This article was downloaded by: [University of West Florida]On: 07 October 2014, At: 08:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ethics & BehaviorPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

True Confessions?: Alumni'sRetrospective Reports on UndergraduateCheating BehaviorsJennifer Yardley a , Melanie Domenech Rodríguez Ph.D a , Scott C.Bates a & Johnathan Nelson ba Utah State University , Logan, Utahb George Mason UniversityPublished online: 30 Jan 2009.

To cite this article: Jennifer Yardley , Melanie Domenech Rodríguez Ph.D , Scott C. Bates & JohnathanNelson (2009) True Confessions?: Alumni's Retrospective Reports on Undergraduate CheatingBehaviors, Ethics & Behavior, 19:1, 1-14, DOI: 10.1080/10508420802487096

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508420802487096

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

COLLEGE CHEATINGYARDLEY ET AL.

True Confessions?: Alumni’s Retrospective Reportson Undergraduate Cheating Behaviors

Jennifer Yardley, Melanie Domenech Rodríguez, and Scott C. BatesUtah State University, Logan, Utah

Johnathan NelsonGeorge Mason University

College cheating is prevalent, with rates ranging widely from 9 to 95% (Whitley, 1998). Research hasbeen exclusively conducted with enrolled college students. This study examined the prevalence ofcheating in a sample of college alumni, who risk less in disclosing academic dishonesty than currentstudents. A total of 273 alumni reported on their prevalence and perceived severity of 19 cheating be-haviors. The vast majority of participants (81.7%) report having engaged in some form of cheatingduring their undergraduate career. The most common forms of cheating were “copying from anotherstudent’s assignment” and “allowing others to copy from your assignment.” More students reportedcheating in classes for their major than other classes. Males and females cheated at the same rates inclasses for their major, and males reported higher rates of cheating than females in nonmajor classes.Respondents reported that their top reasons for cheating were “lack of time” and “to help a friend.”

Keywords: academic dishonesty, college students, cheating

It is impossible for a man to be cheated by anyone but himself.—Ralph Waldo Emerson

Cheating is a pervasive problem across university campuses. Studies on cheating report any-where from 9 to 95% prevalence rate of cheating (Whitley, 1998), with averages ranging from thelow to mid 40% (Dawkins, 2004; Pino & Smith, 2003) to over 70% (Whitley, 1998). Studies ofcheating have been conducted at small (e.g., Dawkins, 2004; Jordan, 2001), medium (e.g., Pino &Smith, 2003), and large (e.g., McCabe & Trevino, 1997) universities across the United States withrelatively high rates of cheating behavior across the board.

The variability in prevalence of cheating appears to depend on the definition of cheating anddata collection methods (e.g., self-report, observations, experiments). Whitley (1998) reviewed107 studies on college cheating conducted between 1970 and 1996. For studies that examinedoverall cheating (N = 19) the prevalence ranged from 9 to 95% of students, with an average rate of70.4%. Other studies examined cheating on tests (N = 36) and resulted in a different prevalencerange (4–82%) and average (43.1%). Twelve studies included prevalence rates of cheating on

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 19(1), 1–14Copyright © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10508420802487096

Correspondence should be addressed to Melanie Domenech Rodríguez, Ph.D., Psychology Department, 2810 OldMain Hill, Logan UT 84322. E-mail: Melanie.Domenech@usu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

homework with rates ranging from 3 to 83% and a mean of 40.9%. Lastly, nine of the studieslooked at plagiarism. The rates for plagiarism ranged from 3 to 98% with a mean of 47%. Subse-quent studies show variable prevalence of cheating according to definition. For example, Dawkins(2004) surveyed 858 current students from a small college campus and found that 41% cheated ontests and 19% had copied material from the Internet. Tang and Zuo (1997) found a similar preva-lence rate (39%) for cheating on exams.

The wealth of studies available suggests that cheating is normative on college campuses. Thus,the ability to predict and understand cheating becomes important to educators across the UnitedStates. Two oft-cited predictors of cheating are gender and grade point average (GPA). Males havegenerally been found to cheat more often than females (Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor,1992; Dawkins, 2004; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Tang & Zuo, 1997; Thorpe, Pittenger, & Reed,1999). However, the definition of cheating and method used to gather data may have also influ-enced these findings. For example, Thorpe and colleagues (1999) found gender to be a significantfactor in overall cheating, but when they examined each individual type of cheating the authorsfound that men only exceeded women in plagiarizing. Other studies have found sex not to be a sig-nificant factor (Jordan, 2001; Whitley, 2001). GPA has also been found to relate to cheating be-haviors. Studies have found lower GPA to be associated with higher rates of cheating behaviors(McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Pino & Smith, 2003; Tang & Zuo, 1997). Only one study did not findthis to be a significant factor (Jordan, 2001).

Social norms around cheating may be important in predicting cheating behaviors. Dawkins(2004) found that 70% of their participants were aware of other students who cheat. These stu-dents were more likely to report cheating themselves than those who were unaware. Similarly, Jor-dan (2001) found that when asked to indicate the percentage of students they believed were cheat-ing, students who reported cheating themselves gave a much higher percentage than non-cheaters.Finally, McCabe and Trevino (1997) found that the most predominant factors in cheating are peerrelated. These included perceptions of the peers’ cheating and perceived disapproval by closefriends and others. The influence of peer behaviors is also evident in research on students’ extra-curricular activities. Membership in a club (Pino & Smith, 2003), a fraternity or sorority (McCabe& Trevino, 1997), and other extracurricular activities (e.g., religious societies, student govern-ment, music groups; McCabe & Trevino, 1997) have all been found to relate to higher incidence ofcheating.

In addition to external correlates, students’ personal values provide important information.Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) found that students make discriminations between types ofcheating. Students in their sample reported that taking an examination for someone else, using un-authorized materials on a test, and getting advance information about a test were the most severeforms of cheating (ranked =5.4 on a 6-point scale where 6 = very serious). Paraphrasing withoutreferences, copying without references, making up references, and making up data were the leastsevere behaviors (ranked between 3 and 4 on the 6-point scale). As would be expected, attitudesabout cheating and academic ethics are good predictors of academic dishonesty (Jordan, 2001;Pino & Smith, 2003; Tang & Zuo, 1997). Jordan (2001) found that students who reported cheatingwere more likely to agree that academic dishonesty could be occasionally justified in order to helpa friend or pass a class.

Some research has underscored the importance of university honor codes. Jordan (2001) indicatedthat the best predictor of college cheating was whether students had knowledge of the university honorcode, with students who knew its contents being much less likely to cheat. However, the relationship is

2 YARDLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

possibly complex. For example, McCabe and Trevino (1997) compared cheating at nine different uni-versities and found that the more severe the penalties, the higher the prevalence of cheating.

Many studies on college cheating have assessed cheating in general or have examined one ortwo specific types of cheating (e.g., cheating on exams, plagiarism). However, more recent studies(Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995; Jordan, 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1997) provide a morecomplex perspective on cheating, including long lists of specific behaviors and/or examples.However, all of the available studies we reviewed were conducted with enrolled undergraduatestudents. These students may not be inclined to accurately report cheating because they could per-ceive that they have something to lose if they were identified.

The present project provides a unique contribution to the literature on college cheating by gath-ering data from college alumni. The majority of alumni were recent graduates, providing someprotection against skewed retrospective results due to forgetfulness or misremembering. Anotherunique contribution of this study is the examination of cheating in classes for students’major com-pared to other classes. As per prior research, this research examined reasons for cheating, percep-tions of others’ cheating, and knowledge and familiarity with the university’s honor code. Analy-ses were conducted between cheaters and non-cheaters to examine differences in sex, GPA, andPsi Chi membership. Psi Chi is the National Honor Society in Psychology. Analyses are also con-ducted within cheaters to examine differences in reasons for cheating; again demographic vari-ables such as sex, GPA, and Psi Chi membership are examined, as well as the course context (i.e.,major or nonmajor classes) for cheating, perceptions of friends’ and peers’ cheating, and knowl-edge of and familiarity with the university’s honor code.

METHOD

Participants

Participants were 664 Psychology Department alumni from a large1 Western university who grad-uated between 2000 and 2004. Alumni graduated from both undergraduate and graduate pro-grams. Mailing lists were obtained from the Alumni Office for all Psychology Department alumniwho provided addresses for contact postgraduation. Of those, 23 were returned for insufficient orwrong address information. Of the remaining surveys, 273 were returned representing a 42.5% re-sponse rate. This response rate is at or above expected for psychological research dealing withcheating (Jordan, 2001; McCabe & Trevino, 1997).

Surveys were sent out to 192 (28.9%) males and 472 (71.1%) females. Of the total participants whoreported their gender (N = 272), the vast majority were female (N = 201, 73.9%), reflecting the compo-sition of the original population and consistent with the makeup of psychology majors (National Cen-ter for Education Statistics, 2003; Pate, 2001). Participants ranged in age from 21 to 65 years (M =32.8, SD = 9.3) and were primarily White American (N = 261, 96.3%). Consistent with local demo-graphics, of those participants who reported their religious affiliation (N = 271), the vast majority(76.4%) were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS). A university surveyof first-year students indicated that almost 86% of those students were LDS (Petersen, 2005).

Respondents had attended the university as undergraduate students (53.2%) or both as undergradu-ate and graduate students (22.3%); only 24.5% attended the university solely as graduate students. Thevast majority of respondents reported that psychology was their undergraduate major (N = 226, 84%).

COLLEGE CHEATING 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

The two most common undergraduate minors were family, consumer, and human development(27.8%) and sociology (24.4%). A substantial number of respondents reported involvement in gradu-ate studies (N = 172, 63.2%). The majority of graduate degrees were master’s (80.8%) with some doc-toral degrees (19.2%). Most graduate degrees were sought in the field of psychology (85%).

Students reported having started their undergraduate careers at varied times, with the earlieststarting in 1961 (N = 1) and the latest starting in 2002 (N = 1). The vast majority of students(76.5%) started between 1989 and 2000. Similarly, graduation years varied with the earliest grad-uation reported in 1969 (N = 1) and the latest in 2004 (N = 30, 11.1%). The majority of students forwhom there was data finished their undergraduate careers in 2 to 8 years (N = 258, 97.7%), but afew took longer, with one student reporting 32 years to completion of the degree.

Of those who reported college GPA (N = 263), the index was relatively high, with 81% report-ing earning a 3.0 or better overall and even more (85.2%) reporting a 3.0 GPA or higher in theirmajor coursework. These findings are not surprising given that the criteria for entrance to the psy-chology major are a 3.0 GPA in psychology courses and a 2.75 GPA in overall courses. A largeportion of students were members of Psi Chi, the national honor society in psychology (40.7%).

Measures

Background variables. Demographic data were obtained via self-report for variables thatare known to relate to cheating behaviors such as gender and GPA. Other demographic informa-tion was also obtained for general informational purposes (e.g., age, ethnicity, religious affilia-tion) and for analyses (i.e., membership in Psi Chi).

Social Desirability Scale. The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17; Stöber, 2001) wasused to measure participants’desire to make a good impression. This variable seemed to be criticalto understanding the willingness of participants to accurately report cheating behaviors. For thepresent study, Chronbach’s alpha reliability was calculated and reached adequate levels (α = .78).

Cheating perceptions and behaviors. The scales to assess cheating perceptions and cheat-ing behaviors were developed specifically for this study. Nineteen behaviors that constitute cheatingwere extracted from the research literature (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995; McCabe &Trevino, 1997) and are listed in Table 1. The first measure was designed to have respondents ratewhich of the 19 behaviors they understood to be cheating and, of those, to assign a severity score (1 =not severe, 5 = very severe). Then the same list was presented again and students were asked whichbehaviors they had engaged in for classes in their major and in other classes (1 = never, 4 = more than5 times). Following the list were a series of follow-up questions: “Were you ever caught cheating?”“Do you feel your grades were improved because of your cheating?” “Would you cheat again?”

Motivation for cheating/not cheating. Two questions assessed motivations for cheatingand were developed specifically for this study: “What motivated you to cheat?” “When you haveactively decided NOT to cheat in classes, even if you had the opportunity, why did you make thatchoice?” The response categories were extracted from the literature (Franklyn-Stokes & New-stead, 1995) and generated by the research team a priori.

Perceptions of others’ cheating. Students’ perceptions of others’ cheating were assessedvia two questions: “What approximate percentage of all students do you think were cheating while

4 YARDLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

you were attending USU?” “What approximate percentage of your close friends do you thinkwere cheating while you were attending USU?” There were 11 response categories ranging from0% to 91–100%. Students were also asked “Did you know students who cheated?” (yes/no).

Knowledge and familiarity with honor code. Knowledge and familiarity with the honorcode was assessed through two questions: “While you were an undergraduate student, did youknow there was an honor code at USU?” “While you were an undergraduate student, were you fa-miliar with the content of the honor code at USU?”

Procedures

Participants were solicited by using a university-generated alumni list. Two slightly different pro-cedures were used for class of 2000 and the 2001–2004 alumni because of differential fundingstreams. Data was collected in the fall 2004 and spring 2005 semesters.

COLLEGE CHEATING 5

TABLE 1Perceptions of Cheating and Cheating Severity and Incidence of Cheating in Major

and Nonmajor Classes

Na%

Cheat?bSeverityM (SD)

MajorClasses %b

OtherClasses %b

Any cheating 238 81.7 — 78.2 67.2a. Copying from another’s paper (they knew) 266 97.7 3.9 (1.1) 17.7 16.4b. Copying from another’s paper (they didn’t know) 267 100 4.5 (0.7) 3.7 3.0c. Copying from another’s exam (they knew) 268 100 4.7 (0.7) 5.9 4.9d. Copying from another’s exam (they didn’t know) 268 100 4.8 (0.4) 8.8 6.7e. Copying from another’s assignment (they knew) 265 95.8 3.7 (1.1) 46.1 40.4f. Copying from another’s assignment (they didn’t know) 265 100 4.4 (0.8) 4.8 3.7g. Allowing others to copy from your paper 267 97 3.9 (1.1) 28.9 27.3h. Allowing others to copy from your exam 267 99.3 4.7 (0.7) 7.4 4.1i. Allowing others to copy from your assignment 267 95.9 3.7 (1.2) 56.8 47.9j. Using notes, cheat sheets, etc., during a test 269 99.3 4.7 (0.7) 8.8 7.8k. Reusing papers written for another class, without the

professor’s permission266 81.2 3.5 (1.3) 39.1 35.5

l. Making up references or a bibliography 268 99.6 4.3 (0.9) 10.7 10.1m. Doing someone else’s coursework for them 268 99.3 4.4 (0.9) 12.6 10.4n. Having someone else do your coursework 267 99.6 4.5 (0.7) 4.1 3.7o. Illegitimately getting advance information about a test 269 99.3 4.5 (0.8) 14.8 10.5p. Making up medical or other excuses to get extended

time on homework or a test268 97.4 4.0 (1.0) 12.9 15.3

q. Having someone else take an examination for you, ortaking an examination for them

269 100 4.9 (0.3) 0.0 0.0

r. Submitting another person’s paper as your own (e.g.,buying a paper on line)

270 100 4.9 (0.4) 0.7 0.7

s. Copying or paraphrasing material from a book orpublication without citing the source

269 99.6 4.1 (1.0) 37.2 27.6

aN is the total number of participants who responded to the question.bPercentage who responded “yes.”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Class of 2000. An original mailing was sent in the fall 2004 that included a cover letter ex-plaining the study, a copy of the informed consent form, and the research questionnaire. The pack-age also included a return envelope and a return postcard so that participants could be entered in araffle for a $50, $30, and $20 gift certificates to Amazon.com. Early in the spring 2005 semester asecond mailing was sent that included the same materials. Later that semester a third letter wassent simply reminding participants of the research and instructing them to complete the question-naires online.

Classes of 2001–2004. The same procedures for the original mailing were followed. Thefirst mailing occurred early in the spring 2005 semester. The letter included an added line tellingparticipants that they could choose to complete the questionnaire online. Later in the spring 2005semester a second mailing was sent that included only a letter instructing participants to completethe questionnaire online.

The online version of the questionnaire was identical to the paper survey. Only 48 students,17.6% of the total sample, completed an online survey. One student completed both a paper surveyand online survey.

RESULTS

Overall Prevalence

The prevalence of self-reported college cheating on this sample of students was 81.7% (see Table1). A McNemar test for correlated proportions showed that students were significantly more likelyto report cheating in classes for their major than other classes (78.4 and 67.2%, respectively; ÷2(1)= 18.75, p < .01), although there was sizeable overlap with students who cheat for classes in theirmajor also reporting some cheating for other classes (N = 171, 63.8%).

Frequency of cheating was analyzed by creating a new variable that distinguished students whoreported cheating one time from students who reported cheating more than once. Of the 213 re-spondents who reported cheating in classes for their major, 51.6% were one-time offenders. Insharp contrast, 99.5% of the 188 respondents who reported cheating in classes outside of their ma-jor reported cheating more than once.

Cheating and Social Desirability

In order to determine if cheating reports were influenced by social desirability, correlations werecalculated between participants’ scores on the Social Desirability Scale and overall frequency ofcheating, frequency of cheating in classes for the major, and frequency of cheating in nonmajorclasses. Correlations were .05 (p = .45), –.02 (p = .72), and –.06 (p = .31), respectively, and were allnonsignificant. Given these results, the social desirability variable was not used in further analyses.

Perceptions of Cheating and Cheating Severity

Of the 19 cheating behaviors listed, the most common forms of cheating were the same for majorand other classes: (a) allowing others to copy an assignment, (b) copying from another’s assign-ment (they knew), (c) reusing papers, (d) plagiarism, and (e) allowing others to copy from your pa-

6 YARDLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

per. Respondents seemed to be aware that the activities listed in Table 1 constituted cheating. Withone exception, 95% or more of the sample classified each of the behaviors as cheating. The excep-tion was “reusing papers written from another class, without the professor’s permission,” whichwas perceived by 81.2% of the sample to be cheating.

Students perceived most cheating behaviors to be relatively severe. For those students who ac-knowledged that the behavior was cheating, the most severe rating was given to “having someoneelse take an examination for you, or taking an examination for them.”

Cheating and Gender

Overall, sex was not related to cheating; 82.7% of males and 78.9% of females reported any cheat-ing (χ2(1) = .52, n.s.). However, when examined by class context, males were more likely to reportcheating in nonmajor classes than females (71.6% versus 54.9%; χ2(1) = 6.56, p = .01). However,both males (78.0%) and females (78.9%) reported statistically nondifferent rates cheating inclasses for the major (χ2(1) = .02, ns).

In terms of the frequency of cheating, no differences between male and female respondentswere detected: 82.7% of males and 85.7% of females reported multiple instances of cheating intheir major and 83.7% of males and 92.3% of females reported multiple instances of cheating incourses outside of their major. Neither of these differences were statistically significant (χ2(1) =.27, ns, and χ2(1) = 1.80, ns, respectively).

Cheating and GPA

Previous researchers have reported an inverse relationship between cheating and GPA (McCabe &Trevino, 1997; Pino & Smith, 2003; Tang & Zuo, 1997) and in this sample GPA appeared to besignificantly, though weakly, related to cheating. In this sample, self-reported GPA was negativelyassociated with cheating in classes outside of the major (r = –.17, p > .01) and classes within themajor (r = –.21, p = .001).

Cheating and Psi Chi Membership

Slightly more than 8 in 10 (85.5%) Psi Chi members report having cheated at least once in theirundergraduate career. Among nonmembers, the rate was 78.9%. This difference was not statisti-cally significant (χ2(1) = 1.86, ns). Similarly, no significant difference was detected between PsiChi members and nonmembers when analyses were performed for major and nonmajor courses.The vast majority of Psi Chi members reported having cheated at least once in nonmajor (70.9%)and major classes (82.7%). The same was true for non–Psi Chi members, where 64.7 and 75.5%reported cheating at least once in nonmajor and major classes, respectively.

The relationship between frequency of cheating and Psi Chi membership was also examined.Psi Chi members had higher (but not significantly different) rates of repeat offending with 84.6%of members versus 82.5% of nonmembers who reported any cheating having cheated more thanonce in their major classes (χ2(1) = .167, ns). In their nonmajor classes 87.1 and 84.6% of mem-bers and nonmembers, respectively, who reported any cheating were repeat offenders (χ2(1) =.167, ns). Neither of these differences was statistically significant.

COLLEGE CHEATING 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

The variability between groups on types of cheating was examined using a series of chi-squareanalyses, which revealed two statically significant differences. Analyses revealed that Psi Chimembers were more likely than nonmembers to report having copied from another student’s as-signment with his knowledge (40.9% versus 53.6%; χ2(1) = 4.26, p = .04) and make up referencesin major classes (5.7% versus 18.3%; χ2(1) = 10.79, p = .001).

Reasons for Cheating

Nineteen reasons for cheating were listed in the survey. Respondents could select as many reasonsas applied to them. See Table 2 for a complete list of reasons for cheating and alumni reports ofeach for the major and nonmajor courses, by sex and by Psi Chi membership. Overall, the mostcommon reason for cheating in both major and nonmajor courses was perceived time constraints(32.2 and 29.3%, respectively). The second most common reason was to help a friend (27.1 and22.7%, respectively). The least commonly cited reasons for cheating were retaking the class andpressure from parents/family. Few group differences emerged. Psi Chi members, versus nonmem-bers, were more likely to report inadequate preparation as a reason for cheating (20.9% versus11.3%, χ2(1) = 4.72, p = .03). Likewise, a single significant difference between males and femalesemerged. Females were more likely to report that the difficulty of an exam, paper, or assignmentwas a reason for cheating (17.4% versus 8.5%; χ2(1) = 3.29, p = .05 [Fisher’s exact]).

Perceptions of Others’ Cheating and Relationship With Own Cheating

All respondents (N = 263) believed that at least some cheating was taking place during their under-graduate career. Approximately 19% of the sample reported that 1–10% of students cheat. Threequarters of respondents (75.7%) reported that 50% or fewer students cheated while they were un-dergraduates. That is, a majority reported that cheating was not normative; this contrasts with re-

8 YARDLEY ET AL.

TABLE 2Reasons for Cheating in Major and Nonmajor Classes

Overall(N = 272)

Major(N = 272)

Nonmajor(N = 272)

Male(n = 71)

Female(n = 201)

Psi Chi(n = 110)

Not Psi Chi(n = 160)

a. Time constraints 32.4 32.2 29.3 32.4 32.3 33.6 31.9b. Difficulty of class 14.7 14.7 17.9 11.3 15.9 15.5 14.4c. Difficulty of exam/

paper/assignment15.1 15.0 15.8 8.5 17.4 15.5 15.0

d. I didn’t adequatelyprepare …

15.1 15.0 15.4 15.5 14.9 20.9 11.3

e. Retaking the class 0.4 4.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.0f. Didn’t like the teacher 3.3 3.3 4.0 7.0 2.0 2.7 3.8g. Had to pass the class:

major or scholarship3.3 3.3 4.0 2.8 3.5 3.6 3.1

h. Pressure fromparents/family

1.1 1.1 1.5 0.0 1.5 2.7 0.0

i. Fear of failure 14.7 14.7 11.0 15.5 14.4 16.4 13.8j. To help a friend 27.2 27.1 22.7 21.1 29.4 27.3 27.5k. Other 13.2 13.2 12.1 12.7 13.4 15.5 11.3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

ports of their own behavior, as 81.7% of this sample reported cheating themselves. Almost 10% ofthe sample reported believing that over 70% of college students cheat. When asked about theirclose friends’ practices, most (89.1%) of the sample reported that some of their close friendscheat. In addition to being asked their perception of how many of their friends cheated, studentswere asked if they actually knew someone who cheated. The majority of the sample (65.8%) re-ported knowing someone who had cheated.

These perceptions are important in understanding students’ cheating behaviors. Respondentswho reported having friends who cheated in major classes were significantly more likely to havereported cheating themselves (84.8% versus 47.9%; χ2(1) = 31.3, p < .01). The difference was alsosignificant for cheating in nonmajor classes (73.1% versus 34.8%; χ2(1) = 25.02, p < .01). Further-more, respondents that reported that they “know students who cheated” were more likely to havecheated themselves both in classes in their major (88.0% versus 58.2%; χ2(1) = 30.7, p < .01) andclasses outside of their major (79.3% versus 42.7%; χ2(1) = 35.7, p < .01).

Knowledge of and Familiarity With Honors Code

Alumni were asked if they knew that the university had an honor code and if they were familiarwith the content of the code. Over 65% of the sample reported knowing that the university had anhonor code while they were in attendance. In contrast, only 32.3% reported being familiar with thecontent of the code. Chi-square analyses among items measuring knowledge and familiarity withthe code and overall cheating and cheating in major and nonmajor courses revealed no statisticallysignificant differences in cheating behaviors and knowledge of code existence or content.

DISCUSSION

Prevalence

The obtained prevalence rate of cheating in this study was higher than previous studies (Davis etal., 1992; Dawkins, 2004; Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995; Pino & Smith, 2003; Tang & Zuo,1997). It is likely that alumni were more willing to disclose cheating behaviors because they didnot perceive a risk associated with this disclosure. Additionally, enrolled students may not have“yet” cheated when surveyed during their college career. The higher prevalence of cheating foundin this study may also be due to the comprehensive list of cheating behaviors. When students areasked if they have ever cheated, reports depend not only on their honest self-reports but on theirperception of what behaviors constitute cheating. A comprehensive list of behaviors served to pro-vide a stable definition of cheating and to help students remember instances of cheating that theymight not otherwise recall. The list of cheating behaviors seems to have been fairly exhaustive. An“other” category was included at the end of the list and only three reasons for cheating were seenrepeatedly: “didn’t think it was cheating,” written in by 11 students, “busy work” (n = 3), and “itwas easier to cheat” (n = 4).

A unique contribution of the present project was the examination of cheating in major andnonmajor courses. Findings show that students reporting cheating more often in classes requiredfor their major than nonmajor classes. The higher cheating rates may be due to relatively selectiveprogram requirements for the psychology major. It may also reflect the fact that students may

COLLEGE CHEATING 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

know more of their peers in classes for their major and thus have more opportunities to engage insocial forms of cheating.

In examining cheating severity, the least agreement as well as the lowest severity rating wasgiven to “reusing papers written from another class, without the professor’s permission.” A reviewof notes made on the surveys by students provided some insight into students’ ratings. One studentnoted “I think students should be allowed to reuse their papers for more than one class. I don’t callthis cheating. I actually would just call it a smart use of resources. If you can kill two birds withone stone, why not?” Another student wrote “I didn’t consider it cheating, I wrote the paper.” It ispossible that students believe that a paper they have authored is their own property and that theycan use it however they see fit. This is a misconception that could easily be resolved with a discus-sion at the beginning of the semester or a note in the syllabus.

Students on average perceived most cheating behaviors to be relatively severe. For those stu-dents who acknowledged a behavior as cheating, the most severe rating, 4.9 out of 5, was given to“having someone else take an examination for you, or taking an examination for them” and to“submitting another person’s paper as your own (e.g., buying a paper on line).” It is interesting tonote that these two behaviors had the lowest incidence rates. Students are obviously aware of whatbehaviors constitute cheating, and cheating in most cases seems to be intentional. It may be thatstudents feel comfortable with what they consider to be minor offenses but are unwilling to partic-ipate in what they feel are more severe forms of cheating. It may also be that more severe forms ofcheating are also more risky. A review of the data showed that severity ratings and frequency ofoccurrence of different types of cheating were somewhat, but not perfectly, related. Future re-search might include questions about students’ perceptions of risk to better assess the relationshipbetween severity and cheating behaviors.

Cheating Correlates: Sex

Like many previous studies (Davis et al., 1992; Dawkins, 2004; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Tang &Zuo, 1997; Thorpe et al., 1999), this study found that males were more likely to cheat than fe-males, but only in nonmajor classes. These findings may be understood in light of Whitley’s(1998) review of cheating studies. In studies where a self-report methodology was used, maleswere more likely to report cheating than females; however, studies that used a behavioral observa-tion methodology were more likely to indicate no sex differences. This may indicate that men aremore likely to admit cheating behavior. It is possible that this study’s methodology resulted inhigher reports from males. However, the sex difference between major and nonmajor may alsosuggest that the distinction of major versus nonmajor cheating is an important one in understand-ing cheating.

This study also replicates the prior finding that students with low GPAs are more likely tocheat. When this variable was examined further it was found that major GPA was negatively corre-lated with rates of cheating in major classes and nonmajor classes, but overall GPA only predictedcheating in major classes. It is likely that major GPA is more stable over time than overall GPA andas such it is more predictive of cheating behaviors. Alternatively, the relationships might indicatethat students across the board find it easier to cheat in classes in which they perceive the work to beunimportant to their future career, whereas only students who are performing poorly feel a need tocheat to improve their academic standing.

10 YARDLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

Psi Chi Membership

Contrary to expectations, data show a nonsignificant trend for higher rates of cheating amongmembers of Psi Chi, the national honor society in psychology, than nonmembers. This trend isconsistent with the literature that has found that students involved in clubs or extracurricular activ-ities are more likely to report cheating (McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Pino & Smith, 2003). Studentsinvolved in outside activities, even academic activities, may have less time to devote to school-work. Honor students may also feel more pressure to keep grades up and put more of a priority ongood grades than other students. Further, these students make social relationships with peoplewho may be in the same types of classes, which gives them more opportunities to cheat together. Itis possible that incidences of cheating occurred prior to membership in Psi Chi, suggesting that acloser attention to when cheating happens may be important in developing future interventions tocurb cheating.

Types of Cheating and the Social Nature of Cheating

As might be expected, the most frequent forms of cheating are also those that were rated as leastsevere by alumni. These are “allowing others to copy an assignment,” “copying from another’s as-signment (they knew),” “reusing papers,” “plagiarism,” and “allowing others to copy from yourpaper.” Three of the top five forms of cheating involve more than one student. This may indicatethat cheating is a social activity and possibly provides hints for intervening with cheating. Indeed,this study replicated the finding from the literature (Dawkins, 2004; Jordan, 2001; McCabe &Trevino, 1997) that students who believed their close friends were cheating were more likely tocheat themselves. Students who believe that others are cheating may find it easier to justify whatthey are doing and feel that it is the normal thing to do. Similarly, students who know students whocheat may be privy to this information about their peers because the cheating behaviors are coop-erative (i.e., they are cheating together).

Motivations for Cheating

As reported above, the top motives alumni gave for cheating were “time constraints” and “to helpa friend.” These reasons correspond with the most common forms of cheating. Students may reusea paper, plagiarize, or get the answers from a friend because they feel they do not have time to do itthemselves and it is just busy work. Similarly, students may let others use their assignments or pa-pers because they want to help a classmate and can relate to time constraints and perceptions of“busy work.” It is also possible that students allow others to use their papers and assignments be-cause it is difficult to say no to such a request from a fellow student.

These motivations for cheating seem to suggest that there are practical answers to curtailingcheating. For example, students who are involved in extracurricular activities have been found tocheat more, which is consistent with students’ reports of time pressures as a motivator for cheat-ing. In order to address this, professors could provide external structure for students by breakinglarge projects into smaller pieces to help students pace themselves. Many universities offer a re-quired first-year orientation course. This course could include a section on time management.Universities could also address the social aspects of cheating by emphasizing the effects cheatinghas on fellow students rather than the personal consequences of cheating. Finally, though some of

COLLEGE CHEATING 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

the perceptions of classroom work as busy work are likely normative for college students becauseof their unfamiliarity with pedagogical theories and practices, it might be helpful for professors toprovide a clear rationale for the utility of papers, assignments, and exams in the process of learn-ing.

Knowledge and Familiarity With Honors Code

Contrary to Jordan’s (2001) findings, the present research found that knowing of the existence ofan honor code and alumni’s reported familiarity with that code did not relate to cheating behav-iors. It is possible that greater visibility of the honors code is needed. For example, Salhany andRoig (2004) found that only 66% of the universities sampled for their study had an academic dis-honesty policy on their Web site.

Limitations

The greatest limitation of this study is that it is based on retrospective self-reports. Alumni maynot accurately remember all cheating incidences and circumstances. Whereas alumni have a de-creased risk of consequences should confidentiality be compromised, they may still be reluctant toreport cheating because of a desire to make a good impression. However, the present study find-ings would suggest that this is not the case. The more likely threat to the study’s validity comesfrom the passage of time and alumni’s potential to have forgotten instances of cheating. Addi-tionally, there were participants who did not agree that the behaviors listed were in fact cheating.This was evident because after reporting that they had engaged in a cheating behavior, some stu-dents answered in later questions that they did not ever cheat. Finally, the students captured in thisstudy all graduated from college with at least an undergraduate degree. It is possible that patternsof cheating among students who do not complete college are different from those of respondentsin this sample.

Further Research Needed

There are many possibilities for further future research in this area. The development and testingof specific interventions to curb cheating is an interesting area of study. Another related area of in-terest for future research would involve examining the circumstances surrounding cheating; howstudents decide to engage in cheating; and what they are thinking and feeling before, during, andafter the event. For example, one student wrote, “I never got any consequences for cheating (ex-cept for my own guilty conscience and how it appeared to others). I felt that my cheating was mi-nor and justified for the most part. I know that may seem like a paradox.” Relatedly, assessing stu-dents’ perceptions of the riskiness of engaging in different types of cheating may yield importantinformation about the relationship between cheating and perceptions of the severity of differentforms of cheating.

Although this study showed cheating to be prevalent, none of the students in the sample re-ported ever been caught cheating. This brings up questions as to why. Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick,Whitley, and Washburn (1998) found that professors report that dealing with cheating is one of themore unpleasant tasks in their work. Many also reported that dealing cheating was very time con-suming. It would also be interesting to pursue the question of whether or not professors are famil-

12 YARDLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

iar with the honor code and disciplinary procedures for cheating. Additionally, because this studywas conducted with students who graduated from college, it may be that students who were caughtcheating did not graduate. Disciplinary actions may have included suspension/expulsion or stu-dents may have dropped out. Future research may want to examine penalties for cheating and ifthese serve to deter students from cheating again. Outcomes of students who are disciplined forcheating could be examined.

This study showed that rates and types of cheating differed between classes taken for students’ma-jor versus nonmajor classes. Studies could potentially extend this research and look at whether cheat-ing occurs most commonly in specific classes. For example, classes that are prerequisites for upperlevel courses may show higher incidences of cheating because students need these in order move on toadvanced classes. At medium and large universities, many introductory and general education classeshave extremely large enrollments, which may increase the feeling of anonymity and thus increase therates of cheating. Alternatively, students in upper-level major classes are often familiar with their class-mates, providing more opportunities to collaborate together to cheat. Advanced students may alsoknow their professors better, which possibly discourages cheating in classes.

A related area of investigation would be examining if students are more prone to cheat on spe-cific types of assignments or projects. It is possible that students are less likely to cheat on assign-ments that they know the teacher will spend significant time grading or that are worth manypoints. Students may cheat on assignments that are worth little, because they feel that the assign-ment is not significant. Alternatively, it may be that the assignments that are worth the most lead tomore cheating because the pressure is greater, and students often procrastinate on time-consumingprojects (Solomon & Rothblum, 1984). The timing of assignments may also be of interest. As thesemester progresses students may feel more pressure to cheat in order to succeed, making studentsmore likely to cheat on finals than on midterms.

Lastly, many students in this study indicated that they cheated to help a friend. Students’ rela-tionships might be an interesting area of study. In addition to better understanding the types of re-lationships that facilitate collaborative cheating, researchers may also want to explore students’abilities to decline requests for cheating. For example, students who are asked directly by anotherstudent to assist in cheating may not know how to refuse a direct request. Furthermore, there maybe a perception that helping others on assignments is the social norm.

Overall, this article makes a contribution by replicating existing findings (e.g., importance ofperceptions of others’cheating), introducing complexity to existing findings (e.g., relationship be-tween sex and cheating in major and nonmajor courses), and contributing new findings altogether(e.g., prevalence rates of cheating among alumni). According to Martin Luther King, Jr., the pur-pose of education is twofold: for utility and for culture (Carson, Luker, & Russell, 1992). Cheatingin classes interrupts education and, as such, it should be an important area for prevention and inter-vention on college campuses nationwide.

NOTES

1. According to collegedata.com (2005), a small university has fewer than 5,000 stu-dents, a medium university has 5,000 to 15,000 students, and a large university hasover 15,000 students. The university where the study took place enrolls approxi-mately 16,000 students in the fall and spring semesters.

COLLEGE CHEATING 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4

AUTHOR NOTE

The first and third authors are class of 2005 alumni at Utah State University. The second andfourth authors are professors in the Psychology Department. The authors thank Jordan Singleton,Amanda Graff, Gajin Kim, Keith Lewis, Daniel Ligon, Greg Murphy, and Richard Potter for theirresearch assistance and the Psychology Department Advising Office for their support in the com-pletion of this research. The research was supported by a Psi Chi Undergraduate Research Grantand a Utah State University Undergraduate Research and Creative Opportunities grant to the firstauthor.

REFERENCES

Carson, C., Luker, R., & Russell, P. A. (Eds.). (1992). Called to serve, January 1929–June 1951. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Collegedata.com (2005). Student body size: Small, medium, and large? Retrieved November 1, 2005, from www.collegedata.com/cs/content/content_printarticle_tmpl.jhtml?articleid=10006

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

Dawkins, R. L. (2004). Attributes and statuses of college students associated with classroom cheating on a small-sizedcampus. College Student Journal, 38, 116–129.

Framklyn-Stokes, A., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating: Who does what and why? Studies in Higher Ed-ucation, 20, 159–172.

Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of insti-tutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 233–247.

Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E., & Washburn, J. (1998). Why professors ignore cheating: Opinions ofa national sample of psychology instructors. Ethics & Behavior, 8, 215–227.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus in-vestigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379–396.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). “Degrees and Other Formal Awards Conferred” surveys, and IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), “Completions” surveys, 1986–87 through 1998–99, and Fall 2000through Fall 2002 surveys. Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d03/tables/dt293.asp

Pate, W. E. (2001). Analyses of data from graduate study in psychology: 1999–2000. Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association Research Office. Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://research.apa.org/grad00contents.html

Petersen, H. C. (2005). 2004 CIRP freshman survey results. Retrieved June 16, 2005, from http://aaa.usu.edu/FactsFigures/PDFs/Surveys/CIRP2004SurveyReport.pdf

Pino, N. W., & Smith, W. L. (2003). College students and academic dishonesty. College Student Journal, 37, 490–500.Salhany, J., & Roig, M. (2004). Academic dishonesty policies across universities: Focus on plagiarism. Psi Chi Journal of

Undergraduate Research, 9, 150–153.Solomon, L., & Rothblum, E. (1984). Academic procrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioral correlates. Journal

of Counseling Psychology, 31, 503–509.Stöber, J. (2001). The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): Convergent validity, discriminate validity, and relationship

with age. European Journal of Psychology Assessment, 17, 222–232.Tang, S., & Zuo, J. (1997). Profile of college examination cheaters. College Student Journal, 31, 340–346.Thorpe, M. F., Pittenger, D. J., & Reed, B. D. (1999). Cheating the researcher: A study of the relation between personality

measures and self-reported cheating. College Student Journal, 33, 49–59.Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education,

39, 235–274.Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender differences in affective responses to having cheated: The mediating role of attitudes. Ethics

& Behavior, 11, 249–259.

14 YARDLEY ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f W

est F

lori

da]

at 0

8:42

07

Oct

ober

201

4