Self-Reports of Student Cheating: Does a Definition of Cheating Matter?
Saved in:
| Title: | Self-Reports of Student Cheating: Does a Definition of Cheating Matter? |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Burrus, Robert T., McGoldrick, KimMarie, Schuhmann, Peter W. |
| Source: | Journal of Economic Education. Win 2007 38(1):3-16. |
| Availability: | Heldref Publications. 1319 Eighteenth Street NW, Washington, DC 20036-1802. Tel: 800-365-9753; Tel: 202-296-6267; Fax: 202-293-6130; e-mail: subscribe@heldref.org; Web site: http://www.heldref.org |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Physical Description: | |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2007 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Evaluative |
| Education Level: | Higher Education |
| Descriptors: | Sororities, Drinking, Cheating, College Students, Fraternities, Athletes, Predictor Variables, Correlation, Student Behavior, Student Characteristics, Hypothesis Testing, Self Disclosure (Individuals), Economics Education, Ethics, Definitions, Plagiarism, Student Attitudes, Peer Influence |
| DOI: | 10.3200/JECE.38.1.3-17 |
| ISSN: | 0022-0485 |
| Abstract: | The authors examine student cheating based on implicit and explicit definitions of cheating. Prior to being provided a definition of cheating, students reported whether they had cheated. Students were then provided a definition of cheating and asked to rereport their cheating behaviors. Results indicate that students do not understand what constitutes cheating and are much more likely to report cheating postdefinition. In addition, both pre- and postdefinition cheating behaviors are more prevalent for students with lower GPAs and for those who perceive more cheating by student peers. Alcohol consumption, seeing another student cheat, fraternity/sorority membership, and athletic membership also increase the likelihood of cheating. These findings are consistent with previous studies. On the basis of a sample of students who provided cheating data after a definition of cheating is communicated, the authors find that students who believe that punishment for cheating is relatively severe are less likely to report cheating and that students at institutions with well-publicized honor codes are less likely to admit to cheating compared with students at nonhonor code institutions. (Contains 2 tables and 13 endnotes.) |
| Abstractor: | Author |
| Number of References: | 26 |
| Entry Date: | 2007 |
| Accession Number: | EJ767248 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | The authors examine student cheating based on implicit and explicit definitions of cheating. Prior to being provided a definition of cheating, students reported whether they had cheated. Students were then provided a definition of cheating and asked to rereport their cheating behaviors. Results indicate that students do not understand what constitutes cheating and are much more likely to report cheating postdefinition. In addition, both pre- and postdefinition cheating behaviors are more prevalent for students with lower GPAs and for those who perceive more cheating by student peers. Alcohol consumption, seeing another student cheat, fraternity/sorority membership, and athletic membership also increase the likelihood of cheating. These findings are consistent with previous studies. On the basis of a sample of students who provided cheating data after a definition of cheating is communicated, the authors find that students who believe that punishment for cheating is relatively severe are less likely to report cheating and that students at institutions with well-publicized honor codes are less likely to admit to cheating compared with students at nonhonor code institutions. (Contains 2 tables and 13 endnotes.) |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0022-0485 |
| DOI: | 10.3200/JECE.38.1.3-17 |
