roig & caso 2005 lying and cheating- fraudulent excuse making, cheating, and plagiarism

8/18/2019 Roig & Caso 2005 Lying and Cheating- Fraudulent Excuse Making, Cheating, And Plagiarism

1/11

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjrl20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 07:44

The Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 0022-3980 (Print) 1940-1019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20

Lying and Cheating: Fraudulent Excuse Making,Cheating, and Plagiarism

Miguel Roig & Marissa Caso

To cite this article: Miguel Roig & Marissa Caso (2005) Lying and Cheating: Fraudulent Excuse

Making, Cheating, and Plagiarism, The Journal of Psychology, 139:6, 485-494, DOI: 10.3200/ JRLP.139.6.485-494

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494

Published online: 07 Aug 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 283

View related articles

Citing articles: 17 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjrl20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=vjrl20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.3200/JRLP.139.6.485-494http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjrl20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjrl20


2/11

Lying and Cheating: Fraudulent ExcuseMaking, Cheating, and Plagiarism

MIGUEL ROIGMARISSA CASO

Department of Psychology

St. John’s University

ABSTRACT. Undergraduates reported their use of fraudulent excuses; 72% of the studentparticipants claimed to have used a fraudulent excuse in college at least once. This activ-ity was correlated with an independently obtained self-report measure of cheating (r = .38)and plagiarism (r = .27). Grade point average was negatively correlated with all 3 mea-sures but did not reach statistical significance with the measure of plagiarism.

Key words: academic dishonesty, cheating, excuse making, plagiarism

RESEARCH ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY covering the past three decades

now spans well over 100 published articles (Whitley, 1998), several scholarly

books solely devoted to the problem of cheating (e.g., Cizek, 1999; Kibler, Nuss,

Paterson, & Pavela, 1988; Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002), and several other

tomes with chapters on this troublesome subject matter (e.g., May, 1990; Noah

& Eckstein, 2001). Although the range of academically dishonest behaviors

extends beyond cheating on exams, less attention has been focused on other

known forms of dishonesty. For example, only in the last few years has researchbeen carried out exclusively on the problem of plagiarism, although the few stud-

ies that have been conducted suggest that it occurs with perhaps the same or even

greater frequency than cheating on examinations (e.g., Hale, 1987; Roig, 1997,

1999). Many in academia now believe that with the advent of computers and the

The Journal of Psychology, 2005, 139(6), 485–494

Copyright © 2005 Heldref Publications

485

An abridged version of this article was presented as a poster paper at the 73rd meeting of

the Eastern Psychological Association, March 2002, in Boston, MA. We thank Susan

Krauss-Whitbourne for providing us with a copy of the Questionnaire on Academic Excus-es (QAE). We are also grateful to F. Richard Ferraro and another anonymous reviewer for their comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this article.

Address correspondence to Miguel Roig, Department of Psychology, Notre Dame

Division of St. John’s College, St. John’s University, 300 Howard Avenue, Staten Island, NY; [email protected] (e-mail).

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ b

- o n : B i b l i o t e c a d o c o n h e c i m e n t o o n l i n e U A C ] a t 0 7 : 4

4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


3/11

Internet, “copy and paste” plagiarism has increased dramatically in recent years

(Hafner, 2001; Wilson, 2001).

The use of fraudulent excuses by college students is another type of dishon-est behavior that has received limited empirical attention, even though the results

of an earlier study by Caron, Krauss-Whitbourne, and Halgin (1992) indicated

that it also occurs with as high a frequency as other traditional forms of cheating.

In one study, Blankenship and Whitley (2000) gave students measures of cheat-

ing, fraudulent excuse making, and other forms of behavior deviance. Their

results indicated that students who reported using fraudulent excuses scored

higher on measures of substance use and other illegal behaviors than those who

did not report using such excuses.

Other researchers have investigated the relationship between the use of fraudulent excuses and academic procrastination—the act of delaying the begin-

ning or completion of academic tasks. Ferrari and his colleagues (Ferrari & Beck,

1998; Ferrari, Keane, Wolfe, & Beck, 1998) have reported data indicating that

students whose scores indicate procrastination use fraudulent excuses more often

than nonprocrastinators. These authors also found that students who tend to use

fraudulent excuses do so for the purpose of gaining additional time to complete

an assignment. The association between procrastination and the use of fraudulent

excuses is noteworthy with respect to our present study because other research

results have shown a modest positive relationship between procrastination andtraditional forms of cheating and plagiarism (see Roig & DeTommaso, 1995).

In light of the fact that the use of fraudulent excuses by college students has

not been adequately explored, we carried out the present study with two purpos-

es in mind. First, we wanted to determine whether the frequency and type of

fraudulent academic excuses have changed since the publication of the study by

Caron et al. (1992). Second, we wished to further explore the extent to which

fraudulent excuse making is related to traditional forms of academic dishonesty

(i.e., cheating and plagiarism). We surveyed students in various psychology

classes for their use of fraudulent excuses and for various forms of cheating andplagiarism. We hypothesized that there would be a positive association between

self-reported measures of fraudulent excuses and cheating and plagiarism. We

also predicted higher cheating and plagiarism scores for students who reported

using a high frequency of fraudulent excuses.

Method

Participants

Undergraduates ( N = 565) from various sections of general psychology par-

ticipated in the study. On the basis of those who reported gender and age, there

were 218 men and 346 women who ranged in age between 17 and 42 years ( M =

19.34 years). Of the 565 students who participated, only 211 completed both

486 The Journal of Psychology



4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


4/11

measures. The discrepancy between the number of students who initially partici-

pated in the study and the number who successfully completed both question-

naires occurred because we were not able to administer the second questionnaireto four large sections of the course.

Instruments

To determine the extent of fraudulent excuse making, we used the 21-item

Questionnaire on Academic Excuses (QAE) developed by Caron et al. (1992).

This instrument consists of questions regarding students’ use of legitimate and

fraudulent excuses and the reasons for using them. Study participants also

received the Academic Practices Survey (APS) developed by Roig and DeTom-maso (1995). The APS is a measure of academic dishonesty that consists of 24

items, 16 of which are designed to assess plagiarism practices and 8 that assess

traditional forms of cheating. This questionnaire can thus yield separate cheating

and plagiarism scores as well as an overall academic dishonesty score.

Procedure

We distributed both questionnaires in general psychology classes ranging in

size from 8 to 43 students. In an effort to have some control over the possibilityof contextual effects (see Council, 1993), students in half of the classes received

the APS with the explanation that it was a study on academic practices. Approx-

imately 4 weeks later, the same investigator distributed the QAE to the same stu-

dents as a study on academic excuses. The other half of the students received the

same procedure but with the questionnaires distributed in the reverse order.

Results

Students’ responses to the QAE resulted in a pattern of results somewhatcomparable to the results reported by Caron et al. (1992). For example, 72% of

the present sample reported using a fraudulent excuse at least once in college.

The figure reported by Caron et al. was 67% (see Table 1). As with the previous

study, the majority of students in our sample (62% vs. 57% in Caron et al.)

reported that fewer than 25% of their professors required any type of proof for

their excuses, and an alarming 38% of the students (13% in Caron et al.) indi-

cated that none of their professors required such proof. Similarly, 65.9% of stu-

dents in the Ferrari et al. (1998) study indicated that their professors accepted

their fraudulent excuse.To confirm the finding reported by Caron et al. (1992) that men are more

likely to use fraudulent excuses, we compared men’s and women’s responses to

the first question on the QAE regarding the frequency with which they have used

a phony excuse in college. A significant effect was observed, χ2(4, N = 380) =

Roig & Caso 487



4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


5/11

13.47, p < .01. As Table 1 shows, higher percentages of men tended to report

using two, three, and four or more fraudulent as well as legitimate excuses. In

addition, and consistent with the early trend in the academic dishonesty literature

(see Cizek, 1999, pp. 92–93), cheating scores for men ( M = 13.80, SD = 4.60)

were significantly higher than those for women ( M = 12.54, SD = 4.35), t (390) =–2.678, p = .008. However, men’s plagiarism scores ( M = 30.21, SD = 7.95) did

not differ significantly from those of women ( M = 30.06, SD = 7.56), t (389) =

–1.83, p = .855. The discrepancy in degrees of freedom throughout our analyses

stems from one respondent who did not answer a significant number of the pla-

giarism items of the APS. Discrepancies in the numbers of participants for the

various analyses exist because respondents did not always provide information

on variables such as gender and GPA.

Table 2 shows the frequency of fraudulent as well as legitimate excuses

reported by students in each sample. These data appear comparable, except forthe categories of “death in the family” as a legitimate excuse and “computer

failure” as both a legitimate and a fraudulent excuse. It is also worth noting that

“death of a grandparent” was second lowest in frequency of use as a fraudulent

excuse in both our sample and in the Caron et al. (1992) study, though not in


TABLE 1. Percentage of Students From the Present Study ( N = 380) andFrom Caron et al. (1992) ( N = 267) Who Reported Using Fraudulent and

Legitimate Excuses

Frequency

Category 0 1 2 3 4

Fraudulent (college) 28 (33) 22 (16) 18 (17) 7 (12) 25 (23)Men 25 15 19 8 33Women 30 27 17 7 20

Legitimate (college) 16 (13) 28 (29) 26 (27) 13 (10) 17 (20)

Men 14 27 20 13 26Women 17 29 29 13 12

Fraudulent (semester) 53 (65) 20 (17) 12 (9) 5 (6) 10 (4)Men 45 18 17 7 13Women 59 21 10 3 8

Legitimate (semester) 38 (47) 34 (32) 16 (15) 5 (4) 7 (2)Men 32 26 24 7 11Women 40 35 14 4 7

Note. All percentages have been rounded off to the nearest whole number. College refers tothe number of fraudulent and legitimate excuses reported while in college. Semester refers tothe number of fraudulent and legitimate excuses reported during the past semester. Caron etal. (1992) did not report data for sex differences. The numbers in parentheses are the per-centages reported by Caron et al.



4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


6/11

the study reported by Ferrari et al. (1998). A chi square comparison of the fre-

quencies of fraudulent excuses for all of the categories listed in Table 2

between our study and Caron et al. was statistically significant, χ2(938, N =565) = 26.04, p < .01. However, the reader should keep in mind that many of

these frequencies are not independent, as some students checked two or more

of the categories.

Roig & Caso 489

TABLE 2. Number of Excuses, Either Legitimate or Fraudulent, by Stu-dents From the Present Study and From Caron et al. (1992)

Present study ( N = 380) Caron et al. ( N = 261)Given excuse Fraudulent Legitimate Fraudulent Legitimate

Personal illness 142 157 96 115Men 52 (37) 49 (31)Women 90 (63) 108 (69)

Family emergency 99 111 77 53Men 32 (32) 32 (29)Women 67 (68) 79 (71)

Did not understand

assignment 79 91 45 55Men 38 (48) 38 (42)Women 41 (52) 53 (58)

Alarm failed/overslept 59 58 36 42Men 28 (47) 25 (43)Women 31 (53) 33 (57)

Left paper in dorm 26 29 33 33Men 13 (50) 13 (45)Women 13 (50) 16 (55)

Out of town 29 29 24 33Men 14 (48) 13 (45)

Women 15 (52) 16 (55)Computer failed 68 59 24 27

Men 28 (41) 26 (44)Women 40 (59) 33 (56)

Grandparent death 12 24 6 21Men 4 (33) 9 (38)Women 8 (67) 15 (63)

Best friend death 3 5 0 4Men 2 (67) 2 (40)Women 1 (33) 3 (60)

Other 34 37 43 59

Men 17 (50) 21 (57)Women 17 (50) 16 (43)

Note. Percentages are in parentheses.



4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


7/11

Eighty percent of those who used fraudulent excuses reported using such

excuses in an effort to obtain extra time to either complete an assignment or to

study for an exam. The corresponding figure for the Caron et al. (1992) study was91%, whereas the figure for the study reported by Ferrari et al. (1998) was

extrapolated to be approximately 52%. In the present study, as in Caron et al.,

having a lenient professor (73%) was the most likely condition allowing students

to use a fraudulent excuse, whereas the gender of the professor did not seem to

be an important variable. Ferrari et al. reported similar percentages.

As in Caron et al. (1992), we found students’ academic status (i.e., 1st year,

2nd year) not to be related to the use of fraudulent excuses. We did find a differ-

ence in grade point average (GPA) as a function of the frequency of fraudulent

excuses. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with five levels of frequency of using fraudulent excuses yielded a statistically significant main effect, F (4, 182) =

10.45, p < .0001. Newman-Keuls analyses indicated that students who reported not

using fraudulent excuses had a GPA that was significantly higher ( p < .05) than

those who reported using a fraudulent excuse once, twice, three times, and four or

more times (Table 3).

An examination of the association between frequency of using a fraudulent

excuse, cheating and plagiarism scores, age, and GPA revealed statistically sig-

nificant correlations between various pairs of these variables (see Table 4). For

example, fraudulent excuse scores were correlated with cheating scores (r = .37,n = 211, p < .0001), as were fraudulent excuse scores and plagiarism scores (r =

.27, n = 210, p < .0001). To further explore these associations and in response to

reviewers’ suggestions, we carried out a multiple linear regression analysis to

determine the extent to which cheating scores would be predicted by some of

these variables. Thus, we entered GPA, fraudulent excuse making, plagiarism

scores, and ages and gender of participants as predictor variables, and cheating

scores were used as the criterion variable. As Table 4 shows, fraudulent excuse

making, plagiarism scores, and the gender of the participant were significant pre-

dictors of cheating. The adjusted R2 was .326, F(5, 173) = 18.25, p < .0001.


TABLE 3. Average Grade Point Average (GPA) as a Function of Frequencyof Use of Fraudulent Excuses ( n = 187)

GPA

Frequency of fraudulent excuse M SD n

Never 3.45 .42 45Once 3.20 .47 53Twice 3.16 .56 32Three times 2.55 .69 11Four or more times 2.91 .53 46



4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


8/11

Roig & Caso 491

T A B L E 4 .

I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s a n d S t a n d a r d i z e d B e t a C o e f f i c i e n t s f o r t h e F i v e P r e d i c t o r V a r i a b l e s E n t e r e d I n t o t h e M u l t i p l e

R e g r e s s i o

n M o d e l ( n = 1 7 9 )

V a r i a b l e

C h e a t i n g

G P

A

E x c u s e s

P l a g

i a r i s m

A g e

B

β

t

G P A

– . 2

6 7 * *

– .

2 3 4

– . 0

2 7

– . 3

9 1

E x c u s e s

. 3 7 1 * *

– . 3

7 6 * *

.

6 7 7

. 2 1 3 * *

3 . 1

5 2

P l a g i a r i s m

. 5 5 7 * *

– . 2

1 9 * *

. 2 7 2 * *

.

2 8 0

. 4 4 9 * *

6 . 8

7 5

A g e

– . 1

6 1 * *

. 1 2 9 *

. 0 0 0

– . 1

2 3

1 .

6 2 6

. 1 4 9 *

2 . 3

0 1

G e n d e r

– .

1 6 6

– . 0

8 3

– 1 . 2

9 7

M

1 2 . 9

7

3 . 1

2

2 . 8

0

3 0 . 1

1

1 9 . 3

5

S D

4 . 7

2

. 5 5

1 . 5

4

7 . 6

9

2 . 3

4

* p < . 0

5 . * * p < . 0

1 . D

o w n l o a d e d b y [ b


4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


9/11

We carried out two other analyses. Cheating and plagiarism scores were each

subjected to a one-way ANOVA with 5 levels of frequency of using fraudulent

excuses (Table 5). Both ANOVAs resulted in statistically significant main effectsfor cheating scores, F (4, 206) = 9.20, p < .0001, and for plagiarism scores, F (4,

205) = 5.85, p < .0002. Newman-Keuls analyses for each of the two main effects

indicated that students who reported not using fraudulent excuses had cheating and

plagiarism scores that were significantly lower ( p < .05) than those who reported

using a fraudulent excuse once, twice, three times, and four or more times.

Discussion

That the use of fraudulent excuses is related to self-reported measures of cheating and of plagiarism should not be surprising. After all, the three measures

constitute major forms of academic dishonesty. It is worth noting, however, that

the strength of these associations is modest at best, which suggests some degree

of independence between these constructs. The overall frequency of using fraud-

ulent excuses reported by students in our sample is somewhat in agreement with

the results in Caron et al. (1992) and those of Ferrari et al. (1998). Although we

confirmed men’s greater tendency to report the use of a fraudulent excuse, our

data also indicate some differences in how men and women engage in this behav-

ior. For example, a review of Table 2 shows that women tend to use a greatervariety of excuses, whether fraudulent or legitimate, relative to men.

Taken together, these findings support the Caron et al. (1992) suggestion that

professors need to be cautious in assessing students’ excuses. We urge professors

to heed the rest of the recommendations proposed by these authors. For example,

based on their finding that more than half (57%) of the students reported that

fewer than 25% of their professors required proof for an excuse, Caron et al. sug-

gested the establishment of a clear policy statement to the effect that no excuses


TABLE 5. Average Cheating and Plagiarism Scores as a Function of Fre-quency of Use of Fraudulent Excuses

Cheating Plagiarism

M SD na M SD nb

Never 10.73 2.90 56 26.20 5.48 54Once 13.22 4.24 58 31.00 7.74 58Twice 13.21 3.60 34 30.15 5.74 34

Three times 14.08 3.66 13 31.21 3.64 14Four or more times 15.84 6.13 50 32.86 9.92 50

an = 211. bn = 210.

Frequency offraudulent excuse



4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


10/11

will be accepted unless they are offered with the necessary proof of their validity.

Given that respondents in our sample reported an even higher percentage of pro-

fessors who do not request such proof (79% of students in the study reported byFerrari et al., 1998), we feel that establishing the legitimacy of excuses at the

classroom (or even at the institutional) level is an area in need of serious consid-

eration by faculty and institutional officials. We acknowledge, however, the pos-

sibility that perhaps professors have evolved course structures that obviate the

need for measures to verify the legitimacy of academic excuses. For example, one

of us (Miguel Roig) allows students to miss up to two exams (out of a total of five

exams offered) regardless of the reasons for missing them, and they are then given

an opportunity to make up these exams at a later time.

Our results, and those of others, indicate that the use of fraudulent excusesoccurs with approximately equal, if not greater, frequency than more traditional

forms of cheating (e.g., Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; McCabe &

Treviño, 1993; Whitley, 1998). In view of this state of affairs, and in addition to

the recommendations offered by Caron et al. (1992), we suggest that academic

dishonesty policy statements in college catalogs and in student handbooks provide

additional focus on this type of dishonest behavior. In this context, we believe that

the current trend toward the establishment of honor codes in academic institutions

and the fact that levels of academic dishonesty tend to be lower at such institutions

(see McCabe, Treviño, & Butterfield, 2002) may represent an effective means of decreasing the use of fraudulent excuses.

Our data indicate that too many students continue to use fraudulent excuses

successfully and that this problem may have become worse in the years since

Caron et al. (1992) did their research. Future researchers should investigate the

potential personality characteristics of these offenders (e.g., impulsiveness,

Machiavellianism) as well as examine other possible demographic correlates

(e.g., area of study, ethnicity). As with other traditional forms of cheating, stu-

dents’ successful use of fraudulent excuses gives them an undeserved advantage

and is unfair to their peers who are honest. Their use undermines the principlesof academic integrity and should not be tolerated.

REFERENCES

Blankenship, K. L., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2000). Relation of general deviance to academ-ic dishonesty. Ethics and Behavior, 10, 1–12.

Caron, M. D., Krauss-Whitbourne, S. K., & Halgin, R. P. (1992). Fraudulent excuse mak-ing among college students. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 90–93.

Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests. How to do it, detect it, and prevent it . Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.Council, J. R. (1993). Context effects in personality research. Current Directions in Psy-chological Science, 2, 31–33.

Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishon-esty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology,19, 16–20.

Roig & Caso 493



4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6


11/11

Ferrari, J. F., & Beck, B. L. (1998). Affective responses before and after fraudulent excus-es by academic procrastinators. Education, 118, 529–537.

Ferrari, J. F., Keane, S. M., Wolfe, R. N., & Beck, B. L. (1998). The antecedents and con-sequences of academic excuse making: Examining individual differences in procrasti-nation. Research in Higher Education, 39, 199–216.

Hafner, K. (2001, June 28). Lessons in the school of cut and paste. New York Times, G1 , G6.Hale, J. L. (1987). Plagiarism in classroom settings. Communication Research Reports, 4,

66–70.Kibler, W. L., Nuss, B. G., Paterson, B. G., & Pavela, G. (Eds.). (1988). Academic integri-

ty and student development: Legal issues and policy perspectives. Asheville, NC: Col-lege Administration Publications.

May, W. W. (Ed.). (1990). Ethics and higher education. New York: Collier Macmillan.McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other

contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 521–538.McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K, & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and other con-

textual influences on academic integrity: A replication and extension to modified honorcode settings. Research in Higher Education, 43, 357–378.

Noah, H. J., & Eckstein, M. A. (2001). Fraud and education: The worm in the apple. Lan-ham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Roig, M. (1997). Can undergraduate students determine whether text has been plagia-rized? The Psychological Record, 47, 113–122.

Roig, M. (1999). When college students’ attempts at paraphrasing become instances of potential plagiarism. Psychological Reports, 84, 973–982.

Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism related to aca-

demic procrastination? Psychological Reports, 77, 691–698.Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A

review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (2002). Academic dishonesty: An educator’s guide.

Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Wilson, J. (2001). Hi-tech plagiarism: New twist on a perennial problem. Acumen, 1, 1, 4.

Original manuscript received October 12, 2004

Final revision accepted February 7, 2005




4 1 2 A p r i l 2 0 1 6

roig & caso 2005 lying and cheating- fraudulent excuse making, cheating, and plagiarism

Documents