Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
substantial numbers of students cheat not just once, but repeatedly (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; McCabe & Treviño, 1995; Moffatt, 1990). Given the prevalence of academic dishonesty among college students, it is not surprising that considerable research has been conducted on its causes and corre-lates, with more than 100 studies having been published on the topic during the past 3 decades (Whitley, 1998). What is more surprising is the relative lack of at-tention that researchers have paid to gender differences in academic dishonesty given the important role gender plays in theories of in moral reasoning (e.g., Lapsley, 1996). Theorists such as Chodorow (1989) and Gilligan (1982) proposed that differential childhood socialization processes lead to different moral reason-ing orientations in men and women. These theorists proposed that gender differ-ences in moral orientation result in gender differences in behavior, with women being less likely than men to violate social norms because of the negative effects that such violations could have on other people and the potential of such violations to impair fulfillment of women's nurturant role obligations (Robbins & Martin, 1993). Thus, women are less likely than men to engage in minor criminal behavior (e.g., Tibbetts & Herz, 1996), excessive alcohol consumption (e.g., Robbins & Martin, 1993), and unprovoked aggression (e.g., Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). One would therefore expect to find similar gender differences in violations of academic integrity norms, especially given that engaging in academic dishonesty is corre-lated with engaging in other forms of minor deviance (Blankenship & Whitley, 2000; Whitley, 1998). However, in a meta-analysis of research on gender differences in cheating, Whitley, Nelson, and Jones (1999) found a mean difference of only 0.2 standard deviations between men's and women's self-reports of having cheated. Although this difference was statistically significant due to the large cumulative sample size in the meta-analysis, in absolute terms it just met Cohen's (1992) criterion for a nontrivial effect size. In contrast, Whitley et al. found a mean gender difference of about 0.5 standard deviations for attitudes toward cheating, with women reporting more negative attitudes. Thus, women hold more negative attitudes toward cheat-ing than do men but are about equally likely to cheat. Cognitive dissonance theory holds that such attitude-behavior inconsistencies lead to a negative emotional state called cognitive dissonance (Elliot & Devine, 1994; Festinger, 1957). Because, on the average, women hold more negative atti-tudes toward cheating than do men, one would expect women who cheat to experi-ence more cognitive dissonance and so to have more negative affective reactions to having cheated than would men. Although little research has been conducted on such gender differences, Smith, Ryan, and Diggins (1972) found that women re-ported experiencing more guilt over having cheated than did men. In addition, Tibbetts (1997) found that women reported more shame concerning intentions to cheat, and Cochran, Chamlin, Wood, and Sellers (1999) found that women re-ported expecting to feel more shame and embarrassment if they cheated. Further-
DOI link for substantial numbers of students cheat not just once, but repeatedly (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; McCabe & Treviño, 1995; Moffatt, 1990). Given the prevalence of academic dishonesty among college students, it is not surprising that considerable research has been conducted on its causes and corre-lates, with more than 100 studies having been published on the topic during the past 3 decades (Whitley, 1998). What is more surprising is the relative lack of at-tention that researchers have paid to gender differences in academic dishonesty given the important role gender plays in theories of in moral reasoning (e.g., Lapsley, 1996). Theorists such as Chodorow (1989) and Gilligan (1982) proposed that differential childhood socialization processes lead to different moral reason-ing orientations in men and women. These theorists proposed that gender differ-ences in moral orientation result in gender differences in behavior, with women being less likely than men to violate social norms because of the negative effects that such violations could have on other people and the potential of such violations to impair fulfillment of women's nurturant role obligations (Robbins & Martin, 1993). Thus, women are less likely than men to engage in minor criminal behavior (e.g., Tibbetts & Herz, 1996), excessive alcohol consumption (e.g., Robbins & Martin, 1993), and unprovoked aggression (e.g., Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). One would therefore expect to find similar gender differences in violations of academic integrity norms, especially given that engaging in academic dishonesty is corre-lated with engaging in other forms of minor deviance (Blankenship & Whitley, 2000; Whitley, 1998). However, in a meta-analysis of research on gender differences in cheating, Whitley, Nelson, and Jones (1999) found a mean difference of only 0.2 standard deviations between men's and women's self-reports of having cheated. Although this difference was statistically significant due to the large cumulative sample size in the meta-analysis, in absolute terms it just met Cohen's (1992) criterion for a nontrivial effect size. In contrast, Whitley et al. found a mean gender difference of about 0.5 standard deviations for attitudes toward cheating, with women reporting more negative attitudes. Thus, women hold more negative attitudes toward cheat-ing than do men but are about equally likely to cheat. Cognitive dissonance theory holds that such attitude-behavior inconsistencies lead to a negative emotional state called cognitive dissonance (Elliot & Devine, 1994; Festinger, 1957). Because, on the average, women hold more negative atti-tudes toward cheating than do men, one would expect women who cheat to experi-ence more cognitive dissonance and so to have more negative affective reactions to having cheated than would men. Although little research has been conducted on such gender differences, Smith, Ryan, and Diggins (1972) found that women re-ported experiencing more guilt over having cheated than did men. In addition, Tibbetts (1997) found that women reported more shame concerning intentions to cheat, and Cochran, Chamlin, Wood, and Sellers (1999) found that women re-ported expecting to feel more shame and embarrassment if they cheated. Further-
substantial numbers of students cheat not just once, but repeatedly (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; McCabe & Treviño, 1995; Moffatt, 1990). Given the prevalence of academic dishonesty among college students, it is not surprising that considerable research has been conducted on its causes and corre-lates, with more than 100 studies having been published on the topic during the past 3 decades (Whitley, 1998). What is more surprising is the relative lack of at-tention that researchers have paid to gender differences in academic dishonesty given the important role gender plays in theories of in moral reasoning (e.g., Lapsley, 1996). Theorists such as Chodorow (1989) and Gilligan (1982) proposed that differential childhood socialization processes lead to different moral reason-ing orientations in men and women. These theorists proposed that gender differ-ences in moral orientation result in gender differences in behavior, with women being less likely than men to violate social norms because of the negative effects that such violations could have on other people and the potential of such violations to impair fulfillment of women's nurturant role obligations (Robbins & Martin, 1993). Thus, women are less likely than men to engage in minor criminal behavior (e.g., Tibbetts & Herz, 1996), excessive alcohol consumption (e.g., Robbins & Martin, 1993), and unprovoked aggression (e.g., Bettencourt & Miller, 1996). One would therefore expect to find similar gender differences in violations of academic integrity norms, especially given that engaging in academic dishonesty is corre-lated with engaging in other forms of minor deviance (Blankenship & Whitley, 2000; Whitley, 1998). However, in a meta-analysis of research on gender differences in cheating, Whitley, Nelson, and Jones (1999) found a mean difference of only 0.2 standard deviations between men's and women's self-reports of having cheated. Although this difference was statistically significant due to the large cumulative sample size in the meta-analysis, in absolute terms it just met Cohen's (1992) criterion for a nontrivial effect size. In contrast, Whitley et al. found a mean gender difference of about 0.5 standard deviations for attitudes toward cheating, with women reporting more negative attitudes. Thus, women hold more negative attitudes toward cheat-ing than do men but are about equally likely to cheat. Cognitive dissonance theory holds that such attitude-behavior inconsistencies lead to a negative emotional state called cognitive dissonance (Elliot & Devine, 1994; Festinger, 1957). Because, on the average, women hold more negative atti-tudes toward cheating than do men, one would expect women who cheat to experi-ence more cognitive dissonance and so to have more negative affective reactions to having cheated than would men. Although little research has been conducted on such gender differences, Smith, Ryan, and Diggins (1972) found that women re-ported experiencing more guilt over having cheated than did men. In addition, Tibbetts (1997) found that women reported more shame concerning intentions to cheat, and Cochran, Chamlin, Wood, and Sellers (1999) found that women re-ported expecting to feel more shame and embarrassment if they cheated. Further-
ABSTRACT
The research for this study had two purposes. The first was to conduct a conceptual replication of Cochran et al.'s (1999), Smith et al.'s (1972), and Tibbetts's ( 1997) research on gender differences in affective responses to cheating. One shortcoming of these studies was that they used only single-item measures of affect, thus increasing the role measurement error could have played in their research (e.g., Judd, Smith, & Kidder, 1991 ). The research for this study used multiple-item measures of both positive and negative affect to reduce the impact of measurement error on the results. In addition, consistent with current theories of emotion that view positive and negative affect as independent dimensions (e.g., Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1997; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), both affective dimensions were assessed. Although Tibbetts found no gender difference for students' self-reported pleasure over cheating, he asked his respondents about hypothetical situations; results might differ for affective responses to actually having cheated.
