Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
Among these, knowledge of institutional policy was the best predictor of cheating rates, followed by mastery motivation and attitudes about cheating. This finding is important because it reminds college administrators that having an honor system, rules about cheating, or both, and effectively administering that system to students, are not one and the same. Participants in this study who cheated reported signifi-cantly less understanding of institutional policy regarding cheating than did noncheating participants. In addition, this study advances our understanding of the role of motivation in cheating behavior. In particular, mastery and extrinsic motivation do not appear to be uniform across all courses, and this variability is related to cheating. Participants who cheated had lower mastery motivation and higher extrinsic motivation in the courses in which they cheated than in courses in which they did not cheat. Cheaters, in courses in which they cheated, also differed on these two motivation variables from noncheaters. Mastery motivation was lower for cheaters, and extrinsic motiva-tion higher, as compared to noncheaters. However, in courses in which cheaters did not cheat, cheater and noncheater scores were not reliably different. Thus, cheaters reported increases in extrinsic motivation and simultaneous decreases in mastery motivation, but only in courses in which they cheated. Anderman etal. (1998) found a similar relation between mastery and what they called performance goals with middle school students. This study confirms that motivation is an important factor in the cheating behavior of college students as well. Finally, as expected, cheating behavior was related to perceptions of the behav-ior of peers and to attitudes about cheating. Both factors were significant predic-tors of cheating rates. Cheaters believed that more students engaged in cheating behaviors than did noncheaters. Cheaters also justified cheating behavior to a greater extent than did noncheaters. In addition, the more the participants cheated, the higher their estimate of cheating on campus. These findings replicate previous research on the importance of student attitudes and peer norms for understanding, and perhaps influencing, cheating behavior (see Whitley, 1998, for a review). Of course, these results do not indicate causality. Once students begin to cheat, their motivation levels and their perceptions and experiences of others may change. Alternatively, perhaps low mastery motivation in a course increases a stu-dent's risk for cheating in that course and increases the cheater's tendency to cheat repeatedly. A student who is uninterested in a course may look for ways to com-plete the course with the least effort. In addition, high extrinsic motivation may also increase student vulnerability to temptations to cheat. If a student's purposes for taking a course have little to do with the course and more to do with extrinsic goals, such as grades or career opportunities, cheating may serve those goals. In ei-ther case, motivations appear to be course specific. With respect to perceived norms, cheaters may estimate higher rates of cheating by others, as compared to noncheaters, as a way of preserving their self-image (e.g., false consensus effect; Ross, Green, & House, 1977). They also may be more
DOI link for Among these, knowledge of institutional policy was the best predictor of cheating rates, followed by mastery motivation and attitudes about cheating. This finding is important because it reminds college administrators that having an honor system, rules about cheating, or both, and effectively administering that system to students, are not one and the same. Participants in this study who cheated reported signifi-cantly less understanding of institutional policy regarding cheating than did noncheating participants. In addition, this study advances our understanding of the role of motivation in cheating behavior. In particular, mastery and extrinsic motivation do not appear to be uniform across all courses, and this variability is related to cheating. Participants who cheated had lower mastery motivation and higher extrinsic motivation in the courses in which they cheated than in courses in which they did not cheat. Cheaters, in courses in which they cheated, also differed on these two motivation variables from noncheaters. Mastery motivation was lower for cheaters, and extrinsic motiva-tion higher, as compared to noncheaters. However, in courses in which cheaters did not cheat, cheater and noncheater scores were not reliably different. Thus, cheaters reported increases in extrinsic motivation and simultaneous decreases in mastery motivation, but only in courses in which they cheated. Anderman etal. (1998) found a similar relation between mastery and what they called performance goals with middle school students. This study confirms that motivation is an important factor in the cheating behavior of college students as well. Finally, as expected, cheating behavior was related to perceptions of the behav-ior of peers and to attitudes about cheating. Both factors were significant predic-tors of cheating rates. Cheaters believed that more students engaged in cheating behaviors than did noncheaters. Cheaters also justified cheating behavior to a greater extent than did noncheaters. In addition, the more the participants cheated, the higher their estimate of cheating on campus. These findings replicate previous research on the importance of student attitudes and peer norms for understanding, and perhaps influencing, cheating behavior (see Whitley, 1998, for a review). Of course, these results do not indicate causality. Once students begin to cheat, their motivation levels and their perceptions and experiences of others may change. Alternatively, perhaps low mastery motivation in a course increases a stu-dent's risk for cheating in that course and increases the cheater's tendency to cheat repeatedly. A student who is uninterested in a course may look for ways to com-plete the course with the least effort. In addition, high extrinsic motivation may also increase student vulnerability to temptations to cheat. If a student's purposes for taking a course have little to do with the course and more to do with extrinsic goals, such as grades or career opportunities, cheating may serve those goals. In ei-ther case, motivations appear to be course specific. With respect to perceived norms, cheaters may estimate higher rates of cheating by others, as compared to noncheaters, as a way of preserving their self-image (e.g., false consensus effect; Ross, Green, & House, 1977). They also may be more
Among these, knowledge of institutional policy was the best predictor of cheating rates, followed by mastery motivation and attitudes about cheating. This finding is important because it reminds college administrators that having an honor system, rules about cheating, or both, and effectively administering that system to students, are not one and the same. Participants in this study who cheated reported signifi-cantly less understanding of institutional policy regarding cheating than did noncheating participants. In addition, this study advances our understanding of the role of motivation in cheating behavior. In particular, mastery and extrinsic motivation do not appear to be uniform across all courses, and this variability is related to cheating. Participants who cheated had lower mastery motivation and higher extrinsic motivation in the courses in which they cheated than in courses in which they did not cheat. Cheaters, in courses in which they cheated, also differed on these two motivation variables from noncheaters. Mastery motivation was lower for cheaters, and extrinsic motiva-tion higher, as compared to noncheaters. However, in courses in which cheaters did not cheat, cheater and noncheater scores were not reliably different. Thus, cheaters reported increases in extrinsic motivation and simultaneous decreases in mastery motivation, but only in courses in which they cheated. Anderman etal. (1998) found a similar relation between mastery and what they called performance goals with middle school students. This study confirms that motivation is an important factor in the cheating behavior of college students as well. Finally, as expected, cheating behavior was related to perceptions of the behav-ior of peers and to attitudes about cheating. Both factors were significant predic-tors of cheating rates. Cheaters believed that more students engaged in cheating behaviors than did noncheaters. Cheaters also justified cheating behavior to a greater extent than did noncheaters. In addition, the more the participants cheated, the higher their estimate of cheating on campus. These findings replicate previous research on the importance of student attitudes and peer norms for understanding, and perhaps influencing, cheating behavior (see Whitley, 1998, for a review). Of course, these results do not indicate causality. Once students begin to cheat, their motivation levels and their perceptions and experiences of others may change. Alternatively, perhaps low mastery motivation in a course increases a stu-dent's risk for cheating in that course and increases the cheater's tendency to cheat repeatedly. A student who is uninterested in a course may look for ways to com-plete the course with the least effort. In addition, high extrinsic motivation may also increase student vulnerability to temptations to cheat. If a student's purposes for taking a course have little to do with the course and more to do with extrinsic goals, such as grades or career opportunities, cheating may serve those goals. In ei-ther case, motivations appear to be course specific. With respect to perceived norms, cheaters may estimate higher rates of cheating by others, as compared to noncheaters, as a way of preserving their self-image (e.g., false consensus effect; Ross, Green, & House, 1977). They also may be more
ABSTRACT
Nevertheless, unlike student demographics, which offer little guidance to institutions for curbing cheating (McCabe & Treviño, 1993), motivation, attitudes, knowledge of academic integrity policies, and social comparison factors are potentially open to manipulation. For example, motivation factors might be addressed within a specific course or more globally by the institution. In the context of a specific course, some professors have provided course introductions that incorporate persuasive ethical arguments for student honesty (Taylor, 1999). Similarly, institutions might emphasize for students, particularly lst-year students, who committed the most cheating acts in this study, coherent, global arguments for honesty through orientation programs. These programs must include information about the institution's academic policies but also must address motivation issues. Stressing the importance of personal excellence and subject mastery (and their logical connection to professionalism, industry, and honesty), both in specific courses and in the context of the broader academic institution, may help decrease student dishonesty.
