt and justify their dishonest acts to themselves (Baird 1980; Haines et al. 1986; Hughes and McCabe 2006). In certain cases, dishonest behavior may arise not from willful disregard for the rules of academic integrity, but from ignorance of what those rules are. Some common reasons for students’ engaging in academic dishonesty are given below.

Poor time management

Particularly in their early years of college, many students have difficulties with managing their time successfully. Faced with demands on their out-of-class time from athletics, extracurricular clubs, fraternities and sororities, etc., they may put off studying or working on assignments until it is too late for them to do a satisfactory job. Cheating then appears attractive as a way to avoid failure (Haines et al. 1986).

Academic pressures

Sometimes a student must maintain a certain GPA in order to receive merit-based financial aid, to participate in athletics, or even to continue receiving financial support from his/her family. Even high-achieving students may turn to academic dishonesty as a way to achieve their target GPA. Academic pressures can be worsened in courses that are graded on a curve: with the knowledge that only a fixed number of As can be awarded, students may turn to dishonest methods of surpassing their classmates (Whitley 1998; Carnegie Mellon University ).

In very large classes, students may feel anonymous; if the bulk of their interaction is with teaching assistants, they may regard the instructor as distant and unconcerned with their performance. This can increase the temptation to cheat, as students rationalize their dishonest behavior by assuming that the instructor “doesn’t care” what they do. Not surprisingly, this can often be a danger in online courses, since course sizes can be huge and students do not normally interact with their instructors face-to-face ( Carnegie Mellon University ).

Failure to understand academic conventions

The “rules” of academic writing often appear puzzling to students, particularly those who have not had extensive practice with academic writing in high school. The Internet has arguably exacerbated this problem; the easy availability of information (accurate or otherwise) on websites has led many students to assume that all information sources are de facto public property and need not be cited, which leads to unintentional plagiarism. Faculty and instructors should not take for granted that their students simply “know” when they must cite sources and how they should do so (Perry 2008). In addition, the ready availability of websites on every topic imaginable has had a deleterious effect on students’ ability to assess sources critically. Some students simply rely upon whichever site comes up at the top of a Google search, without considering the accuracy or potential biases of the information with which they are being presented.

Cultural factors

Related to the above, international students may face particular challenges in mastering the conventions of academic writing. They do not necessarily share Western/American understandings of what constitutes “originality,” intellectual property rights, and so forth, and it often takes time and practice for them to internalize the “rules” fully, especially if English is not their first language. In addition, students who come from cultures where collaborative work is common may not realize that certain assignments require them to work entirely on their own (Currie 1998; Pecorari 2003; Hughes and McCabe 2006; Abasi and Graves 2008).

The academic pressures common to all college students can be particularly acute for international students. In some cultures (e.g. those of East Asia) excellent academic performance at the university level is vital for securing good jobs after graduation, and students may therefore believe that their futures depend upon receiving the highest possible grades. When a student’s family is making sacrifices to send him/her overseas for college, s/he may be concerned about “letting the family down” by doing poorly in school, which can make academic dishonesty all the more tempting.

Low-Stakes Assignments

While some people may think of cheating as a risk only on high-stakes assignments (course papers, final exams, and the like), it can easily occur on low-stakes assignments as well. In fact, the very lack of grade weight that such assignments bear can encourage dishonesty: students may conclude that since an assignment has little or no bearing on their course grade, it “doesn’t matter” whether or not they approach it honestly. For this reason, it is vital to stress to students the importance of honest conduct on all assignments, whether big or small. The University does not take grade weight into account when deciding whether academic dishonesty has occurred; plagiarism is plagiarism and cheating is cheating, even if the assignment in question is worth zero points.

Technology and Academic Dishonesty

The rapidly increasing sophistication of digital technology has opened up new avenues for students bent on academic dishonesty. Beyond simply cutting-and-pasting from webpages, an entire Internet economy has sprung up that offers essays for students to purchase and pass off as their own. Students may also use wireless technology such as Bluetooth to share answers during exams, take pictures of exams with their smartphones, and the like (McMurtry 2001; Jones, Reid, and Bartlett 2008; Curran, Middleton, and Doherty 2011). Research suggests that the use of technology creates a “distancing” effect that makes students’ guilt about cheating less acute ( Vanderbilt University ).

How Can Faculty and Instructors Combat Academic Dishonesty?

There is no panacea to prevent all forms of dishonest behavior. That said, at each step of the learning design process, there are steps that faculty and instructors can take to help reduce the likelihood of academic dishonesty, whether by making it more difficult or by giving students added incentive to do their work honestly.

Course Management and Syllabus Design

The sooner students are informed about the standards of conduct they should adhere to, the greater the likelihood that they will internalize those standards (Perry 2010). This is why it is worthwhile for faculty to devote a portion of their syllabus to setting standards for academic integrity. Consider setting the tone for your course by offering a clear definition of what constitutes academic dishonesty, the procedure you will follow if you suspect that dishonest behavior has occurred, and the penalties culprits may face. Include a link to UChicago’s statement on Academic Honesty and Plagiarism . If you have a Canvas course site, you can create an introductory module where students must read a page containing your academic integrity policies and “mark as done,” or take a quiz on your policies and score 100%, in order to receive credit for completing the module.

If your syllabus includes many collaborative assignments, it can also be useful to explain clearly for which assignments collaboration is permitted and which must be done individually. You can also specify what you consider acceptable vs. unacceptable forms of collaboration (e.g. sharing ideas while brainstorming is allowed, but copying one another’s exact words is not).

Finally, consider including information in your syllabus about resources available to students who are having academic difficulties, such as office hours and tutoring. Students who are facing difficulties with time management, executive function, and similar issues may benefit from the Student Counseling Service’s Academic Skills Assessment Program (ASAP) . The University’s Writing Center offers help with mastering academic writing and its conventions. Encourage your students to avail themselves of these resources as soon as they encounter difficulties. If they get help early on, they will be less likely to feel desperate later and resort to dishonest behavior to raise their grade (Whitley 1998).

In general, making your expectations clear at the outset of your course helps to build a strong relationship between you and your students. Your students will feel more comfortable coming to you for help, and they will also understand the risks they would be running if they behaved dishonestly in your course, which can be a powerful deterrent.

Assignment Design

When crafting assignments such as essays and course papers, strive for two factors: originality and specificity. The more original the topic you choose, and the more specific your instructions, the less likely it is that students will be able to find a pre-written paper on the Internet that fits all the requirements (McMurtry 2001). Changing paper topics from year to year also avoids the danger that students may pass off papers from previous years as their own work. You might consider using a rubric with a detailed breakdown of the factors you will be assessing in grading the assignment; Canvas offers built-in rubric functionality .

If an assignment makes up a large percentage of your students’ final grade (e.g. a course paper), you might consider using “scaffolding”. Have the students work up to the final submission through smaller, lower-stakes sub-assignments, such as successive drafts or mini-papers. This has the double benefit of making it harder for students to cheat (since you will have seen their writing process) and reducing their incentive to cheat (since their grade will not be solely dependent upon the final submission) ( Carnegie Mellon University ).

In the case of in-class exams, you may find it worthwhile to create multiple versions of an exam, each with a separate answer key. Even as simple an expedient as placing the questions in a different order in different versions makes it harder for students to copy off one another’s work or share answer keys ( Carnegie Mellon University ).

Technological Tools to Prevent Academic Dishonesty

Even as students have discovered more sophisticated ways to cheat, educational professionals and software developers have created new technologies to thwart would-be cheaters. Canvas, the University’s learning management system, includes several features intended to make cheating more difficult.

By default, the Files tab in Canvas is turned off when a new course is created. This prevents students from accessing your course files and viewing files they should not, such as answer keys or upcoming exam questions. If you choose to enable Files in your course, you should place all sensitive files in locked or unpublished folders to render them invisible to students. For more details, see this post .

If you are using Canvas Quizzes in your course, you can choose from a number of options that increase the variation between individual students’ Quizzes and thus decrease the chances of cheating. These including randomizing answers for multiple-choice questions; drawing randomly selected questions from question groups; and setting up variables in mathematical questions, so that different students will see different numerical values. For more details, see this post .

Several different computer programs have been developed that claim to detect plagiarism in student papers, usually by comparing student submissions against the Internet, a database of past work, or both, and then identifying words and phrases that match. Viper follows a “freemium” model, while the best-known subscription-based plagiarism checker, Turnitin , is currently licensed only by the Law School at the University of Chicago. These programs can be helpful, but bear in mind that no automatic plagiarism checker is 100% accurate; you will still need to review student work yourself to see whether an apparent match flagged by the software is genuine plagiarism or not (Jones, Reid, and Bartlett 2008). Also be aware that Turnitin and some other plagiarism checkers assert ownership rights over student work submitted to them, which can raise issues of intellectual property rights.

In addition to detecting plagiarism after the fact, there are technological tools that can help prevent it from occurring in the first place. Citation managers such as Endnote and Zotero are excellent ways to help students manage their research sources and cite them properly, especially when writing longer papers that draw on a wide range of source material. The University of Chicago Library offers a detailed guide to citation managers , along with regular workshops on how to use them .

What to Do if You Suspect Academic Dishonesty

If you suspect that academic dishonesty may have occurred in one of your courses, the University has resources to which you can turn. For undergraduates, it is best to begin by speaking to the student’s academic adviser . You can find out which adviser is assigned to a student in your course by visiting Faculty Access and looking at the “Advisor” column in the course roster. If you have questions about disciplinary procedures specific to the College, you can contact the Office of College Community Standards, headed by Assistant Dean of Students Stephen Scott . For graduate students, the appropriate area Dean of Students can provide information about the correct disciplinary procedures to follow.

The fight against academic dishonesty is a difficult one, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. But if faculty and instructors give careful thought to the causes of student misconduct and plan their instructional strategies accordingly, they can do much to curb dishonest behavior and ensure that integrity prevails in the classroom.

Bibliography

Journal articles.

Abasi, Ali R., and Barbara Graves. “Academic Literacy and Plagiarism: Conversations with International Graduate Students and Disciplinary Professors.” Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7.4 (Oct. 2008), 221-233.
Baird, John S., Jr. “Current Trends in College Cheating.” Psychology in the Schools 17 (1980), 515-522.
Curran, Kevin, Gary Middleton, and Ciaran Doherty. “Cheating in Exams with Technology.” International Journal of Cyber Ethics in Education 1.2 (Apr.-Jun. 2011), 54-62.
Currie, Pat. “Staying Out of Trouble: Apparent Plagiarism and Academic Survival.” Journal of Second Language Writing 7.1 (Jan. 1998), 1-18.
Haines, Valerie J., et al. “College Cheating: Immaturity, Lack of Commitment, and the Neutralizing Attitude.” Research in Higher Education 25.4 (Dec. 1986), 342-354.
Hughes, Julia M. Christensen, and Donald L. McCabe. “Understanding Academic Misconduct.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 36.1 (2006), 49-63.
Jones, Karl O., Juliet Reid, and Rebecca Bartlett. “Cyber Cheating in an Information Technology Age.” In R. Comas and J. Sureda (coords.). “Academic Cyberplagiarism” [online dossier]. Digithum: The Humanities in the Digital Era 10 (2008), n.p. UOC. [Accessed: 26/09/18] ISSN 1575-2275.
McMurtry, Kim. “E-Cheating: Combating a 21st Century Challenge.” Technological Horizons in Education Journal 29.4 (Nov. 2001), 36-40.
Pecorari, Diane. “Good and original: Plagiarism and patchwriting in academic second-language writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 12.4 (Dec. 2003), 317-345.
Perry, Bob. “Exploring Academic Misconduct: Some Insights into Student Behaviour.” Active Learning in Higher Education 11.2 (2010), 97-108.
Whitley, Bernard E. “Factors Associated with Cheating among College Students: A Review.” Research in Higher Education 39.3 (Jun. 1998), 235-274.

Web Resources

Berkeley City College: http://www.berkeleycitycollege.edu/wp/de/what-is-academic-dishonesty/
Carnegie Mellon University: https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-cheating/index.html
University of Chicago: https://college.uchicago.edu/advising/academic-honesty | https://studentmanual.uchicago.edu/Policies
Colorado State University: https://tilt.colostate.edu/integrity/resourcesFaculty/whyDoStudents.cfm
Harvard University (Zachary Goldman): https://www.gse.harvard.edu/uk/blog/youth-perspective
Oakland University: https://www.oakland.edu/Assets/upload/docs/OUWC/Presentations%26Workshops/dont_fail_your_courses.pdf
Vanderbilt University (Derek Bruff): https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/2011/02/why-do-students-cheat/

Search Blog

Subscribe by email.

Please, insert a valid email.

Thank you, your email will be added to the mailing list once you click on the link in the confirmation email.

Spam protection has stopped this request. Please contact site owner for help.

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Why Students Cheat and How Understanding This Can Help Reduce the Frequency of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education: A Literature Review

Paula j miles, martin campbell, graeme d ruxton.

Author information
Article notes
Copyright and License information

Address correspondence to: Dr. Paula Miles, School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Mary’s Quad, South Street, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 9JP, Scotland, UK. Email: [email protected]

Corresponding author.

Received 2021 Mar 23; Revised 2021 Jun 24; Accepted 2021 Jul 1; Collection date 2022 Winter.

Academic integrity is fundamental to effective education and learning yet cheating continues to occur in diverse forms within the higher education sector. It is essential that students are educated about, and understand the importance of, good academic practice. Strict standards of academic integrity help to ensure that knowledge is acquired in an honest and ethical manner, creating fairness and equity for students, ultimately enriching the student experience at university and the wider society’s trust in the value of university education. This literature review synthesizes the many varied reasons why students cheat, as presented in a large body of existing literature. We then turn our attention to what we can do as educators to help reduce the rates of academic misconduct. Factors influencing the propensity of students to cheat are diverse but relatively well understood. Whilst policing and applying appropriate punishments should be part of institutional responses to academic misconduct, it is clear that this is only part of the solution. We emphasize the need for a much broader range of proactive activities to be brought to bear. Many of these are educational in nature and should have benefits for students, staff and institutions beyond discouraging academic misconduct. Resource implication should not be a barrier to their implementation.

Keywords: academic misconduct, academic dishonesty, cheating, plagiarism, academic integrity, good academic practice, higher education, university education

Academic scholarship within higher education institutions is expected to be conducted in a manner consistent with principles of equity, morality and honesty. Strict standards of academic integrity help to ensure that the acquisition of knowledge is achieved in an ethically sound and honest manner, creating an environment of fairness for students, promoting trust between students and staff, and ultimately enhancing the student experience at university ( Hayes and Introna, 2005 ).

Upholding good academic practice is paramount for educational organizations. There is a requirement for students to graduate from university having attainted certain skills, abilities and levels of knowledge. If academic integrity is breached through acts of misconduct, universities (and wider society) cannot be sure that students have met their learning objectives and this is troublesome for a number of reasons ( Abdolmohammadi and Baker, 2007 ; Bertram Gallant, 2008 ).

Firstly, engaging with academic misconduct will directly impact the student’s future learning. If, for example, a student were to present a piece of work as their own, when in fact it had been completed by someone else, the feedback that the teacher provides will not necessarily be relevant or helpful to the student. McGowan (2016) highlights the potential concern of creating a ‘vicious cycle’ whereby if students are not receiving the appropriate feedback and support that they need to enhance their academic growth, they will likely drop behind on content understanding and be more likely to resort to additional acts of academic misconduct in the future.

Academic dishonesty impacts the student directly, but it can also impact the teacher, highlighting a second area of concern. The goal of educators is to help students learn, understand and retain knowledge of discipline specific content. A key part of this process is to assess student development and refine content delivery to meet teaching and learning objectives. If a student cheats, the teacher will not get an accurate picture of that student’s true understanding and ability. As such, it will not be possible to identify potential gaps in student learning that need to be addressed and the teacher will not be able to provide the necessary advice to help that student develop. In addition, the teacher may lose the opportunity to adjust and improve their teaching materials for future years if they do not have reliable information on how current students have managed the content ( Passow et al., 2006 ).

Another concern relates to fairness. A student who does not cheat, thereby not receiving any additional assistance, can be disadvantaged compared to those students who do cheat and are not caught ( Burgason et al., 2019 ). It is essential that there is equality for all students within the learning environment and students need to know that the institution actively promotes equal opportunities for all students to succeed fairly. As Passow and colleagues (2006) highlight, all students should be entitled to a fair and just measurement of learning outcomes, which cannot occur if some students are cheating.

Finally, on a larger scale, a subculture of cheating can affect the institution as a whole. If it becomes known that a university has high levels of cheating and that a university does not take cases of misconduct seriously, or does little to rectify the situation, the reputation of the institution will be at risk ( Burgason et al., 2019 ; Parnther, 2020 ). The wider general public and future employers of graduate students will no longer hold the university, and its awarded degrees, in high regard. As one faculty member expressed in Marcoux’s (2002) investigation of undergraduate students’ cheating behaviors, “[if students] go out and they do not really know what they're doing, then it's going to hurt the reputation of the university. And so, what it does, in essence, is cheapen the value of the degree from that university.” Reputational costs may not be confined just to the institutions and students concerned, but to the wider sector, adversely affecting the perceived value of higher education ( Denisova-Schmidt et al., 2019 ).

WHY DO STUDENTS CHEAT?

The overwhelming majority of students know, in a general sense, that it is morally and ethically wrong to cheat ( Guffey and McCartney, 2008 ; McGowan, 2016 ). Despite this, some students still engage in academic misconduct. Researchers have sought to better understand why students engage in academic misconduct and they have identified a number of factors that seem to override a student’s integrity and mitigate against the student doing what they know is morally and ethically right. The following factors have been identified as influencing or mediating a student’s engagement in academic misconduct:

lack of understanding of what constitutes academic misconduct

honor code and policy at the institutional level

perceived risk and penalties

international students and cultural differences

teaching environment

pressures, both internal and external

a cheating culture

moral reasoning

personal attributes including gender, age, grades, discipline of studies, employment, time management skills, and level of satisfaction.

Before elaborating on the research carried out on each of the factors listed above, it is important to acknowledge some of the challenges faced when collecting data in this field. Firstly, self-reporting is key to these studies and the primary technique used in this type of research. A limitation of self-reported data is that the data are vulnerable to issues of dishonesty and to faulty memory recall. Secondly, these studies are essentially observational, which can be useful for detecting associations between variables. However, these associations may be driven by third variables that have not been controlled for, and as such, associations must be interpreted cautiously in terms of any cause-and-effect relationship. Lastly, these studies often focus on links between one factor and academic misconduct, but the list of factors outlined above is not exhaustive, and different combinations of factors may well interact with each other, rather than act in isolation. For example, although gender and specific discipline of study are both known to be associated with propensity to cheat, untangling these effects is challenging when these two factors are interlinked – with different fields of study attracting different gender mixes.

Lack of Understanding of What Constitutes Academic Misconduct

Researchers report that many students engage in academic misconduct because of a lack of solid understanding of good academic practice ( Perry, 2010 ; Busch and Bilgin, 2014 ). It is argued that the supposed misconduct can sometimes, in fact, be entirely unintentional cheating resulting from ignorance ( Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke, 2005 ; Chen and Chou, 2017 ). This is particularly true for plagiarism, with research showing that students do not appear to fully understand what plagiarism is and are not able to paraphrase or attribute sources correctly ( Bamford and Sergiou, 2005 ; Elander et al., 2010 ).

Peers are also influential in a student’s engagement with cheating behaviors ( McCabe et al., 2006 ; Broeckelman-Post, 2008 ; Makarova, 2017 ). Firstly, if students believe that their peers are cheating, they will be more likely to cheat themselves ( Resurreccion, 2012 ). This suggests that the behavior of peers provides a norm for cheating ( Bowers, 1966 ; Pan et al., 2019 ). It has also been found that some students engage in academic misconduct because they are helping out a friend who is struggling ( Sutton and Taylor, 2011 ; Sutherland-Smith, 2013 ). Related to this, the majority of students report that if they were to discover that a peer had cheated on a piece of work, they would not turn their classmate in ( Lim and See, 2001 ; Rabi et al., 2006 ; Bayaa Martin Saana et al., 2016 ; Pupovac et al., 2019 ; Nyamasvisva et al., 2020 ).

Honor Code and Policy

Research suggests that institutions that do not have a formal policy or honor code regarding good academic practice are likely to have higher rates of academic dishonesty across the student body ( de Lambert et al., 2006 ). If a university does have an honor code, their students may be less likely to cheat ( Bowers, 1966 ; McCabe and Pavela, 2000 ; Vandehey et al., 2007 ). Having a specific policy about good academic practice that is well known to staff and students appears to positively impact student behavior and can reduce the frequency of misconduct cases ( Whitley and Keith-Spiegel, 2001 ; McCabe et al., 2002 ).

Perceived Risk and Penalties

The perceived risk of being caught cheating is a factor that influences student behavior, as does the severity of penalties for being caught ( de Lambert et al., 2006 ; Makarova, 2019 ). Students are more likely to engage in academic misconduct if they believe that their university does not take it seriously, is not proactive in trying to prevent cheating, and does not consistently and appropriately discipline students who are caught cheating ( Zobel, 2004 ).

Cultural Differences and International Students

Cultural differences are linked to some instances of cheating ( Handa and Power, 2005 ; Sowden, 2005 ; Chudzicka-Czupała et al., 2013 ; Ison, 2018 ; Mahmud et al., 2019 ). International students can arrive in a new environment where they are exposed to a new language, different teaching styles and are asked to learn content and produce work in a way that differs to their educational experiences thus far (e.g., Hayes and Introna, 2005 ). Bretag and colleagues (2019) found that students who speak a language other than English at home were more likely to consider cheating and Walker’s (2010) findings showed that international students committed plagiarism more than domestic students. In addition, international students may not understand what is meant by plagiarism in their current institution due to different beliefs held in their culture regarding the ownership of ideas ( Busch and Bilgin, 2014 ; James et al., 2019 ). These changes in approach and in required thinking can be difficult to internalize, especially if expectations are not made explicit. Cultural differences can result in genuine cases of unintentional academic misconduct.

The rapid growth of the internet, and the ease with which large amounts of digital information can now be accessed, have been linked to an increase in the rates of academic misconduct ( Jereb et al., 2018 ; Ison, 2019 ; Luck et al., 2021 ). This appears to be particularly true for plagiarism and contract cheating ( Clarke and Lancaster, 2007 ; Birks et al., 2020 ).

Teaching Environment

A number of factors relating to the teaching environment have been identified as influencing the cheating behavior of students. These factors can be divided into three categories: the teachers , the classroom , and the assessment schedule .

Research suggests that teachers are influential in whether or not students will engage in academic misconduct ( Makarova, 2019 ). Students are less likely to cheat if their teacher is engaged and interested in their learning experience and if their teacher spends time talking about good academic practice and what their expectations are regarding student honesty ( Cole and Kiss, 2000 ; Broeckelman-Post, 2008 ). If teachers provide constructive feedback on how to attribute sources correctly, instances of unintentional misconduct can be reduced. Conversely, if teachers do not openly engage with the university policy on academic integrity, students are more likely to engage in unacceptable academic practices ( Moss et al., 2018 ). Some research has shown that students are more likely to cheat when they are taught by non-tenured staff, as opposed to established, permanent members of faculty ( Nowell and Laufer, 1997 ). Students also seem to be more likely to cheat if they do not feel that they can approach their teacher for help, they do not feel that the teacher views their work as important, or they feel that their class has been taught poorly by their teacher ( Ashworth et al., 1997 ; Rabi et al., 2006 ; Bretag et al., 2019 ).

Large class teaching and staff-student ratios have been linked to academic dishonesty, with the number of misconduct cases increasing as class sizes rise ( Nowell and Laufer, 1997 ). Students who are not able to integrate successfully with their classmates are also reportedly more likely to resort to cheating behaviors ( Calabrese and Cochran, 1990 ; Bennett, 2005 ).

A number of aspects of assessment have been linked to a heightened risk of academic misconduct. For example, if students have submission dates that coincide across several different pieces of work or have quick turnaround times for pieces of assessment, they are more likely to consider cheating ( Bamford and Sergiou, 2005 ; Jeergal et al., 2015 ; Bretag et al., 2020 ). Likewise, certain aspects of the assessment itself can influence student behavior. This includes assessment items that are considered by the students to be too time consuming, too difficult, or too easy ( McGowan, 2016 ). Past research has suggested that the move away from examinations, towards an increased reliance on continuous assessment, has increased the opportunities that students have to cheat ( Walker, 1998 ). Interestingly, recent work by Harper and colleagues (2020) suggests, based on student self-reported data, that students may cheat more frequently in exam-based assessments, than previously believed. As such, a move to exams to avoid continuous assessment and associated forms of cheating may not be a full proof solution. Finally, there is research to suggest that using the same pieces of assessment year after year or for re-sit exams and using group work to contribute towards summative assessment may also contribute to rates of cheating ( Ashworth et al, 1997 ; Lim and See, 2001 ; Rabi et al., 2006 ; Sutherland-Smith, 2013 ).

Students experience a number of different academic and social pressures, both internally and externally, while they complete their degrees. Some of these pressures have been linked to academic misconduct. The pressure to succeed and a fear of failure have been reported by students as a reason for why they have cheated or why they would cheat ( Abdolmohammadi and Baker, 2007 ; Jeergal et al., 2015 ). These could be pressures that they are placing on themselves to pass a module, achieve good grades and/or to be able to secure employment in the future ( Nuss, 1984 ; Bayaa Martin Saana et al., 2016 ). It could also be related to external parental pressures placed on the student, especially if attending university has financial implications for the family ( Bennett, 2005 ; Bayaa Martin Saana et al., 2016 ).

Cheating Culture

If students successfully cheat, there is a risk that this type of behavior becomes normalized ( Moss et al., 2018 ; Tee and Curtis, 2018 ). If there is a belief that cheating occurs within an institution, a cheating culture is likely to develop making it more probable that current and future students will engage in misconduct ( Selingo, 2004 ; McCabe, 2005 ).

Moral Values

Some researchers have suggested that cheating behaviors are driven by an erosion of moral values or the underdevelopment of moral reasoning in students ( Belanger et al., 2012 ; Edmondson, 2013 ). For example, significant negative correlations between moral reasoning scores and acts of plagiarism have been found ( Abdolmohammadi and Baker; 2007 ; Guo, 2011 ). Students have also been described as being ‘morally ambivalent’ when it comes to academic misconduct and their willingness to tolerate the cheating behaviors of their peers ( Lim and See, 2001 ). Vandehey and colleagues (2007) found that non-cheating students presented with higher moral reasoning compared to their cheating peers and Bennett (2005) found that students who held strong moral positions disapproved of plagiarism and were less likely to engage in plagiarism. Additional research has shown that if students have a teacher that they respect, that teacher can act as a strong ‘moral anchor’ for their students and potentially deter their students from engaging in misconduct ( Simkin and McLeod, 2010 ).

Personal Attributes

A number of personal attributes have been identified in the literature as having an impact on a student’s academic behaviors. These include gender, age, grades, discipline of studies, employment status, time management skills and level of satisfaction with university experience.

Studies investigating the role that gender plays in academic misconduct show mixed results. The majority of research shows that males are more likely to cheat than females (e.g. Bowers, 1966 ; Davis et al., 1992 ; Smith et al., 2007 ; Hensley et al., 2013 ; Yu et al., 2017 ; Jereb et al., 2018 ; Zhang et al., 2018 ; Denisova-Schmidt et al., 2019 ), but some work suggests that this gender difference may not exist (e.g., Baird, 1980 ; Ward and Beck, 1990 ; Bokosmaty et al., 2019 ) or that females may in fact cheat more than males (e.g., Graham et al., 1994 ; Shaw et al., 2015 ).

Some research shows that younger students are more likely to cheat, compared to older students (e.g., Graham et al., 1994 ; Chapman et al., 2004 ; Walker, 2010 ). Those achieving lower grades and those who are failing, or are at risk of failing, are more likely to commit misconduct than top achieving students (e.g., Graham et al., 1994 ; Newstead et al., 1996 ; Chapman et al., 2004 ; Smith et al., 2007 ). There is also literature to suggest that students in some academic disciplines are more likely to cheat. For example, research has shown that the rates of academic misconduct are noticeably high in the business studies and nursing disciplines (e.g., Brown, 2002 ; Chapman et al., 2004 ; McCabe et al., 2006 ; O’Leary and Pangemanan, 2007 ; McCabe, 2009 ; Wideman, 2011 ; Hensley et al., 2013 ). Students are also more likely to cheat if they have part-time employment during their studies, compared to students who are not employed while they complete their degree ( Nowell and Laufer, 1997 ; Chapman et al., 2004 ; Bennett, 2005 ; Yu et al., 2017 ).

Poor time management, time pressure and procrastination have been suggested as reasons why students are guilty of academic misconduct (e.g., Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995 ; Roig and DeTommaso, 1995 ; Ferrari and Beck, 1998 ; Lim and See, 2001 ; Bamford and Sergiou, 2005 ; Guo, 2011 ; Goh, 2015 ). And finally, dissatisfaction with a module or a course can result in lower levels of interest, a poorer work ethic, and reduced productivity. Ultimately this discontentment can make it more probable that a student will cheat ( Hayes and Introna, 2005 ; Smith et al, 2007 ; Chen and Chou, 2017 ).

The complexity of academic misconduct, as an issue within our education system, is clearly evident when you look at the diverse range of factors that can be used to explain why some students cheat. All of these factors need to be considered whenever attempts are made to design an effective strategy to reduce the incidence of academic misconduct.

HOW DO WE PREVENT ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT AT UNIVERSITY?

Academic misconduct is an important teaching and learning issue, and as such, the higher education sector plays a key role in ensuring that students are educated effectively and thoroughly and that academic integrity standards are upheld ( Macdonald and Carroll, 2006 ; Bertram Gallant, 2008 ; Chesney, 2009 ; Birks et al., 2020 ). Universities have a responsibility to be proactive in the process so that students develop an understanding of what constitutes good academic practice and academic dishonesty. If universities become directly and openly involved in this educational process as a whole, rather than simply focusing on punitive approaches when good academic practices are breached, the number of academic misconduct cases could be reduced ( Devlin, 2006 ; McGowan, 2016 ; Perkins et al., 2020 ).

McGowan (2016) discusses the importance of presenting “core values within a culture” by highlighting the need for universities to present a united front regarding the understanding and reinforcement of good academic practice policies and procedures. This requires the institution, the faculties, the schools/departments and the staff to have a uniform understanding of what academic integrity means and to actively reinforce this shared understanding across all levels of the institution ( Devlin, 2006 ; McGowan, 2016 ). There are specific strategies that can be adopted at each level of the institution to help reduce rates of cheating, which are outlined below, but it is important to remember that each level of the institution needs to actively engage with these strategies in unison if we are to have a significant impact on the academic behavior of students.

The Institution and the Faculty/School/Department

Research suggests that an institution specific policy, integrity code or honor code, can help to create a climate of academic integrity, ultimately reducing rates of academic misconduct ( Martin, 1992 ; Brown and Howell, 2001 ; Parnther, 2020 ). This, however, will only work if the policy or code is known to each department within the university, and is also clearly understood by students ( Kibler, 1992 , 1994 ; McCabe, 2005 ; Parnther, 2020 ). It is stressed that if policies and honor codes are to be effective, the approach must be holistic in nature ( Macdonald and Carroll, 2006 ; Perkins et al., 2020 ). There must be a unified understanding and support of academic integrity that is seen across the whole institution ( Kibler, 1992 ; Macdonald and Carroll, 2006 ; Birks et al., 2020 ) and students must be given the opportunity to actively engage with the institution’s policy and receive educational training on good academic practice. Institutions also have a duty to ensure that students know where to go for help should they have any concerns regarding academic practice ( Devlin, 2006 ; McGowan, 2016 ). This could include support for writing and source attribution skills, study skills and content related queries ( Perkins et al., 2020 ). It is believed that if students can get the support they need, it may prevent them from seeing cheating as an option (or their only viable option).

Providing academic integrity training for our students appears to be an integral part of the education offered at higher education institutions and is essential in helping our students develop an understanding of and appreciation for good academic practice. This view is supported by Bolin’s (2004) work which links academic dishonesty to the larger context of deviant behavior and delinquency. Bolin’s findings suggest that cheating behavior is well explained by a student’s lack of self-control, their perceived opportunity for cheating and the interaction of these two factors. Bolin also found an association between academic dishonesty and a student’s attitude toward dishonesty, a finding shared by Salter and colleagues. (2001) . This work suggests that there are links between a student’s actual engagement in cheating and the student’s tolerance for cheating, their perception of whether or not the university accepts cheating, and the student’s level of cynicism. Bolin believes that student attitudes greatly influence one’s engagement with cheating and argues that attitudes can be altered more easily than personality traits. As such, Bolin recommends that an institution’s intervention be focused on altering a student’s attitude towards dishonesty, by having honor codes in place that are visible to students across the institution and educating students that academic misconduct is not accepted within the institution.

In addition to having a clear and accessible policy, institutions are also encouraged to have procedures in place to monitor potential breaches of academic misconduct (e.g., plagiarism detection software; Jocoy and DiBiase, 2006 ). These procedures, and associated penalties, must be upheld in all departments across the institution and be visible to students. Should misconduct be discovered, the institution must be seen to consistently follow through with the appropriate punishments ( McCabe and Pavela, 1997 ; Martin, 2005 ; Devlin, 2006 ; Evans, 2006 ; Brent and Atkisson, 2011 ).

The Teaching Staff

The staff-student relationship is vital, playing a powerful role in helping to reduce cases of academic misconduct, and as such, researchers have long argued that this is a relationship that needs to be developed and fostered ( Oaks, 1975 ; Hardy, 1982 ; Stearns, 2001 ). Broeckelman-Post (2008) highlights the positive opportunity that an advisor-advisee type relationship brings in terms of staff being able to discuss specific expectations regarding good academic practice with students and also specific academic conventions, such as source attribution. Broeckelman-Post’s research showed that being able to have these types of discussions with students was particularly successful when the discussion was targeted to a specific piece of assessment, rather than addressing good academic practice more generally. Additional researchers also stress the importance of staff directly educating their students about academic misconduct, providing students with feedback about their academic practice (e.g., correctly attributing sources) and engaging students in an open discussion about the significance and value of good academic practice ( Hardy, 1982 ; McBurney, 1996 ; Overbey and Guiling, 1999 ; Lim and See, 2001 ; Landau et al., 2002 ; Bamford and Sergiou, 2005 ).

Broeckelman-Post (2008) makes an interesting argument about the clarity of teaching that students receive. Much research shows that teacher clarity is linked to an increase in student learning of course content ( McCaleb and White, 1980 ; Land, 1981 ; Chesebro, 2003 ; Comadena et al., 2007 ; Titsworth et al., 2015 ). Broeckelman-Post argues that the same could be said for the teaching of good academic practice. If students are taught about academic integrity in a clear manner, they may be more likely to understand and retain the principles. With an increased understanding comes a potential reduction in academic dishonesty. Handa and Power (2005) suggest that one way to increase the clarity of academic integrity teaching is to use a workshop-based approach where students complete practical exercises designed to both assess their understanding and to assess their ability to apply their understanding to different situations. This approach is also supported by Pecorari (2013) and Gunnarsson et al. (2014) . Kibler (1994) also favors such an approach but does stress that this learning opportunity cannot be a one-off experience. Kibler believes that students need to encounter lessons on academic integrity and misconduct more regularly throughout their degree.

The types of assessment used by teachers, and the way the assessment is presented, can impact academic honesty ( Devlin, 2006 ). Suggestions to help prevent academic misconduct include using multiple versions of tests or exams, setting different exams and assignments each year, and using a variety of assessment types (e.g., oral presentations, viva voces, invigilated exams and tests, and reflective or problem-based assessments; Oaks, 1975 ; Hardy, 1982 ; Rabi et al., 2006 ; Goh, 2015 ; Lines, 2016 ; Morris, 2018 ; Awdry and Newton, 2019 ; Sotiriadou et al., 2020 ).

The personality of the teacher can also influence students’ academic behavior. If a student respects their teacher, sees that their teacher is personally invested in their learning and views their teacher as friendly and approachable, that student will be less likely to act in a dishonest manner ( Andersen and Andersen, 1987 ; Ashworth et al., 1997 ; Stearns, 2001 ; Rabi et al., 2006 ).

The importance of contributions from teachers and higher education institutions in ensuring that our students understand academic integrity has long been understood, as highlighted in the following quote: “No matter what the faculty member may think, if the student does not consider a form of cheating wrong, he will have no scruples about doing it.” ( Oaks, 1975 ). This reminds us of the importance of appropriately educating students about good practice and academic misconduct ( Richardson and Healy, 2019 ). One cannot assume that students will share our understanding of these concepts and as such it falls to educators to ensure students receive appropriate training and that through our instruction, they understand what is considered right and wrong.

An under-explored potential mechanism for reducing academic misconduct is to have teachers better inform students about the rationale behind assessments. Academic misconduct might be reduced if students ‘buy in’ to the reasons why specific assessments are utilized. For example, students might be less likely to engage in misconduct if they perceive the assessment to be fair, relevant, and sympathetic to other pressures on the student. More radically, academic misconduct might decline if students perceive that they have had some influence over the nature of the assessment. For example, students could be given a choice of alternative assessment types, or some influence over the setting of submission deadlines. Such influence could be exerted at a whole-class or individual level.

Educating Not Just Students, but also Staff

As illustrated above, academic literature powerfully highlights the importance of students developing a thorough and accurate understanding of academic integrity and academic misconduct. There is no question that educating students about this fundamental component of academia is a must for higher education institutions. Another crucial consideration, however, relates to staff and their understanding of these concepts. Are staff familiar with the university policy on good academic practice? Do staff know how to deal with cases of misconduct if they come across them? Are staff likely to act at all in these situations? Is there consistency between colleagues across the different university schools and departments in terms of how cases are dealt with (this is especially important when students take a range of courses across different subject areas)? These are important questions that need to be addressed, because if consistency does not exist across the institution, we cannot expect students to understand academic integrity and uphold good academic practice.

Literature to date shows that many staff are unfamiliar with their institution’s policies on good academic practice and that they are unsure how to deal with a case of misconduct, should it arise ( Simon et al, 2001 ; Pickard, 2006 ). There appears to be reluctance from staff to follow their institution’s policy when they observe cheating ( Jendrek, 1989 ; McCabe and Trevino, 1993 ), with some staff stating that they prefer to deal with misconduct cases informally, on a one-to-one basis ( Nuss, 1984 ; Jendrek, 1989 ; Schneider, 1999 ; Simon et al., 2001 ; Harper et al., 2019 ). A number of staff even admit that they do not apply any form of punishment if they do catch students engaging in academic misconduct ( Barrett and Cox, 2005 ; Busch and Bilgin, 2014 ; Harper et al., 2019 ). This has not gone unnoticed by students who often view staff as being more lenient, compared to their institution’s formal policy, when it comes to punishments for academic misconduct cases ( McCabe et al., 2002 ).

Academic staff report a number of reasons for why they do not actively police misconduct cases. Sometimes staff feel that they do not have the necessary evidence for a conviction ( Simon et al., 2001 ; Busch and Bilgin, 2014 ), that the process is cumbersome and too time consuming ( McCabe, 1993 ; Schneider, 1999 ; Busch and Bilgin, 2014 ), or that the institution will not support their case ( Schneider, 1999 ; Busch and Bilgin, 2014 ). Faculty have expressed a fear that students will no longer like them, and that students and staff may no longer view them as good teachers if they pursue a claim of academic misconduct against a student ( Schneider, 1999 ; Simon et al., 2001 ). There are also faculty who are concerned that they may ultimately be sued if they go through the formal channels of reporting a student ( Schneider, 1999 ). Additional explanations for why some staff are reluctant to get involved in cases of misconduct include being unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the formal processes ( Simon et al., 2001 ), not being willing to give up control of the situation ( Schneider, 1999 ), and simply feeling that it is not worth the aggravation or the anxiety ( Schneider, 1999 ). Finally, some staff feel that actively controlling the academic integrity of students is not viewed as important by the institution ( Li, 2015 ).

When asked to rate the severity of different forms of misconduct, staff tend to rate the acts more seriously than their students do ( Roberts and Toombs, 1993 ; Roig and Ballew, 1994 ; Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead, 1995 ; Duff, 1998 ; Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke, 2005 ; de Lambert et al., 2005 ), and when asked to estimate the prevalence of misconduct, staff tend to underestimate how frequently students are cheating compared to both students’ estimates of prevalence ( Duff, 1998 ; Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke, 2005 ) and students’ actual self-reported rates of misconduct ( Brimble and Stevenson-Clarke, 2005 ).

Staff need to be educated about their institution’s stance on academic misconduct so that they know and agree to:

what they expect of their students. This will help ensure that students get the same message and information from staff, not just within the same school or department, but also across the university.

what they expect of themselves. This includes having a shared understanding of how the different forms of misconduct are defined at their institution.

what their institutional policy is for dealing with cases of misconduct, thereby understanding the process that they must go through to report cases, and also understanding how the severity of a case is determined.

The existence of academic misconduct has been well documented since the 1960s through numerous studies carried out across the higher education sector (e.g., see Parnther, 2020 ). In order to protect the academic integrity of qualifications and institutions, and the credibility of awards gained by students, it is crucial that findings from research into co-factors of academic misconduct are used to better manage and prevent misconduct. The main reasons why students cheat have been identified. The risk factors involved, however, are complex and as the number of factors compounds, the likelihood of cheating increases. In addition to reactive strategies, such as applying punitive measures to discourage cheating, preventative strategies are equally valuable. Educating students appropriately about good academic practice and different forms of misconduct is particularly important and should be part of institutional responses to mitigating the risks from academic misconduct. Evidence suggests that this positively influences the academic choices made by students in relation to cheating and helps students to avoid risk factors. How students are informed is also important. Directly (and repeatedly) engaging students in activities relating to good academic practice and misconduct, so they truly have the opportunity to learn in an engaged and active manner, is the most effective approach. At a policy level, institutions need to manage misconduct transparently and consistently. Part of this process is checking staff understanding of academic misconduct and providing training for staff as necessary. Effective strategies need not be resource or time intensive. Furthermore, any additional time and resources invested in these strategies should be offset by a reduction in academic misconduct cases. These strategies will empower both students and staff, offer educational benefits in helping improve student understanding of good academic practices, and help protect the reputations of individual students, individual institutions and fields of study, and the whole higher education sector.

Abdolmohammadi MJ, Baker CR. The relationship between moral reasoning and plagiarism in accounting courses: a replication study. Issues in Accounting Education. 2007;22(1):45–55. doi: 10.2308/iace.2007.22.1.45. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Andersen JF, Andersen PA. Never smile until Christmas? Casting doubt on an old myth. Journal of Thought. 1987;22(4):57–61. [ Google Scholar ]
Ashworth P, Bannister P, Thorne P. Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education. 1997;22(2):187–203. doi: 10.1080/03075079712331381034. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Awdry R, Newton PM. Staff views on commercial contract cheating in higher education: a survey study in Australia and the UK. Higher Education. 2019;78(4):593–610. doi: 10.1007/s10734-019-00360-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Baird JS. Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools. 1980;17(4):515–522. doi: 10.1002/1520-6807(198010)17:4<515::AID-PITS2310170417>3.0.CO;2-3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bamford J, Sergiou K. International students and plagiarism: An analysis of the reasons for plagiarism among international foundation students. Investigations in University Teaching and Learning. 2005;2(2):17–22. Available at https://core.ac.uk/display/36771682?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1 . [ Google Scholar ]
Barrett R, Cox AL. ‘At least they’re learning something’: the hazy line between collaboration and collusion. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2005;30(2):107–122. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000264226. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bayaa Martin Saana SB, Ablordeppey E, Mensah NJ, Karikari TK. Academic dishonesty in higher education: Students’ perceptions and involvement in an African institution. BMC Research Notes. 2016;9(1):234. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2044-0. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Belanger CH, Leonard VM, LeBrasseur R. Moral reasoning, academic dishonesty, and business students. International Journal of Higher Education. 2012;1(1):72–89. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v1n1p72. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bennett R. Factors associated with student plagiarism in a post-1992 university. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2005;30(2):137–162. doi: 10.1080/0260293042000264244. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bertram Gallant T. Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imparative. ASHE Higher Education Report. 2008;33(5):1–143. doi: 10.1002/aehe.3305. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Birks M, Mills J, Allen S, Tee S. Managing the mutations: academic misconduct Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2020;16(1):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s40979-020-00055-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bokosmaty S, Ehrich J, Eady MJ, Bell K. Canadian university students’ gendered attitudes toward plagiarism. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2019;43(2):276–290. doi: 10.1080/0309877X.2017.1359505. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bolin AU. Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology. 2004;138(2):101–114. doi: 10.3200/JRLP.138.2.101-114. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bowers WJ. Student Dishonesty and its Control in Colleges. Columbia University; 1966. [ Google Scholar ]
Brent E, Atkisson C. Accounting for cheating: An evolving theory and emergent themes. Research in Higher Education. 2011;52(6):640–658. doi: 10.1007/s11162-010-9212-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bretag T, Harper R, Burton M, Ellis C, Newton P, van Haeringen K, Saddiqui S, Rozenberg P. Contract cheating and assessment design: exploring the relationship. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2019;44(5):676–691. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1527892. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Bretag T, Harper R, Rundle K, Newton PM, Ellis C, Saddiqui S, van Haeringen K. Contract cheating in Australian higher education: a comparison of non-university higher education providers and universities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2020;45(1):125–139. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1614146. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brimble M, Stevenson-Clarke P. Perceptions of the prevalence and seriousness of academic dishonesty in Australian universities. The Australian Educational Researcher. 2005;32(3):19–44. doi: 10.1007/BF03216825. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Broeckelman-Post MA. Faculty and student classroom influences on academic dishonesty. IEEE Transactions on Education. 2008;51(2):206–211. doi: 10.1109/TE.2007.910428. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brown DL. Cheating must be okay - everybody does it! Nurse Educator. 2002;27(1):6–8. doi: 10.1097/00006223-200201000-00010. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Brown VJ, Howell ME. The efficacy of policy statements on plagiarism: Do they change students’ views? Research in Higher Education. 2001;42(1):103–117. doi: 10.1023/A:1018720728840. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Burgason KA, Sefiha O, Briggs L. Cheating is in the eye of the beholder: an evolving understanding of academic misconduct. Innovative Higher Education. 2019;44(3):203–218. doi: 10.1007/s10755-019-9457-3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Busch P, Bilgin A. Student and staff understanding and reaction: Academic integrity in an Australian university. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2014;12(3):227–243. doi: 10.1007/s10805-014-9214-2. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Calabrese RL, Cochran JT. The relationship of alienation to cheating among a sample of American adolescents. Journal of Research and Development in Education. 1990;23(2):65–72. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ407860 . [ Google Scholar ]
Chapman KJ, Davis R, Toy D, Wright L. Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a little help from my friends. Journal of Marketing Education. 2004;26(3):236–249. doi: 10.1177/0273475304268779. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chen Y, Chou C. Are we on the same page? College students’ and faculty’s perception of student plagiarism in Taiwan. Ethics and Behavior. 2017;27(1):53–73. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2015.1123630. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chesebro JL. Effects of teacher clarity and nonverbal immediacy on student learning, receiver apprehension, and affect. Communication Education. 2003;52(2):135–147. doi: 10.1080/03634520302471. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chesney T. Academic integrity in the twenty-first century: A teaching and learning imperative (review) The Revie wof Higher Education. 2009;32(4):544–545. doi: 10.1002/aehe.3305. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Chudzicka-Czupała A, Lupina-Wegener A, Borter S, Hapon N. Students ’ attitude toward cheating in Switzerland, Ukraine and Poland. The New Educational Review. 2013;32(2):66–76. Available at https://rebus.us.edu.pl/handle/20.500.12128/18179 . [ Google Scholar ]
Clarke R, Lancaster T. Establishing a systematic six-stage process for detecting contract cheating. Pervasive computing and applications, ICPA, 2nd International Conference; Piscataway, New Jersey: Institue of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 2007. pp. 342–347. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Cole S, Kiss E. What can we do about student cheating. About Campus. 2000;5(2):5–12. [ Google Scholar ]
Comadena ME, Hunt SK, Simonds CJ. The effects of teacher clarity, nonverbal immediacy, and caring on student motivation, affective and cognitive learning. Communication Research Reports. 2007;24(3):241–248. doi: 10.1080/08824090701446617. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Davis SF, Grover CA, Becker AH, McGregor LN. Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology. 1992;19(1):16–20. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top1901_3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
de Lambert K, Ellen N, Taylor L. Academic dishonesty among students in tertiary institutions: A literature review. Waikato Journal of Education. 2005;11(2):83–99. doi: 10.1207/s15328023top1901_3. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
de Lambert K, Ellen N, Taylor L. Chalkface challenges: A study of academic dishonesty amongst students in New Zealand tertiary institutions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2006;31(5):485–503. doi: 10.1080/02602930600679415. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Denisova-Schmidt E, Prytula Y, Rumyantseva NL. Beg, borrow, or steal: determinants of student academic misconduct in Ukrainian higher education. Policy Reviews in Higher Education. 2019;3(1):4–27. doi: 10.1080/23322969.2018.1518726. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Devlin M. Policy, preparation, and prevention: Proactive minimization of student plagiarism. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2006;28(1):45–58. doi: 10.1080/13600800500283791. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Duff A. Staff and student perceptions of academic misconduct: A survey of Scottish academic staff and students. Accounting Forum. 1998;21(34):283–305. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ864328 . [ Google Scholar ]
Edmondson ML. Exploring the relationship between academic dishonesty and moral development in Law school students. The University of Mississippi; 2013. Available at https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Exploring-the-Relationship-between-Academic-and-in-Edmondson/1f974623508ac3e55f513ab15e28ec3b71f1ba1e . [ Google Scholar ]
Elander J, Pittam G, Lusher J, Fox P, Payne N. Evaluation of an intervention to help students avoid unintentional plagiarism by improving their authorial identity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2010;35(2):157–171. doi: 10.1080/02602930802687745. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Evans R. Evaluating an electronic plagiarism detection service. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2006;7(1):87–99. doi: 10.1177/1469787406061150. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ferrari JR, Beck BL. Affective responses before and after fraudulent excuses by academic procrastinators. Education. 1998;118(4):529–537. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276354353_Affective_Responses_Before_and_After_Fraudulent_Excuses_by_Academic_Procrastinators . [ Google Scholar ]
Franklyn-Stokes A, Newstead SE. Undergraduate cheating: Who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education. 1995;20(2):159–172. doi: 10.1080/03075079512331381673. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Goh E. Exploring underlying motivations behind extreme cases of plagiarism in tourism and hospitality education. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education. 2015;27(2):80–84. doi: 10.1080/10963758.2015.1033101. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Graham MA, Monday J, O’Brien K, Steffen S. Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development. 1994;35(4):255–260. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ489082 . [ Google Scholar ]
Guffey DM, McCartney MW. The perceived importance of an ethical issue as a determinant of ethical decision-making for accounting students in an academic setting. Accounting Education. 2008;17(3):327–348. doi: 10.1080/09639280701272666. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Gunnarsson J, Kulesza WJ, Pettersson A. Teaching international students how to avoid plagiarism: Librarians and faculty in collaboration. The Journal of Academic Librarianship. 2014;40(3):413–417. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2014.04.006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Guo X. Understanding student plagiarism: An empirical study in accounting education. Accounting Education. 2011;20(1):17–37. doi: 10.1080/09639284.2010.534577. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Handa N, Power C. Land and discover! A case study investigating the cultural context of plagiarism. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice. 2005;2(3):64–84. doi: 10.53761/1.2.3.8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hardy RJ. Preventing academic dishonesty: Some important tips for political science professors. Teaching Political Science. 1982;9(2):68–77. doi: 10.1080/00922013.1982.994290. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Harper R, Bretag T, Ellis C, Newton P, Rozenberg P, Saddiqui S, van Haeringen K. Contract cheating: a survey of Australian university staff. Studies in Higher Education. 2019;44(11):1857–1873. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2018.1462789. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Harper R, Bretag T, Rundle K. Detecting contract cheating: examining the role of assessment type. Higher Education Research and Development. 2020;40(2):263–278. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2020.1724899. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hayes N, Introna LD. Cultural values, plagiarism, and fairness: When plagiarism gets in the way of learning. Ethics and Behavior. 2005;15(3):213–231. doi: 10.1207/s15327019eb1503. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Hensley LC, Kirkpatrick KM, Burgoon JM. Relation of gender, course enrollment, and grades to distinct forms of academic dishonesty. Teaching in Higher Education. 2013;18(8):895–907. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2013.827641. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ison D. Academic misconduct and the internet. Scholarly Ethics and Publishing: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice; Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2019. pp. 22–51. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ison DC. An empirical analysis of differences in plagiarism among world cultures. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2018;40(4):291–304. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2018.1479949. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
James MX, Miller GJ, Wyckoff TW. Comprehending the cultural causes of English writing plagiarism in Chinese students at a Western-style university. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019;154(3):631–642. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3441-6. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jeergal PA, Surekha R, Sharma P, Anila K, Jeergal VA, Rani T. Prevalence, perception and attitude of dental students towards academic dishonesty and ways to overcome cheating behaviors. Journal of Advanced Clinical and Research Insights. 2015;2(1):2–6. doi: 10.15713/ins.jcri.32. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jendrek MP. Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development. 1989;30(5):401–406. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ406563 . [ Google Scholar ]
Jereb E, Urh M, Jerebic J, Šprajc P. Gender differences and the awareness of plagiarism in higher education. Social Psychology of Education. 2018;21(2):409–426. doi: 10.1007/s11218-017-9421-y. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Jocoy C, DiBiase D. Plagiarism by adult learners online: A case study in detection and remediation. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning. 2006;7(1):1–15. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v7i1.242. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Kibler WL. Cheating. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 1992;39(12):B1. [ Google Scholar ]
Kibler WL. Addressing academic dishonesty: What are institutions of higher education doing and not doing? NASPA Journal. 1994;13(2):92–101. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1994.11072345. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Land ML. Combined effect of two teacher clarity variables on student achievement. The Journal of Experimental Education. 1981;50(1):14–17. doi: 10.1080/00220973.1981.11011794. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Landau JD, Druen PB, Arcuri JA. Methods for helping students avoid plagiarism. Teaching of Psychology. 2002;29(2):112–115. Available at https://journals.sagepub.com/stoken/default+domain/10.1207/S15328023TOP2902_06/pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Li Y. Academic staff’s perspectives upon student plagiarism: A case study at a university in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Education. 2015;35(1):14–26. doi: 10.1080/02188791.2013.835710. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lim VKG, See SKB. Attitudes toward, and intentions to report, academic cheating among students in Singapore. Ethics and Behavior. 2001;11(3):261–274. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Lines L. Ghostwriters guaranteeing grades? The quality of online ghostwriting services available to tertiary students in Australia. Teaching in Higher Education. 2016;21(8):889–914. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1198759. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Luck JA, Chugh R, Turnbull D, Rytas Pember E. Glitches and hitches: sessional academic staff viewpoints on academic integrity and academic misconduct. Higher Education Research and Development. 2021:1–16. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1890697. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Macdonald R, Carroll J. Plagarism - a complex issue requiring a holistic institutional approach. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2006;31(2):233–245. doi: 10.1080/02602930500262536. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Mahmud S, Bretag T, Foltýnek T. Students’ perceptions of plagiarism policy in higher education: a comparison of the United Kingdom, Czechia, Poland and Romania. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2019;17(3):271–289. doi: 10.1007/s10805-018-9319-0. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Makarova M. Factors of academic misconduct: Polish and Russian students’ attitudes. Great Plains Sociologist. 2017;26:58–73. doi: 10.1007/s10805-019-9323-z. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Makarova M. Factors of academic misconduct in a cross-cultural perspective and the role of integrity systems. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2019;17(1):51–71. doi: 10.1007/s10805-019-9323-z. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Marcoux HE. Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University. Education Resources Information Center Document 465330. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences and U.S. Department of Education; 2002. Kansas State University faculty perspective, opinions, and practices concerning undergraduate student academic dishonesty and moral development. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED465330 . [ Google Scholar ]
Martin B. Plagiarism by university students: The problem and some proposals. Wollongong: University of Wollongong; 1992. Available at https://documents.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/92tert.html . [ Google Scholar ]
Martin DF. Plagiarism and technology: A tool for coping with plagiarism. Journal of Education for Business. 2005;80(3):149–152. doi: 10.3200/JOEB.80.3.149-152. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McBurney D. Cheating: Preventing and dealing with academic dishonesty. APS Observer. 1996;9:32–35. Available at https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/cheating-preventing-and-dealing-with-academic-dishonesty . [ Google Scholar ]
McCabe D, Pavela G. Some good news about academic integrity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. 2000;32(5):32–38. doi: 10.1080/00091380009605738. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCabe DL. Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honor codes. Research in Higher Education. 1993;34(5):647–658. doi: 10.1007/BF00991924. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCabe DL. Cheating among college and university students: A North American perspective. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2005;1(1):10–11. doi: 10.21913/IJEI.v1i1.14. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCabe DL. Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Nursing Education. 2009;48(11):614–623. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20090716-07. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCabe DL, Butterfield KD, Trevino LK. Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 2006;5(3):294–305. doi: 10.5465/AMLE.2006.22697018. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCabe DL, Pavela G. The principled pursuit of academic integrity. AAHE Bulletin. 1997. Dec 11–12, Available at https://www.tamuct.edu/student-affairs/docs/ten-principles-of-academic-integrity.pdf .
McCab DL, Trevino LK. Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. The Journal of Higher Education. 1993;64:522–538. doi: 10.1080/00221546.1993.11778446. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCabe DL, Trevino LK, Butterfield KD. Honor codes and other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education. 2002;43(3):357–378. doi: 10.1023/A:1014893102151. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
McCaleb JL, White JA. Critical dimensions in evaluating teacher clarity. The Jounral of Classroom Interaction. 1980;15(2):27–30. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/43997296 . [ Google Scholar ]
McGowan S. Breaches of academic integrity using collusion. In: Bretag T, editor. Handbook of Academic Integrity. Singapore: Springer; 2016. pp. 221–248. Reference. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Morris EJ. Academic integrity matters: five considerations for addressing contract cheating. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2018;14(1):1–12. doi: 10.1007/s40979-018-0038-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Moss SA, White B, Lee J. A systematic review into the psychological causes and correlates of plagiarism. Ethics and Behavior. 2018;28(4):261–283. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2017.1341837. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Newstead SE, Franklyn-Stokes A, Armstead P. Individual differences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology. 1996;88(2):229–241. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.229. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nowell C, Laufer D. Undergraduate student cheating in the fields of business and economics. The Journal of Economic Education. 1997;28(1):3–12. doi: 10.1080/00220489709595901. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nuss EM. Academic integrity: Comparing faculty and student attitudes. Improving College and University Teaching. 1984;32(3):140–144. doi: 10.1080/00193089.1984.10533862. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Nyamasvisva ET, Arabi AAM, Buhari A, Hasan FA, Ramasamy J. Prevalence of Premeditated Academic Dishonesty at University Level. A Case Study. Journal of Critical Reviews. 2020;7(15):4494–4501. doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.15.598. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Oaks HR. Cheating attitudes and practices at two state colleges. Improving College and University Teaching. 1975;23(4):232–235. doi: 10.1080/00193089.1975.9932257. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
O’Leary C, Pangemanan G. The effect of groupwork on ethical decision-making of accountancy students. Journal of Business Ethics. 2007;75(3):215–228. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.5.857. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Overbey GAU, Guiling SF. Student perceptions of plagiarism and the evaluation of assignments. Journal on Excellence and College Teaching. 1999;10(3):3–22. Available at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ626645 . [ Google Scholar ]
Pan M, Templemeyer TC, Stiles BL, Vieth K. Everybody’s Doing It: Perceptions Of Academic Dishonesty On Campus. In: Velliaris DM, editor. Prevention and Detection of Academic Misconduct in Higher Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global; 2019. pp. 117–136. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Parnther C. Academic misconduct in higher education: a comprehensive review. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies. 2020;1(1):25–45. doi: 10.29252/johepal.1.1.25. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Passow HJ, Mayhew MJ, Finelli CJ, Harding TS, Carpenter DD. Factors influencing engineering students’ decisions to cheat by type of assessment. Research in Higher Education. 2006;47(6):643–684. doi: 10.1007/s11162-006-9010-y. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pecorari D. Teaching to avoid plagiarism: How to promote good source use. UK: McGraw-Hill Education; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
Perkins M, Gezgin UB, Roe J. Reducing plagiarism through academic misconduct education. International Journal for Educational Integrity. 2020;16(1):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s40979-020-00052-8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Perry B. Exploring academic misconduct : Some insights into student behaviour. Active Learning in Higher Education. 2010;11(2):97–108. doi: 10.1177/1469787410365657. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pickard J. Staff and student attitudes to plagiarism at University College Northampton. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2006;31(2):215–232. doi: 10.1080/02602930500262528. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Pupovac V, Popović S, Blažina V. What prevents students from reporting academic misconduct? A survey of Croatian students. Journal of Academic Ethics. 2019;17(4):389–400. doi: 10.1007/s10805-019-09341-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Rabi SM, Patton LR, Fjortoft N, Zgarrick DP. Characteristics, prevalence, attitudes, and perceptions of academic dishonesty among pharmacy students. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2006;70(4):A1–A8. doi: 10.5688/aj700473. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Resurreccion PF. The Impact of Faculty, Peers and Integrity Culture in the Academe on Academic Misconduct among Filipino Students: An Empirical Study Based on Social Cognitive Theory. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2012;2(12):33–50. Available at https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Impact-of-Faculty%2C-Peers-and-Integrity-Culture-Resurreccion/7ab69ae8416e0a3a71c3a6a83582cd1dd354fb17 . [ Google Scholar ]
Richardson M, Healy M. Examining the ethical environment in higher education. British Educational Research Journal. 2019;45(6):1089–1104. doi: 10.1002/berj.3552. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roberts DM, Toombs R. A scale to assess perceptions of cheating in examination-related situations. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1993;53(3):755–762. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003019. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Roig M, Ballew C. Attitudes toward cheating of self and others by college students and professors. The Psychological Record. 1994;44(1):3. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234730877_Attitudes_toward_Cheating_by_College_Students_and_Professors . [ Google Scholar ]
Roig M, DeTommaso L. Are college cheating and plagiarism related to academic procrastination? Psychological Reports. 1995;77(2):691–698. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1995.77.2.691. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Salter SB, Guffey DM, McMillan JJ. Truth, consequences and culture: A comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. and U.K. Students. Journal of Business Ethics. 2001;31(1):37–50. doi: 10.1023/A:1010785106667. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Schneider A. Why professors don’t do more to stop students who cheat. The Chronicle of Higher Education; 1999. p. A8. Available at https://www.chronicle.com/article/why-professors-dont-do-more-to-stop-students-who-cheat-25673/ [ Google Scholar ]
Selingo J. The cheating culture. ASEE. 2004;14(1):24–30. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/24160966 . [ Google Scholar ]
Shaw P, Katsaiti MS, Pecoraro B. On the determinants of educational corruption: the case of Ukraine. Contemporary Economic Policy. 2015;33(4):698–713. doi: 10.1111/coep.12097. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Simkin MG, McLeod A. Why do college students cheat? Journal of Business Ethics. 2010;94(3):441–453. doi: 10.1007/sl0551-. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Simon CA, Carr JR, Deflyer E, Mccullough S, Morgan S, Oleson T, Ressel M. On the evaluation of academic dishonesty: A survey of students and faculty at the university of Nevada, Reno. 31st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference; Reno, Nevada. October 10–13; Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing LLC; 2001. pp. F4A-1–F4A6. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Smith M, Ghazali N, Fatimah Noor Minhad S. Attitudes towards plagiarism among undergraduate accounting students: Malaysian evidence. Asian Review of Accounting. 2007;15(2):122–146. doi: 10.1108/13217340710823350. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sotiriadou P, Logan D, Daly A, Guest R. The role of authentic assessment to preserve academic integrity and promote skill development and employability. Studies in Higher Education. 2020;45(11):2132–2148. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2019.1582015. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sowden C. Plagiarism and the culture of multilingual students in higher education abroad. ELT Journal. 2005;59(3):226–233. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci042. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Stearns SA. The student-instructor relationship’s effect on academic integrity. Ethics and Behavior. 2001;11(3):287–305. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Sutherland-Smith W. Crossing the line: Collusion or collaboration in university group work? Australian Universities’ Review. 2013;55(1):51–58. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1004398.pdf . [ Google Scholar ]
Sutton A, Taylor D. Confusion about collusion: Working together and academic integrity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2011;36(7):831–841. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.488797. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Tee S, Curtis K. Academic misconduct: helping students retain their moral compass. Nurse Education Toda. 2018;61:153–154. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2017.11.030. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
Titsworth S, Mazer JP, Goodboy AK, Bolkan S, Myers SA. Two meta-analyses exploring the relationship between teacher clarity and student learning. Communication Education. 2015;64(4):385–418. doi: 10.1080/03634523.2015.1041998. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Vandehey MA, Diekhoff GM, LaBeff EE. College cheating: A twenty-year follow-up and the addition of an honor code. Journal of College Student Development. 2007;48(4):468–480. doi: 10.1353/csd.2007.0043. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Walker J. Student plagiarism in universities: What are we doing about it? Higher Education Research and Development. 1998;17(1):89–106. doi: 10.1080/0729436980170105. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Walker J. Measuring plagiarism: Researching what students do, not what they say they do. Studies in Higher Education. 2010;35(1):41–59. doi: 10.1080/03075070902912994. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Ward DA, Beck WL. Gender and dishonesty. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1990;130(3):333–339. doi: 10.1080/00224545.1990.9924589. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Whitley BEJ, Keith-Spiegel P. Academic integrity as an institutional issue. Ethics and Behavior. 2001;11(3):325–342. doi: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Wideman M. Caring or collusion? Academic dishonesty in a school of nursing. Canadian Journal of Higher Education. 2011;41(2):28–43. Available at https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Caring-or-Collusion-Academic-Dishonesty-in-a-School-Wideman/a96de652129e7c08941c8a73999408a62f0822bb . [ Google Scholar ]
Yu H, Glanzer PL, Sriram R, Johnson BR, Moore B. What contributes to college students’ cheating? A study of individual factors. Ethics and Behavior. 2017;27(5):401–422. doi: 10.1080/10508422.2016.1169535. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zhang Y, Yin H, Zheng L. Investigating academic dishonesty among Chinese undergraduate students: does gender matter? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 2018;43(5):812–826. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2017.1411467. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ]
Zobel J. “ Uni Cheats Racket ”: A case study in plagiarism investigation. ACE ’04 Proceedings of the Sixth Australasian Conference on Computing Education. 2004;3(c):357–365. Available at https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Uni-Cheats-Racket%3A-A-Case-Study-in-Plagiarism-Zobel/be179fd2c5daf8500d418d49e247c87983322462 . [ Google Scholar ]
View on publisher site
PDF (383.1 KB)
Collections

Add to Collections

Skip to main content
Skip to quick search
Skip to global navigation

Return Home
Recent Issues (2021-)
Back Issues (1982-2020)
Search Back Issues

14 Theoretical Frameworks for Academic Dishonesty

Permissions : This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Please contact [email protected] to use this work in a way not covered by the license.

For more information, read Michigan Publishing's access and usage policy .

Academic dishonesty has so far been understood using theoretical frameworks derived from criminology literature. These frameworks contribute pieces of the puzzle and even enjoy some empirical support, but conceptualizing students as delinquents is problematic and ultimately ineffective. This chapter reviews the current frameworks, including their theoretical underpinnings, empirical support, and strategies they suggest, and goes on to analyze their limitations and suggest alternative frameworks.

Since the landmark study of Bowers (1964), where 75 percent of five thousand students at ninety-nine colleges and universities admitted to cheating at least once, the figures have not changed much. More recent estimates range from 70 percent to 80 percent, with a peak of 95 percent of students admitting to cheating (Brown & Emmett, 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Stern & Havlicek, 1986; Whitley, 1998). Faculty, educational developers, student affairs professionals, and higher education researchers have all devoted effort, resources, and programs to reduce cheating, but given these figures, the return on investment of such initiatives is disheartening.

This chapter explores possible reasons for this disconnect. To understand the limitations of current approaches, it is helpful for faculty developers to understand the theoretical frameworks that have been used to explain academic dishonesty and their origination. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section reviews the theoretical frameworks scholars currently use to conceptualize academic integrity and the research supporting them, as well as their fundamental limitations. The second section proposes alternative ways to think about cheating, and the last section addresses the implications for educational development.

Current Frameworks

In my review of the literature on cheating and academic integrity, five theoretical frameworks are the most common: (1) deterrence theory, (2) rational choice theory, (3) neutralization theory, (4) planned behavior theory, and (5) situational ethics. Before I describe them, some caveats are in order.

First, as in every field that investigates stigmatized behavior, research subjects will understate their participation in such behaviors or deny them altogether. Although it is possible to employ research techniques that reduce such positive response bias, it is generally not possible to eliminate it altogether. Second, studies of cheating may not be directly comparable. The researcher can avoid positive response bias by not asking about cheating directly. Some studies ask about cheating behaviors observed in peers, while others ask about hypothetical scenarios (“Given this situation, would you engage in this behavior?”). Still others set up experimental situations where the researchers themselves can observe cheating. Diversity of methods yields diversity of results, creating a problem for comparability across research studies. I have relied heavily on Whitley’s meta-analysis (1998) of 107 studies of the correlates of cheating and effect size measures for each correlate to obviate the problem of comparing studies conducted using different methods. The results of his meta-analysis are more compelling than the results of each individual study. I use his estimates as measures of support of the theoretical frameworks I consider.

Finally, and most important, the theoretical perspectives that have informed research on academic dishonesty thus far all share a common bias: they are all derived from theories of criminal behavior. Although some people may philosophically disagree with conceptualizing students as delinquents, this bias also creates a pragmatic problem. Criminal theories are theories of deviant behavior, designed to explain why a few individuals deviate from behavior that the rest of the population observes as normative and ethical. When more than 70 percent of students admit to having cheated, it is not clear who is deviant and who is in the norm anymore, and these theories lose much of their descriptive and predictive power.

Deterrence Theory

The deterrence theory posits that cheating is a function of the severity of the consequences (Zimring & Hawkins, 1973). If we want to curtail a certain behavior, we should punish it with consequences severe enough to discourage students, including failing the assignment, failing the course, academic probation, or even expulsion. Research on the correlates of cheating behaviors partly supports the deterrence theory in that students’ self-perception of their ability to cheat has a medium positive effect on cheating (Whitley, 1998). In other words, if students think they are able to engage in their behavior without consequences, they are likely to do so. Here and throughout this chapter, the strength of an effect (small, medium, and large) is calculated according to the rules for the d statistic, a measure of effect size based on the standardized mean difference between cheaters and noncheaters on a given variable (Cohen, 1988).

The approach suggested by deterrence theory has some practical problems. Professors can dole out punishment with consequences only at the assignment and course level; therefore centralized academic review boards must lead in increasing the severity of the consequences. However, instructors are reluctant to report cases to their academic review board because of the extra effort involved (Schneider, 1999). Research also shows that the effectiveness and intensity of deterrents varies among cultures. For instance, Western students asked to list deterrents to cheating are very likely to mention expulsion as the ultimate deterrent. In Japan, students asked the same question are more likely than American students to focus on public humiliation—for example, making cheaters use only red ink pens to write for the rest of the year (Burns, Davis, & Hoshino, 1998). Therefore, responses to academic dishonesty are not universal but should be tailored to the particular culture of the institution.

Rational Choice Theory

The rational choice theory treats dishonest actions as the result of decisions that rational agents make (Cornish & Clarke, 1986). The eventual course of action is chosen after weighing the advantages and disadvantages of all possible alternatives. Therefore, deciding to cheat results from a cost-benefit analysis. The factors involved in the decision might include the effort involved in cheating rather than studying the material, the expected improvement in the grade due to cheating, the stakes involved in the assignment, and so on. Of course, the severity of the possible consequences also factors in, making the strategies suggested by deterrence theory, as well as its limitations, relevant to rational choice theory as well. Rational choice theory finds further support in the research on the correlates of cheating. The risk of being caught has a medium negative effect on cheating, the fear of punishment has a small negative effect, and the importance of the outcome has a medium positive effect (Whitley, 1998).

Neutralization Theory

Other frameworks conceptualize students as moral beings as well as rational ones. Cost-benefit considerations aside, surely the effect of engaging in morally wrong acts should have psychological consequences on those who do so. In fact, earlier research on academic dishonesty focused on the so-called self-esteem cycle (Aronson & Mettee, 1968; Ward, 1986). Cheaters were believed to start out with low-self esteem. They didn’t think they would do well on the task, and they were not invested in maintaining a positive image with the instructor, because they didn’t think he or she believed in their abilities. When they engaged in cheating, the knowledge of their morally wrong behavior further lowered their self-esteem, precipitating future iterations of this vicious cycle. This cycle unravels in view of the finding that, even though it is true that reported past cheating has a large positive effect on future cheating, it is not true that cheaters have low self-esteem (Whitley, 1998).

Some cheaters might deny responsibility, saying they did nothing wrong or they didn’t mean to and were influenced by circumstances beyond their control.

Others might deny consequences, claiming that cheating is no big deal or that it is a “victimless crime.”

Still others might blame the authorities, saying it’s the professor’s fault if they have to cheat because the tests are always unfair, or professors too probably cheated as students.

Some might invoke a more compelling value system or higher loyalties that supersede academic rules, such as the value of helping friends pass the course.

This framework posits that efforts to prevent cheating should focus on deneutralizing it, perhaps emphasizing the consequences of various kinds of academic dishonesty (such as fabrication or falsification of data) to the scientific and intellectual community or stressing personal responsibility and agency.

Planned Behavior Theory

Planned behavior theory posits that cheating happens as a result of the opportunity as well as the intention to cheat (Ajzen, 1969). Therefore, efforts to prevent cheating should also act on both situational and behavioral factors. Instructors who reduce opportunities to cheat by being more vigilant during exams may only create frustrated cheaters who still have every intention to cheat at the next available opportunity. Proponents of planned behavior theory would focus their efforts both on prevention and on educating people about the value of academic integrity. Research on the correlates of cheating support both sides of the planned behavior theory. On the opportunity side, empty seats between students and multiple forms of the same test during exams have a medium and small negative effect on cheating, respectively. Conversely, letting students sit in the back of the room and letting them sit next to their friends have a small and medium positive effect on cheating, respectively. On the intention side, perception of a moral obligation to avoid cheating has a medium negative effect (Whitley, 1998).

Situational Ethics

Some people have raised the question of whether students cheat in response to extraordinary circumstances, where breaking the usual rules of ethical behavior is possibly justified. Consider the hypothetical situation of a student who needs to decide whether to help his foreign-born girlfriend cheat on an exam. He knows that she is on academic probation and that if she fails this test she will be expelled from the university, lose her student visa, and be deported back to her country, where her family will force her into an arranged marriage. He has a tough dilemma, and it is not clear which choice will lead to the best outcome. Situational ethics posits that such unique situations should be decided on the basis of a unique set of considerations that don’t normally apply to other situations (Fletcher, 1966).

However, the situational ethics framework does not have empirical support. The high incidence of reported cheating suggests that students don’t cheat in response to extreme—and therefore rare—circumstances, where breaches of academic integrity would possibly be understandable. In fact, reported past cheating has a large positive effect on cheating (Whitley, 1998). The premise that students use one set of ethical rules for most aspects of their life but suspend them in a few situations such as cheating is also undermined by findings; in their study of business students from six universities who worked a part-time or full-time job in the past five years, Nonis and Swift (2001) found a moderate to strong correlation between the frequency of academic dishonesty and the frequency of workplace dishonesty. The workplace dishonesty behaviors they considered included using office supplies for personal use, leaving early when the boss was absent, calling in sick when well, padding an expense report, or taking credit for someone else’s work. Similar results hold for other populations, such as engineering students (Carpenter, Harding, & Finelli, 2006).

Limitations of Current Approaches and Need for New Ones

The conceptual frameworks discussed so far and the empirical support they enjoy add to our understanding of cheating in higher education. Yet these theories have not given us tools to counteract cheating effectively. As mentioned previously, the reason these frameworks inevitably fall short is that they are actually theories of criminal behavior, with a less-than-perfect fit to academic situations.

That students do not conceptualize cheating as a criminal act is apparent from the research on perceptions of what constitutes cheating. Although most people agree on a few clear-cut situations (stealing a paper from a friend, fabricating research results, buying a paper from the Internet and submitting it as your own), gray areas and disagreement in perception exist not only between faculty and students but also among groups of faculty and groups of students. Different groups attribute varying degrees of seriousness to certain actions, such as submitting the same paper for two classes, referencing an article without having read it, paraphrasing words without attribution, or collaborating inappropriately (Higbee & Thomas, 2002).

Cross-cultural research highlights even more discrepancies in perceptions of the seriousness of certain behaviors. In a study involving 885 students from the United States, Russia, the Netherlands, and Israel, Magnus, Polterovich, Danilov, and Savvateev (2002) presented a scenario in which “Student C reports to the departmental office that student A, while taking an exam, copied answers from student B’s paper with the consent of student B” (p. 126). The researchers asked the students to rate the behavior of all three characters. As expected, the ratings for student A (the cheater) ranged from slightly negative to negative, those for student B (the friend) ranged from negative to slightly positive, and those for student C (the whistleblower) ranged from neutral to very negative. Neutralization techniques can explain the positive ratings for student B and negative ratings for student C, where the former was rewarded for being a good friend and the latter was punished for not exhibiting solidarity. Interestingly, the U.S. average for student C was the only neutral rating; all other countries rated him negatively.

The high variability of judgment across students and instructors together with the high prevalence of cheating exposes the limitations of the current approaches to academic dishonesty and the need for alternative modes of conceptualizing cheating. We turn now to discussion of some possibilities.

Cheating as Ignorance or Confusion About Instructor’s Expectations

Certain behaviors that instructors classify as cheating can actually stem from unarticulated expectations, especially those behaviors regarding plagiarism and collaboration. Misconceptions about plagiarism abound; for instance, many students think it is acceptable to quote without attribution if they do not use the actual language (Wilhoit, 1994). Collaboration policies have incredible variability across courses, from no collaboration allowed to collaboration encouraged, to rules such as the “Gilligan’s Island collaboration policy” common in computer science departments (for an example, see Rutgers University, 2009). If this is the problem, instructors can easily obviate it by articulating and clarifying their expectations, policies, and the rationale behind them.

Cheating as Learned Behavior

By not explaining the value of academic integrity and not enforcing consequences for cheating, perhaps the environment in which students have been educated so far reinforces cheating and actually socializes them to do it. Given the prevalence of cheating, it is apparent that students do indeed grow up in a culture of cheating. Research on the correlates of cheating supports the learned behavior hypothesis because cheating norms on campus have a medium-to-large positive effect on the behavior (Whitley, 1998). If we subscribe to the learned behavior theory, then reducing cheating requires changing the campus culture.

A written pledge to academic integrity that each student signs

Significant student involvement in academic review boards in charge of academic integrity violations

Unproctored exams

A clause that obliges students to report violations they learn about or observe

Modified honor codes involve some subset of the four elements, and predictably they are less effective than pure honor codes but better than no code at all (McCabe & Pavela, 2000). Though the most controversial, the reporting clause seems to be the most effective (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2001).

Cheating as a Coping Strategy in a Stressful Environment

We need to acknowledge that students, especially millennials, are under tremendous pressure to achieve (Howe & Strauss, 2000). This pressure comes from parental expectations, the rising cost of tuition, societal emphasis on grades, and a tighter job market. In the face of such pressure, cheating might be a way for a student to keep head above water in spite of the best intentions. Research on the correlates of cheating lends support to this hypothesis. In fact, achievement motivation has a small positive effect on cheating, while external pressure to achieve high grades, perceived workload, and perceived competition all have a medium positive effect on cheating (Whitley, 1998).

Cheating as Professional Development

Unfortunately, some recent public scandals have demonstrated that people can cheat their way to the top and profit, while many others suffers as a result. Some students might make sense of events such as the Enron and other corporate and political scandals by deciding that cheating skills are essential for professional success, and that higher education is the perfect setting in which to develop and hone them. Almost twenty years ago, Moffatt (1990) warned that the university is “a place where cheating comes almost as natural as breathing, where it’s an academic skill almost as important as reading, writing, and math” (p. 2). Sadly, the literature supports this speculation. Business undergraduates have long been documented as cheating at a higher rate than other students (Bowers, 1964), but recent research documents that even MBA students do the same (McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006). Ghoshal (2005) has argued that “by propagating ideologically inspired amoral theories, business schools have actively freed their students from any sense of moral responsibility” (p. 76).

Cheating as a Developmental Stage

Might cheating be just a stage that most students naturally outgrow once they become professionals and see a more direct link between actions and their consequences? During my workshops on academic integrity, several instructors invariably come forth and volunteer their “confessions of a reformed cheater.” Research on the correlates of cheating lends some support to the developmental hypothesis. Students’ age has a moderate negative effect on cheating, as does marital status; married students tend to cheat less. Number of hours per week employed has a small negative effect on cheating, financial support from parents has a small positive effect, and living off campus as opposed to on campus has a small negative effect (Whitley, 1998). All these variables taken together point to the fact that the more maturity, independence, and responsibility students develop, the less they cheat.

This developmental hypothesis also implies a developmental strategy: helping students reach a higher level of maturity sooner by giving them more responsibility for their own lives.

Cheating as a Game

Game theory (von Neumann & Morgenstern, 1944) is a mathematical formalization of strategic situations among two or more players who have at their disposal a set of strategies, or moves, that they can use toward the goal of maximizing their individual payoff. Each individual move has a payoff that is dependent on the other player’s move. In this vein, a student has several moves available during an exam—for example, attempt to solve the problem on his own, look over another student’s test, or reach for his cheat sheet. The game is sequential in that each student move triggers the proctor’s moves. For example, if the student looks over another student’s test and the proctor sees him doing so, the proctor can ignore it, give a warning, or fail the student for the exam. If given a warning, the student can heed it or ignore it and try again. If the student is eventually failed for cheating, he can still do nothing or plead, cry, appeal the decision to the academic review board, and so on. Depending on the value the student associates with each possible outcome, and also depending on the probability the student ascribes to the proctor’s moves, the student can find the optimal path through this game. The game reaches equilibrium if the players, in trying to maximize their payoff, arrive at a sequence of moves from which neither derives an advantage by deviating. The current high level of cheating, which has been fairly stable for forty years, can be interpreted as an aggregate equilibrium between students and instructors’ current strategies.

The game theory approach is similar to the rational choice theory, but it has two main differences. In game theory, the instructor is also a player, with a set of strategies to use and the option of suddenly changing strategy or even affecting the payoffs. The payoffs can be modeled to incorporate a number of variables. For instance, Magnus et al. (2002) suggest that the social cost of going against the grain of the cheating culture on campus could be incorporated in the payoff function. The second difference is that game theory makes no ethical or moral claims on the situation and thus is likely closer to many students’ thinking.

Despite the promise of the game-theory approach, scholars have not yet applied it to student cheating, so I have been unable to locate an empirical analysis of cheating through this theoretical lens.

Implications for Educational Development

In many institutions, educational developers lead the campus community in conversation about academic integrity. We have opportunities in several areas. First, we can push for efficient and transparent processes for our academic review boards. In time, this effort would encourage more instructors to pursue breaches of academic integrity. Second, we can give faculty more effective countermeasures to cheating. When instructors discuss cheating prevention, they often focus on decreasing the opportunities to cheat, especially in the wake of new technologies that promote cheating, such as calculators and phones that can store documents and give access to the Internet. Instead, we can remind faculty to act on the intention side, encouraging them to think of interventions to reduce students’ inclination to cheat, such as educating students about the far-reaching consequences of academic dishonesty. Using the game theory approach, we can ask instructors to think about how they are increasing or decreasing the payoffs for certain courses of action with the messages they explicitly or implicitly communicate in their courses. Third, partnering with student affairs and health services professionals, we can work to equip students with better coping strategies to deal with stress, such as time management skills, holistic wellness programs, and the like. Fourth, we can prompt the administration to review overload policies. We know increased workload leads to more cheating, so we should be thinking about how many credits or units per semester we allow students to take. Finally, we can engage the campus community in conversations about honor codes. Apart from personality variables, which we can’t control, honor codes reduce cheating more than all the situational factors. Yet their adoption has been very slow. Our signature skill set—listening actively, bringing in various constituencies, reconciling conflicting viewpoints, and gradually building consensus—can surely help here.

As we support our faculty in the scholarship of teaching and learning, we can help our colleagues document and disseminate classroom interventions that work in preventing cheating. More broadly and importantly, as we continue to promote creation of learning experiences that meaningfully engage students and call for authentic assessments, we help transform the educational system in ways that make cheating inefficient and undesirable. Undoubtedly, cheating is a daunting problem to solve, but educational development has a lot to offer and can effect significant change.

Ajzen, I. (1969). The prediction of behavior intentions in a choice situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5 (4), 400–416.
Aronson, E., & Mettee, D. (1968). Dishonest behavior as a function of differential levels of induced self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (2), 121–127.
Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Columbia University, Bureau of Applied Social Research.
Brown, B., & Emmett, D. (2001). Explaining the variations in the level of academic dishonesty in studies of college students: Some new evidence. College Student Journal, 35 (4), 529–538.
Burns, S., Davis, S., & Hoshino, J. (1998). Academic dishonesty: A delineation of cross-cultural patterns. College Student Journal, 32 (4), 590–596.
Carpenter, D., Harding, T., & Finelli, C. (2006). The implications of academic dishonesty in undergraduate engineering on professional ethical behavior. Proceedings of the 2006 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Fletcher, J. (1966). Situational ethics. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.
Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practice. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4 (1), 75–91.
Higbee, J., & Thomas, P. (2002). Student and faculty perceptions of behaviors that constitute cheating. NASPA Journal, 40 (1), 39–52.
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage.
Magnus, J., Polterovich, V., Danilov, D., & Savvateev, A. (2002). Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries. Journal of Economic Education, 33 (2), 125–135.
McCabe, D., Butterfield, K., & Trevino, L. (2006). Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5 (3), 294–305.
McCabe, D., & Pavela, G. (2000). Some good news about academic integrity. Change, 32 (5), 32–38.
McCabe, D., & Trevino, L. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522–538.
McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code environments: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education, 70 (2), 211–234.
McCabe, D., Trevino, L., & Butterfield, K. (2001). Dishonesty in academic environments: The influence of peer reporting requirements. Journal of Higher Education, 72 (1), 2–45.
Melendez, B. (1985). Honor code study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moffatt, M. (1990). Undergraduate cheating. Unpublished manuscript, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED334921)
Nonis, S., & Swift, C. (2001). An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Journal of Education for Business, 77 (2), 69–77.
Rutgers University. (2009). 198:415 compilers, spring 2009: Academic integrity. Retrieved March 2, 2009, from http://remus.rutgers.edu/cs415/academiclnteg.html
Schneider, A. (1999, January 22). Why professors don’t do more to stop students who cheat. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A8-A10.
Stern, E., & Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys. Journal of Allied Health, 15 (2), 129–142.
Storch, J., Storch, E., & Clark, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty and neutralization theory: A comparison of intercollegiate athletes and nonathletes. Journal of College Student Development, 43 (6), 921–930.
Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22 (6), 664–670.
von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ward, D. (1986). Self-esteem and dishonest behavior revisited. Journal of Social Psychology, 126 (6), 709–713.
Whitley, B. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39 (3), 235–274.
Wilhoit, S. (1994). Helping students avoid plagiarism. College Teaching, 42 (4), 161–164.
Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal threat in crime control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

IMAGES

(PDF) The History, Evolution, and Trends of Academic Dishonesty: A
(PDF) A systematic review of academic dishonesty in online learning
Academic dishonesty and trustworthy assessment in online learning: A
(PDF) Moral Ideologies and Academic Dishonesty Review
(PDF) Academic Dishonesty in Postsecondary Education: A literature
(PDF) Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age: A

VIDEO

Academic dishonesty
Discover how AI tools can revolutionize your PhD research! 🤖✨
Writing a Literature Review
What is a literature review
Writing A Literature Review In Six Simple Steps
Responsible Conduct of Research

COMMENTS

Literature Review: Academic Dishonesty
Studies suggest that most students realize academic dishonesty is morally wrong, but various outside factors or pressures may serve as "neutralizers," allowing students to suppress their feelings of guilt and justify their dishonest acts to themselves (Baird 1980; Haines et al. 1986; Hughes and McCabe 2006).
The History, Evolution, and Trends of Academic Dishonesty: A Literature
I define academic dishonesty as any act of cheating in isolation, collusion with other students, or plagiarism. Allemand (2012) broadly defines academic dishonesty as any sort of unfair academic advantage, and I agree with the spirit of this broad definition. For the purposes of this literature review, I consider academic dishonesty and
Why Students Cheat and How Understanding This Can Help Reduce the
This literature review synthesizes the many varied reasons why students cheat, as presented in a large body of existing literature. We then turn our attention to what we can do as educators to help reduce the rates of academic misconduct. ... Academic dishonesty impacts the student directly, but it can also impact the teacher, highlighting a ...
The History, Evolution, and Trends of Academic Dishonesty: A Literature
the report of analyses included (1) the problem of academic dishonesty in context, (2) the setting in which academic dishonesty occurs, (3) measures of cheating, (4) academic performance and ...
14 Theoretical Frameworks for Academic Dishonesty
Academic dishonesty has so far been understood using theoretical frameworks derived from criminology literature. These frameworks contribute pieces of the puzzle and even enjoy some empirical support, but conceptualizing students as delinquents is problematic and ultimately ineffective. ... In my review of the literature on cheating and ...
Academic dishonesty and its relations to peer cheating and culture: A
The present review of the literature quantitatively examined this perceived peer cheating effect. This meta-analysis included studies reporting correlations between students' own cheating and their perception of cheating in peers. ... Academic dishonesty is a serious problem worldwide that has negative consequences for individuals, institutions ...
PDF Academic Dishonesty: An Exploratory Study of Traditional Versus Non
LITERATURE REVIEW Prevalence of Cheating and Unethical Academic Behaviors Often, instructors erroneously assume the less intelligent or less motivated students will cheat. However, Pérez-peña (2012) found high achievers were also involved in academic dishonesty. Further, faculty who do not think academic dishonesty is a problem are only fooling
PDF Literature Review for the Harvard College Academic Integrity Committee
In this literature review, I introduce key theories about student cheating and provide an overview of possible administrative responses to this problematic behavior. First, I offer a ... particular focus on academic dishonesty among high-achieving, college-bound students. Cheating behavior often begins at the secondary level and may be ...
PDF Academic Dishonesty in Postsecondary Education: A literature review
Academic dishonesty is found at all levels of schooling from grade school to graduate school and is a growing problem at postsecondary institutions. Students ... This article provides a review of literature concerning academic dishonesty in postsecondary institutions. It discusses peer influence, moral reasoning,
PDF Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age: A
academic dishonesty in general, and individual differences as predic-tors of academic dishonesty. This article identiﬁes research questions that have not been addressed sufﬁciently in the literature and suggests speciﬁc research areas for further investigation. t the outset of this search, the literature on plagiarism seemed well defined and