COLLEGE STUDENTS AND ACADEMIC DISHONESTY*NATHAN W. PINo, PH.D.

WILLIAM L. SMITH, PH.D.Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Georgia Southern University

Students at a medium-size state university in the Southeast weresurveyed regarding their attitudes and behaviors about learning.Three hundred and forty-five students (52.8 percent) indicatedthey had never committed any acts of academic dishonesty. Stu-dents who possessed an "academic ethic" were less likely tocommit acts of academic dishonesty and earned higher gradepoint averages. A variety of factors including sex, grade pointaverage, race, social class, fraternity/sorority membership,major, paid employment, and those variables associated with theacademic ethic were assessed for their influence on academicdishonesty. The higher one's classification the more likely onewould engage in acts of academic dishonesty. The more studentswatch television and the more they participate in student clubs orgroups the more likely they are to commit acts of academic dis-honesty. The implications of the findings are discussed.

Academic dishonesty is an issue whichhas garnished national attention and it isconsidered a serious problem among col-lege students (Maramark and Maline1993:3; McCabe and Trevino 1997:379).Shane Spiller and Deborah F. Crown(1995:763) acknowledge that there is lit-tle comparable longitudinal research onacademic dishonesty and they challengethe assumption that cheating has increasedover the years. Based on one measure ofacademic dishonesty they found no sup-port for the claim that cheating hasincreased, although they readily admitother forms of academic dishonesty maybe increasing. Individual characteristicssuch as age, sex, grade point average, socialclass, extracurricular activities, etc., andcontextual (situational/institutional) char-acteristics such as fraternity or sorority

membership, faculty support for academ-ic integrity, peer opinions, etc. are linkedwith academic dishonesty. Donald L.McCabe and Linda Klebe Trevino(1997:391) found that "peer-related con-textual factors" had the most influence onwhether a student would commit an act ofacademic dishonesty. Stephen Davis et al.(1992:19) attribute a "diminishing senseof academic integrity" as a major factorinfluencing cheating, while Miguel Roigand Lauren DeTommaso (1995:691) iden-tify procrastination as a major cause ofacademic dishonesty.

The statistics regarding academic dis-honesty are disheartening. Fifty-fourpercent of students at a small state uni-versity in the Southwest admitted cheatingon either exams, quizzes, and assignments(Haines et al. 1986:345). Eighty-two per-

*The authors would like to thank Miranda Davis, Kyong Hee Chee, and Eric Stewart fortheir assistance.

490

College Students and Academic Dishonesty.../ 491

cent of students at a large state universityin the Midwest cheated at some point intheir college career (Stem and Havlicek1986:136). Eighty-six percent of studentsat a large Southern university cheated oneither exams, papers, or homeworkassignments (Michaels and Miethe1989:876). Bernard E. Whitley, Jr.(1998:238) reviewed 107 studies relatedto cheating among college students andfound an average of 70.4 percent of stu-dents had cheated, 43.1 percent had cheatedon examinations, 40.9 percent had cheat-ed on homework assignments, and 47percent had plagiarized. Fifty-one percentof students majoring in criminal justice ata medium-size state university in the Southhad committed some type of academic mis-conduct (Coston and Jenks 1998:241).Among sociology students at the Univer-sity of Oklahoma, 83 percent committed atleast one act of academic dishonesty(Cochran et al. 1999:94).

Potential remedies for academic dis-honesty are few. Enca B. Stern and LarryHavlicek (1986:140) found that studentsand faculty favored smaller classes andcloser monitoring during exams. Neithergroup believed that an honor code or trustsystem would reduce cheating on exami-nations. Part of the problem may be in theway faculty deal with cases of academicdishonesty. Faculty tend to deal with inci-dents of academic dishonesty on a one toone basis rather than referring cases to theUniversity Office of Judicial Affairs. Thispractice occurs even at institutions withhonor codes (McCabe 1993:654).

We suggest that one way of rebuildingacademic integrity and reducing the inci-dences of academic dishonesty is to foster

the development of an academic ethicamong college students (Rau and Durand2000; Smith and Pino 2003). The acade-mic ethic is "learned behavior" and thosewho possess an academic ethic "place theirstudies above leisure activities; study on adaily basis or near-daily basis; and studyin a disciplined, intense, and sober fashion"(Rau and Durand 2000:23). There are fourkey dimensions to the academic ethic: aca-demic locus of control, class attendance,resistance of partying and drinking, andrejection of the GPA perspective (seeAppendix).

MethodsA 4 page survey consisting of 20 ques-

tions was administered in class during thefirst several weeks of the 2002 fall semes-ter to 721 students enrolled in 10 sectionsof IDS 2210, Turning Points and Connec-tions, at Georgia Southern University. Sixhundred and seventy-five students com-pleted the survey for a response rate of 94percent. IDS 2210 is a 1 hour requiredcore course which is usually taken in thesophomore, junior, or senior year. Thisgroup constitutes a convenience sampleand it closely mirrors the student popula-tion at Georgia Southern (46.9 percentmale; 53.1 percent female; 71 percentwhite; 24 percent black). Our sample con-sisted of 277 males (42 percent) and 382females (58 percent) for a total of 659 [16did not indicate their sex] and 446 whites(68 percent) and 182 blacks (27.7 percent).

Georgia Southern University is a unit ofthe University System of Georgia and isone of the two regional universities in thestate. The university experienced unprece-dented growth in enrollment and more than

492 /College Student Journal

doubled in size during the 1990s. It is acomprehensive institution (IIA) with anenrollment of over 15,000 students, 13,000of whom are undergraduates.

ResultsGeorgia Southern students were asked

the following question, "How many times,during a typical semester, have you engagedin any of these or other actions that wouldbe considered academic dishonesty?" Aca-demic dishonesty was defined as actionssuch as cheating on tests (copying off ofanother person, having another person takea test for you, or bringing notes into a testwhen you should not have, etc.), cheating onassignments (using another student'sassignment or paper as if it were you own,buying papers, faking lab, statistical, orassignment data, etc.), or plagiarizing workthat is not your own in a paper and failing

to cite it, etc. Three hundred and forty-fiveGeorgia Southern students (52.8 percent)replied that they had never committed anyacts of academic dishonesty, 241 (36.9 per-cent) replied a few acts or less throughouttheir entire college career, 50 (7.7 percent)1-2 times a semester, 13 (2.0 percent) 3-5times per semester, 3 (.5 percent) 6-10 timesper semester, 1 (.2 percent) 11 + times persemester. Forty-seven percent of GeorgiaSouthern students have committed sometype of academic dishonesty. Because thisvariable is positively skewed, we used thefollowing transformation to normalize thedistribution (the same was done for the vari-able measuring age): Y* = Log (1 + Y)(Raudenbush and Bryk 2002:292). Table 1displays the means and standard deviationsof the variables used in the study, and theAppendix demonstrates how the variableswere constructed.

Table 1Means and Standard Deviations of Important Variables

Variable Mean Stdev

GPA 3.84 1.02sex 1.58 0.49pareduc 10.19 3.18workpay 3.70 2.63stuclubs 2.27 1.56alc 0.00 1.00missskip 0.00 1.00partydrink 0.00 1.00antigapersp 0.00 1.00tv 3.78 1.65age 1.34 0.38classification 2.92 0.75fratsor 1.87 0.34acdis 0.40 0.11

College Students and Academic Dishonesty.../ 493

Four multiple regression models were engaging in academic dishonesty. Table 2tested in order to determine which vari- displays the results.ables predict a student's likelihood of

Table 2Regression Models with Acdis as the Dependent Variable

SE t VIF Model F R-Squared

.010 -2.26 1.01

.001 -0.11 1.01

.130 -1.72 1.00

.009 -2.08 1.03

.001 -0.08 1.05

.134 -1.11 1.11

.002 -0.69 1.14

.003 4.06 1.03.003 1.22 1.14.014 -2.82 1.13

.009 -1.76 1.06

.001 -0.14 1.05

.142 -2.00 1.28

.002 -0.87 1.14

.003 3.67 1.05

.003 1.23 1.17

.014 -2.66 1.14.007 2.27 1.17.005 -2.37 1.09

.009 -0.89 1.13

.001 -0.09 1.08

.139 -1.11 1.34

.002 -0.81 1.14

.003 2.66 1.13

.003 2.03 1.19

.014 -1.57 1.22

.006 2.15 1.18

.005 -0.35 1.20

.004 -5.17 1.07

.005 -3.79 1.08

.005 -1.34 1.27

.004 -5.09 1.06

Ind. Var

Model I

Beta

sexpareducage

Model 2

-.094*-.005-.07 1

2.60' .OOS

5.46**" .051

-.085*-.003-.048-.030.166***.053-.1 14**

-.073-.006-.091--.037.151***.054-.1 14**.099'-.100'

5.43***

sexpareducage

tvstuclubsfrivsor

Model 3

sexpareducagew-okpaytv

stuclubsfiasorclassificationGPA

Model 4

sexpareducageworkpaytvstuclubsfratswrclassificationGPAalcmissskippartydrinkantigpapersp

* p <. 0 5

*tp < .01... p <.001

.065

.1539.04*"'

-.036-.004-.049-.033.108"*.085'-.066.089'-.015-.2053*'-.151*"*-.060-.201"'*

494 /College Student Journal

In the first model, controlling for ageand social class as measured by parents'combined educational level, males are morelikely to engage in academic dishonestythan females. The second model adds vari-ables concerning activities that might affectacademic dishonesty. Males are still sig-nificantly more likely than females toengage in academic dishonesty controllingfor these extra factors, but the model alsoshows that time spent watching televisionis positively related to academic dishon-esty. Furthermore, fraternity or sororitymembers/pledges are significantly morelikely to engage in academic dishonestythan non-members/pledges. The thirdmodel adds class standing and GPA, bothof which are significantly related to acad-emic dishonesty after controlling for theearlier variables. The higher one's classstanding and the lower one's GPA, the morelikely one will engage in academic dis-honesty. After adding these two variablesinto the model, sex is no longer a signifi-cant predictor of academic dishonesty, butage is. Time spent watching television andfraternity or sorority involvement are stillsignificant predictors. In the full model,the four dimensions of the academic ethic(academic locus of control, class atten-dance, partying/drinking, and rejection ofthe GPA perspective) are added. Three ofthese four dimensions are significantly andnegatively related to academic dishonestycontrolling for the other variables. If onehas an academic locus of control, misses orskips class rarely, and rejects the GPA per-spective, he or she will be much more likelyto resist the temptation to engage in acad-emic dishonesty. Television viewing andone's class standing are still significantly

related to academic dishonesty. Interest-ingly, participating in student clubs orgroups in general increases one's proba-bility of engaging in academic dishonesty,but fraternity or sorority involvement nolonger have an effect after entering the aca-demic ethic variables.

It is apparent that having an academicethic reduces the likelihood of engagingin academic dishonesty, while increasedtelevision viewing, improving one's classstanding, and participating in student clubsor groups increase the likelihood one willengage in academic dishonesty. After con-trolling for a number of theoreticallyimportant variables, age, sex, class, fra-ternity or sorority involvement, andworking for pay have no significant effecton academic dishonesty. A reduced modelwas tested in order to see if a stronger Fratio would result. Table 3 displays thestrongest reduced model.

This reduced model does indeed havea stronger F ratio, and shows that age andclass still have no significant effect on aca-demic dishonesty. After controlling forthese two variables, all four dimensions ofthe academic ethic are significantly andnegatively related to academic dishonesty.Furthermore, the higher one's classifica-tion, the more one watches television, andthe more one participates in student clubsor groups all increase the likelihood ofengaging in academic dishonesty.

Table 4 displays the three variables thatare significantly related to academic dis-honesty solely in bivariate regressionanalysis. Males, fraternity or sororitymembers/pledges, and those with lowerGPA's are more likely to engage in acad-emic dishonesty, but when controlling for

College Students and Academic Dishonesty.. ./ 495

Table 3Strongest Reduced Model with Acdis as the Dependent Variable

SE t VIF Model F R-Squared

pareduc .001 .001 0.04 1.05 12.79*** .154age -.048 .131 -1.16 1.20stuclubs .105** .003 2.70 1.05tv .107** .003 2.67 1.10classification .085* .006 2.07 1.17alc -.213*** .004 -5.53 1.02missskip -.158*** .004 -4.12 1.02partydrink -.090* .005 -2.24 1.12antig sp -.208*** .004 -5.37 1.03

* p<.0 5

** p <. 0 1

*** p <. 0 01

Table 4Independent Variables that are Significantly Related to Acdis Solely in Bivariate Tests

Ind. Var Beta SE t

GPA -. 135** .004 -3.48sex -. 113** .009 -2.90fratsor -. 114** .013 -2.93

** p<. 01

Ind. Var Beta

496 /College Student Journal

other theoretically important variables theylose their significance. One's biologicalage, social class, and work status have noeffect on the dependent variable in thissample. We also examined the potentialinfluence of race and major, but these hadno effect on the propensity for academicdishonesty, either.

Discussion and ConclusionAs previous literature has stated

(McCabe and Trevino 1997), individualdifference factors such as working for pay,age, class, and sex do not have as strongan effect on academic dishonesty as con-textual variables. Still, procrastinationfrom watching too much television mayincrease the likelihood of academic dis-honesty in order to make up for lost time.Those with an academic ethic are muchless likely to procrastinate and would there-fore be less vulnerable to the temptation ofengaging in academic dishonesty.

Michaels and Miethe's (1989) theoret-ically integrated approach to explainingacademic dishonesty can be applied here.Their integrated model combines four the-ories of deviance, which includedeterrence, rational choice, social bond,and social learning theories. In terms ofsocial learning theory, student club orgroup involvement, and less importantly,fraternity and sorority involvement, alongwith classification show the influence ofpeer effects on cheating. In terms of clas-sification, the longer one is imbedded intocollege student culture, the more likely onecan get to know peers who find it desirableto engage in academic dishonesty. If onehas an academic ethic, however, one mayhave stronger attachments to pro-socialpeers (associating with others that have an

academic ethic), a stronger commitmentto legitimate academic activities, and cantherefore resist the temptation to cheat orto procrastinate. True belief in the acade-mic ethic may help one resist thetemptation to cheat, even if one's peersmay be supportive of it. Social bonds,therefore, can help reduce academic dis-honesty among students.

Those with an academic ethic havehigher GPAs as well (Smith and Pino2003), and those with higher GPAs are lesslikely to engage in academic dishonesty.Those with an academic ethic have astronger academic locus of control, are lesslikely to drink and party, miss or skip classless often, and reject the GPA perspective.If one missed class and partied more, hada lower academic locus of control, and tookclasses solely because one thought highergrades were easier to obtain there, onewould be more academically vulnerableand therefore rationally choose to take therisk and engage in academic dishonesty.If failure and a low grade would result ifdishonest action is not taken, one mightreason that it is worth the risk to try to getaway with it. The deterrent effect againstacademic dishonesty is weak as well. Ifmany students engage in academic dis-honesty, but we don't see half of the studentbody on academic probation, then we mustassume that the risk of detection and cer-tainty of punishment is low.

One important factor revealed in ourstudy involves one's classification. Whileprevious literature finds that younger stu-dents are more likely to cheat, and thatupperclassmen tend to cheat less thanunderclassmen (Haines et al. 1986), wefound the opposite. Another important fac-tor is sex. The literature is mixed regarding

College Students and Academic Dishonesty... / 497

whether males are more likely to cheat thanfemales (McCabe and Trevino 1997: Whit-lev. Jr., et al. 1999). These patterns needto be explored further while controllingfor peer variables as well as academic ethicvariables. Factors that had no importanceat all in determining academic dishonestyin our study included age, social class, andworking for pay. William Rau and AnnDurand (2000:28) suggest that at less selec-tive institutions students have plenty offree time and working for pay does notusually negatively impact academic per-formance. Further research into theimportance of these factors is also war-ranted.

The data used for this study have theirlimnitations. We only had one measure ofacademic dishonesty, independent vari-ables considered important in the literature(for example. peer influences) were notavailable, and the sample, while otherwiserepresentative of Georgia Southern Uni-versity students, did not contain freshmen.However, the findings for this study stillhave important implications for futureresearch and policy options geared towardreducing academic dishonesty among col-lege students.

Future research should consider vari-ables measuring the academic ethic withpeer variables, other contextual variables,and individual difference factors to gain amore holistic and accurate explanation foracademic dishonesty. In terms of policy,one must make sure to foster an academ-ic ethic, preferably in grade school and infreshman seminar classes, in order toreduce academic dishonesty. Faculty canalso mention the academic ethic in classand on their syllabi. Vigorously disciplin-ing students proven to engage in academic

dishonesty and communicating this to stu-dents also adds a potential deterrent effect.While many may "give up" by refusing toassign research papers and other assign-ments that are prone to academicdishonesty, we argue that such assignmentsare necessary. While more difficult in theshort run, fostering an academic ethicamong students and implementing othermeasures to curb academic dishonesty arenecessary ingredients for regaining acad-emic integrity and producing higher qualitygraduates.

ReferencesCochran. J. K., Chamlin, M. B., Wood, P. B., &

Sellers, C. S. (1999). Shame, Embarrassment,and Formal Sanction Threats: Extending theDeterrence/Rational Choice Model to Acade-mic Dishonesty. Sociological Inquiry. 69.91-105.

Coston. C. T. M., & Jenks, D. A. (1998). ExploringAcademic Dishonesty Among UndergraduateCriminal Justice Majors: A Research Note.An2e-icani Jourinal of Criminal Justice, 22, 235-248.

Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., &McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic Dishon-esty: Prevalence, Determinants, Techniques,and Punishments. Teaclhing of Psychology, 19,16-20.

Haines, V. J., Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., &Clark, R. E. (1986). College Cheating: Imma-turity, Lack of Commitment, and theNeutralizing Atuitude. Research in Higher Edu-cation, 25, 342-354.

Maramark, S., & Maline, M. B. (1993). AcademicDishonesty Among College Students. Issuesin Education, U.S. Department of Education,1-14.

McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty Responses to Aca-demic Dishonesty: The Influence of StudentHonor Codes. Research in Higher Education,34, 647-658.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individ-ual and Contextual Influences on Academic

498 /College Student Journal

Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation.Research in Higher Education, 38, 379-396.

Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Apply-ing Theories of Deviance to AcademicCheating. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 870-885.

Rau, W., & Durand, A. (2000). The AcademicEthic and College Grades: Does Hard WorkHelp Students to "Make the Grade"? Sociolo-gy of Education, 73, 19-38.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierar-chical Linear Models: Applications and DataAnalysis Methods (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks,California: Sage Publications.

Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are CollegeCheating and Plagiarism Related to AcademicProcrastination? Psychological Reports, 77,691-698.

Smith, W. L., & Pino, N. W. (2003). Habits of theMind: In Search of the Academic Ethic AmongCollege Students. Unpublished manuscript.Department of Sociology and Anthropology,Georgia Southern University.

Spiller, S., & Crown, D. F. (1995). Change OverTime in Academic Dishonesty at the CollegiateLevel. Psychological Reports, 76, 763-768.

Stern, E. B., & Havlicek, L. (1986). AcademicMisconduct: Results of Faculty and Under-graduate Student Surveys. Journal of AlliedHealth, 15, 129-142.

Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors Associated withCheating Among College Students: A Review.Research in Higher Education, 39, 235-274.

Whitley, B. E., Nelson, A. B., & Jones, C. J.(1999). Gender Differences in Cheating Atti-tudes and Classroom Cheating Behavior: AMeta-Analysis. Sex Roles, 41, 657-677.

Appendix

Variables Used in the Study

academic dishonesty (variable used in studyinvolved a log transformation as describedabove):

Academic dishonesty is an issue thatreceives a lot of attention on campus. Aca-

demic dishonesty includes actions such ascheating on tests (copying off of anotherperson, having another person take a testfor you, or bringing notes into a test whenyou should not have, etc.), cheating onassignments (using another student'sassignment or paper as if it were your own,buying papers, faking lab, statistical, orother assignment data, etc.), or plagiariz-ing papers ("making up" sources forbibliographic citations, copying directlyor paraphrasing work that is not your ownin a paper and failing to cite it, etc.). Howmany times, during a typical semester, haveyou engaged in any of these or other actionsthat would be considered academic dis-honesty?

1 none, I have never engaged in academ-ic dishonesty

2 I have only engaged in academic dis-honesty a few times or less throughoutmy entire college career

3 1-2 times per semester4 3-5 times per semester5 6-10 times per semester6 11 + times per semester

GPAThis variable was reverse coded from

the following question:What is your cumulative grade point

average (GPA)? Circle the appropriatenumber that corresponds with your answer.

I A2 A-3 B4 B-, C+S C6 C- or less

(3.75-4.00)(3.25-3.74)(2.75-3.24)(2.25-2.74)(1.75-2.24)(< 1.75)

College Students and Academic Dishonesty.. ./ 499

sex male = 1, female = 2

agerespondents filled in their age as oftheir last birthday (variable used instudy involved a log transformation asdescribed above)

workpav (workingforpay), stucluibs (participat-ing in student clubs or groups), anld i?

Each of these variables were constructedfrom the same scale (1-8):

Since entering college, how much time(in hours) have you spent during a typicalweek doing the following activities (circlethe correct answer)?

0 <1-2 3-5 6-10 11-1516-20 21-30 31+

pareducThe coded answers to the following two

questions were added together:What is the highest level of education

attained by each of your parents?

Father Mother

Grammar school or lessSome high schoolHifi school degreGEDPost secondary school odher than collegeSome collgeCoUege degreeSome grduaaidprofessional schoolGraduaxmte fessional degree

2345678

12345678

classification:I = freshman, 2 = sophomore, 3 = junior,4 = senior

fratsor:Are you a member or currently pledginga social fratemity or sorority? I = yes, 2= no.

Variables Used to Construct the AcademicEthic Construct

Academic Ethic (all below variablestogether)Alpha= .87.

Factor analysis confirmed four dimen-sions of the academic ethic: academic locusof control, class attendance, partying anddrinking, and rejection of the GPA perspec-tive. The summary of the variables used tomake the construct based on factor scorescreated the four dimension variables below.

Dimensions of the Academic EthicAcademic Locus of Contr-ol (alc)Alpha = .85

I can easily be talked out of studyingI often end up daydreaming when I studyI am easily distracted when studyingI am often bored in classI usually rely on cramming to prepare

for exams and for finishing assign-ments

I often end up daydreaming when I amin class

How many hours during a typical weekdo you spend studying or doing homework(circle the correct answer)? 0 <1-23-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-3031+

What study pattern fits you best?

1 Never study2 Cramming before exams3 Cramming before exams and some

study during most weeks4 Weekly study with reviews before exams

500 /College Student Journal

5 Studying almost every day6 Studying every day, including weekends

Some college students give a high pri-ority to their social life; others giveacademic work a high priority. What aboutyou? Which of the following is closest toyour own position?

1 Social life is my most important prior-ity

2 Social life is more important than aca-demics

3 Social life and academics are aboutequal

4 Academic work is more important thanmy social life

5 Academic work is my most importantpriority

Missskip (class attendance)Alpha = .71

I often miss or skip class

I often lie when I fail to turn in assign-ments or when I miss class or a test so thatI am not penalized for it by the instructor

How often do you miss class from over-sleeping, "skipping," or for some other reason?(Frequently, Occasionally, Seldom, Never)

AntigpaperspAlpha = .66

I avoid teachers who are tough gradersIt is a smart move to drop a course if the

teacher turns out to be a tough graderIt is wise to drop a class if there is a lot

of work to do, even if the class seems inter-esting

PartydrinkAlpha = .68

Social life has impaired my academicperformance at least once in a typicalsemester

How many hours during a typical weekdo you spend partying?

In a typical two week period during aca-demic semesters, how many times do youhave five or more drinks in one sitting?

1 None2 Once3 Twice4 3-5 times5 6-10 times6 11+ times

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: College Students and Academic DishonestySOURCE: Coll Stud J 37 no4 D 2003

WN: 0333503829003

The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and itis reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article inviolation of the copyright is prohibited.

Copyright 1982-2004 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.