INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the
most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image o f the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite m ethod in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Micrrifilms
International
3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D . A N N A R B O R . Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D RO W. L O N D O N W C 1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

7921187
R E N A U D • RUTH E I L E E N
A C A D E M I C D I S H O N E S T Y A S D E F I N E D AND R E P O R T E D
BY S T U D E N T S AND F A C U L T Y FROM S E L E C T E D
C O L L E G E S AT M I C H I G A N S T A T E U N I V E R S I T Y .
MICHIGAN

COPR.

STATE

1978

UNIVERSITY,

RENAUD,

R UT H

PH.D.,

1979

EILEEN

University
. Microfilms
International

300 n . z e e b r o a d , a n n a r b o r , mi 4 8 i o 6

Copyright by
RUTH EILEEN RENAUD

1978

ii

PLEASE NOTE:
In a ll cases th is material has been filmed In the best possible
way from the available copy. Problems encountered with th is
document have been id e n tifie d here with a check mark
.
1.

Glossy photographs ________

2.

Colored Illu s tra tio n s ________

3.

Photographs with dark background ________

4.

Illu s tra tio n s are poor copy ________

5.

P rint shows through as there 1s tex t on both sides of page _________

6.

In d is tin c t, broken or small p rin t on several pages

7.

Tightly bound copy with p rin t lo s t 1n spine ________

8.

Computer printout pages with in d is tin c t p rin t ________

9.

Page(s)
lacking when material received, and not available
from school or author ________

10.

Page(s) ________seem to be missing 1n numbering only as te x t
follows ________

11.

Poor carbon copy ________

12.

Not original copy, several pages with blurred type ________

13.

Appendix pages are poor copy ________

14.

Original copy with lig h t type ________

15.

Curling and wrinkled pages ________

16.

Other ____________

_

**

Universe

Microfilms

International

300 N ZEEB RD.. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 *313) 761-4700

throughout

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AS DEFINED AND REPORTED BY
STUDENTS AND FACULTY FROM SELECTED COLLEGES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Ruth Eileen Renaud

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e req u ire m e n ts
f o r t h e de gree o f
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher Education

ABSTRACT

ACADEMIC DISHONESTY AS DEFINED AND REPORTED BY
STUDENTS AND FACULTY FROM SELECTED COLLEGES
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Ruth Eileen Renaud

The stu dy was conducted p r i m a r i l y t o gain an un d e rs tan d in g
o f how s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y d e f i n e
academic d i s h o n e s t y and t o secu re in f o r m a tio n r e g a r d i n g th e i n c i d e n c e
o f d i s h o n e s t y among s t u d e n t s .

E f f o r t was a l s o made to e x p lo r e the

c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e e x i s t e d when d i s h o n e s t y occu rred
and the a c t i o n s which f a c u l t y took when d i s h o n e s t y was d is c o v e r e d .
A tw o - p a r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed by th e r e s e a r c h e r .
P a r t I was de si gned to measure how f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s , both
und erg rad u ates and g r a d u a t e s , p e rc eiv e d 33 s e l e c t e d b e h av io rs in
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o what they p e r s o n a l l y c o n sid e r e d an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work.

The 33 items formed a s i n g l e s c a l e

which was found r e l i a b l e f o r t h e t h r e e groups under stu d y .

P a r t II

i nclu ded ten b e h av io rs governed by U n i v e r s i t y r e g u l a t i o n s on s c h o l a r s h i p
and g r a d e s .

Engaging in any one o f t h e s e b e h av io rs was c o n sid e r e d an

a c t of dishonesty.

Stud en ts were asked to r e p o r t i f t h e y had observed

o r p e r s o n a l l y engaged in any o f t h e b e h av io rs and, i f s o , on how many
occasions.

F a c u lty were a l s o asked i f they had d i s c o v e r e d any o f th e

b e h av iors and, i f s o , on how many o c c a s i o n s .
one academic y e a r .

The r e p o r t i n g p e r i o d was

Ruth E i l e e n Renaud

S t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e
c o n d i t i o n s which t h e y b e l i e v e e x i s t e d when t h e behavior o c c u r r e d .
F a c u l t y who r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y were asked to i n d i c a t e what a c t i o n ,
i f any, was t a k e n .
A random sample o f 1,529 s t u d e n t s and 150 f a c u l t y from the
c o l l e g e s o f B u s i n e s s , Natural S c ien c e, and Social Science was s e l e c t e d .
The r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o f 740 s t u d e n t s and 66 f a c u l t y provided the
d a t a used in t h e a n a l y s i s .

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s were used

t o t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among groups in both p e r c e p t i o n s and
dishonesty reported.

Scheff£ p o st hoc comparisons were made where

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found.
As measured by t h e o v e r a l l s c a l e , f a c u l t y p e rc e i v e d th e
b e h a v i o r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s l y than both u nderg raduate and
graduate stu d e n ts.

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between th e

p e r c e p t i o n s o f u n d e rg r a d u a t e s and g r a d u a t e s , nor were t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s among f a c u l t y when c a t e g o r i z e d by c o l l e g e o r y e a r s o f
teaching experience.
Regarding p e r c e p t i o n s by i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r s , f a c u l t y r a t e d
most , b u t n o t a l l , b e h a v i o r s more s e r i o u s l y than s t u d e n t s .

In g e n e r a l ,

however, d i f f e r e n c e s were more in de gree th an d i r e c t i o n .
Un dergraduate and gradu a te women p e rc e iv e d t h e behaviors as
more s e r i o u s t h a n t h e i r male p e e r s .

In g e n e r a l , upperclassmen r a t e d

b e h a v i o r s as more s e r i o u s than unde rclassm en, and s t u d e n t s with h i g h e r
GPA's r a t e d t h e b e h a v i o r s a s more s e r i o u s th an t h o s e with lower GPA's.
S t u d e n t s in N atu ral Scien ce r a t e d b e h av io r s more s e r i o u s l y than t h o s e

Ruth E i l e e n Renaud

in S o c ial Science and B u sin e ss, with a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found
between th o se in Natural Science and Business.
F i f t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t o f a l l s t u d e n t respondents (64 p e r c e n t
o f t h e u n d e r g r a u d a t e s , 27 p e r c e n t o f the g r a d u a t e s ) r e p o r t e d having
engaged in one o r more a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y during t h e academic y e a r .
While s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y
among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , d i s h o n e s t y was r e l a t i v e l y c o n s i s t e n t r e g a r d l e s s
o f s e x , c l a s s , o r GPA.
graduates.

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found among

S tu d e n ts who s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y

more d i s h o n e s t y among o t h e r s t u d e n t s , and p erceived t h e b eh av io rs as
s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s s e r i o u s , than did t h o s e not s e l f - r e p o r t i n g
di s h o n e s t y .
The m a j o r i t y o f s t u d e n t s who engaged in d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d
t h a t t h e y b e li e v e d t h e r e was l i t t l e chance o f t h e i r behavior being
discovered.

Few s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t honesty was s t r e s s e d by t h e i r

instructors.
C o n sid e r a b le v a r i a n c e was found in a c t i o n s take n by f a c u l t y
when a s p e c i f i c d i s h o n e s t behavior was d i s c o v e r e d ; however, th e
r e s e a r c h e r recommends t h a t more e x t e n s i v e stu d y o f t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s
and a c t i o n s o f f a c u l t y be un de rtaken.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The w r i t e r e x p re s s e s s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n to members o f
h e r guidance committee, Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, Dr. John A. Fuzak,
Dr. Vandel C. Johnson, and P r o f e s s o r Ralph F. T u r n er , f o r t h e i r
a s s i s t a n c e and encouragement throughout t h e degree program.
Dr. Nonnamaker, as chairman o f th e committee and immediate
s u p e r v i s o r d u rin g many y e a r s o f work a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
has c o n s i s t e n t l y been s u p p o r t i v e o f the w r i t e r both as a s t u d e n t
and as a member o f h i s s t a f f .

His d i r e c t i o n has been needed and

is g reatly appreciated.
On his r e t i r e m e n t from Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , t h e w r i t e r
wishes t o give s p e c i a l r e c o g n i t i o n to Dr. John Fuzak who, in h i s many
c a p a c i t i e s as a d m i n i s t r a t o r and t e a c h e r , has been a model f o r so many
o f us who have had the p r i v i l e g e o f h i s a s s o c i a t i o n .
To the s t u d e n t s and f a c u l y who p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e s t u d y ,
t h e w r i t e r i s d e e p ly in d e b t e d .
Colleague s and f r i e n d s in t h e J u d i c i a l Programs O f f i c e have
given f r e e l y o f t h e i r time and t a l e n t to make t h i s stu d y p o s s i b l e .
Without t h e i r h e lp i t would ne ver have been u n d e rta k e n , and most
s u r e l y , never completed.
S pecia l g r a t i t u d e i s e x p re ss ed t o fam ily and f r i e n d s whose
love and concern makes an u n d e rt a k in g wort hwhile.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................

vi

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

THE PROBLEM.................................................................................................

1

I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................
State m ent o f t h e Problem ..................................................................
The Purpose and Importance o f t h e S t u d y ................................
Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S t u d y ...............................................
O r g a n iz a t i o n o f t h e S t u d y ..............................................................

1
2
4
8
11

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................................................................

13

I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................
Background S t u d i e s ...............................................................................
T h e o r y ..........................................................................................................
Measure o f A t t i t u d e s and T h e i r Impact ......................................
I n d i v i d u a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Those A s so c ia ted
with Acts o f D i s h o n e s t y ..............................................................
S i t u a t i o n a l F a c to r s R e la te d t o Dishonesty .............................
S u m m a r y .....................................................................................................

13
14
18
21
29
36
49

DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ...............................................................................

52

Development o f t h e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e .................................................
The P o p u l a ti o n and S a m p l e ..............................................................
C o l l e c t i o n o f t h e D a t a .......................................................................
A na lysis o f t h e D a t a ...........................................................................
H y p o t h e s e s ....................................... .... ....................................................
P e r c e p t i o n s o f Behaviors...... ..........................................................
Dish onesty Reported ......................................................................
C o n d itio n s Cite d by S tu d e n ts when Dishonesty
O c c u r r e d ............................................................................................
A ctio ns Taken by F a c u lty when Dishone sty Was
D i s c o v e r e d ........................................................................................
D e f i n i t i o n o f T e r m s ...........................................................................
S u m m a r y .....................................................................................................

52
58
61
63
64
64
64

iv

65
65
66
67

Chapter

Page

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA.........................................................................................

68

I n t r o d u c t i o n ............................................................................................
P e r c e p t i o n s o f Behaviors A p pro p riate f o r Academic
W o r k .........................................................................................................
Dish onest y Reported ..........................................................................
C o n d itio n s Cite d by S t u d e n ts as Being P r e s e n t
When Dishonesty Occurred .............................................................
Ac tions Taken by Fa c u lty When Dishonesty Was
D i s c o v e r e d ............................................................................................

68

V. SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND
IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . .
S u m m a r y .....................................................................................................
Find ings and Discussio n ..................................................................
P e r c e p t i o n s o f Behaviors A p p r o p r ia te f o r
Academic W o r k ...............................................................................
D ishonesty Reported ......................................................................
C on d ition s Cited by S tu dents When Dishonesty
O c c u r r e d ............................................................................................
A ctio ns Taken by F a c u lty When Dishonesty Was
O b s e r v e d ............................................................................................
Conclusions and I m p l i c a t i o n s .........................................................
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research ........................................

70
94
Ill
124
130
130
134
135
140
143
147
149
152

APPENDIX
A.

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

............................................................................

154

B.

FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE

............................................................................

160

C.

FIRST LETTER TO STUDENT SAMPLE ...........................................................

165

D.

SECOND LETTER TO STUDENT SAMPLE

......................................................

166

E.

FIRST LETTER TO FACULTY SAMPLE ..........................................................

167

F.

SECOND LETTER TO FACULTY SAMPLE

168

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

......................................................

................................................................................................

v

169

LIST OF TABLES

Table
4.1
4.2
4.3

4.4

4.5
4.6
4 .7

4.8

4.9

4.1 0

Page
One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e in
means between groups in p e r c e p t i o n s on a l l behaviors

. .

71

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s
among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y ..........................

71

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a ri a n c e t e s t s f o r
be hav iors where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found
in p e r c e p t i o n s among u n d e rg r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and
f a c u l t y .........................................................................................................

73

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s
among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y on
th o s e b eh av io rs where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
were f o u n d ................................................................................................

74

Rank o r d e r o f p e r c e p t i o n s by u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s ,
and f a c u l t y ................................................................................................

77

Nature o f beh av io rs pe rc eiv e d most s e r i o u s and l e a s t
s e r i o u s .........................................................................................................

79

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s among und e rg ra d uate s when c a t e g o r i z e d
by se x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and G PA .....................................................

82

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in
p e r c e p t i o n s o f p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l and n o n p r e p r o f e s s io n a l
s t u d e n t s .....................................................................................................

83

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s
among u n d e rg r a d u a te s when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s ,
c o l l e g e , and G P A .....................................................................................

85

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s on
b e h av iors where a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found
among u nd e rg r a d u a te s when c a t e g o r i z e d by sex, c l a s s ,
c o l l e g e , and G P A .....................................................................................

86

vi

Page
Post hoc comparisons f o r behaviors where s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s were found among under­
g r a d u a t e s by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA .......................................

87

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s among g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s
when c a t e g o r i z e d by se x , c o l l e g e , and GPA ...............................

89

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s on
b e h a v io r s where a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found
among g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s when c a t e g o r i z e d by sex ..................

91

One-way a n a l y s i s t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p e r ­
c e p t i o n o f f a c u l t y when c a t e g o r i z e d by y e a r s of
t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e and c o l l e g e ....................................................

92

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t r e s u l t s in comparing
t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f t h o s e s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t e d
d i s h o n e s t y and t h o s e who did n o t ................................................

93

S t u d e n t s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y by b e h a v io r

......................

95

Dish onest y r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s by behavior . . . .

96

Dishonesty r e p o r t e d by f a c u l t y

.....................................................

97

C l a s s e s taken by s t u d e n t s ..................................................................

98

C l a s s e s t a u g h t by term and s i z e .....................................................

99

Ranking o f t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f d i s h o n e s t behaviors
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by s t u d e n t s , r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s ,
and by f a c u l t y ........................................................................................

101

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r
d i f f e r e n c e in s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y by behavior
among un d e rg r a d u a te s when c a t e g o r i z e d by se x , c l a s s ,
c o l l e g e , and GPA ...................................................................................

103

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s among under­
g r a d u a t e s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and
GPA, in t h e i n c i d e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y
by b e h a v i o r .................................................................................................

105

Table
4 .2 4

Page
Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r
d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s and
n o n p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s in th e i n c id e n c e o f
d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d ..................................................................

108

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a ri a n c e t e s t s to
dete rm ine d i f f e r e n c e s in s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y
by g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s when c a t e g o r i z e d by sex,
c o l l e g e , and G P A ...................................................................................

109

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s , by
b e h a v i o r , f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between
s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y and th ose
who did n o t in d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d among o t h e r s ..................

112

4 .2 7

C o nd itio ns c i t e d when d i s h o n e s t y occu rred ..............................

113

4.28

Rank o r d e r of b e h av io r s where " l i t t l e chance o f
d i s c o v e r y " was c i t e d ...........................................................................

115

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r
d i f f e r e n c e s among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , when c a t e g o r i z e d
by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA, in c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when
d i s h o n e s t y oc cu rred ...............................................................................

116

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s among under­
g r a d u a t e s in c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when d i s h o n e s t y o c curred

.

119

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r
d i f f e r e n c e between p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s and
n o n p r e p r o f e s s io n a l s t u d e n t s in c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d
when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r e d ..................................................................

121

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r
d i f f e r e n c e s among g r a d u a t e s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by
c o l l e g e o r GPA, i n th e c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when
d i s h o n e s t y o c cu rred ...............................................................................

122

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s among g ra d u a te
s t u d e n t s in c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when d i s h o n e s t y
o c c u r r e d .....................................................................................................

123

4.34

Variance in f a c u l t y a c t i o n s , by b e h av io r

..............................

125

4.3 5

F a c u lt y a c t i o n s t a k e n , by b e h av ior

...........................................

127

4 .3 6

Rank o r d e r o f b e h a v io r s by t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f a c t i o n
t a k e n ..............................................................................................................

128

4.2 5

4 .2 6

4 .2 9

4 .3 0
4.31

4.3 2

4 .3 3

vi i i

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction
Members o f a u n i v e r s i t y community may d i s a g r e e about why they
b e l i e v e honesty
i t is

not.

i s im p o r tan t in academic work, y e t few contend t h a t

For most f a c u l t y

based on t h e concern

f o r the

and s t a f f t h e emphasis on honesty i s
i n t e g r i t y o f th e l e a r n i n g pro ce ss and the

s t a b i l i t y o f t h e e d u c a ti o n a l system (Harp & T a i e t z , 1966).

Whether

i t i s in th e a re a o f r e s e a r c h , t e a c h i n g , o r in t h e e v a l u a t i o n o f a
s t u d e n t ' s work, honesty i s seen as c e n t r a l to t h e p r o c e s s .

The

concern f o r honest y on t h e p a r t o f s t u d e n t s may be more p r a c t i c a l
in n a t u r e s i n c e some may b e l i e v e t h a t d i s h o n e s t y c r e a t e s s i t u a t i o n s
o f u n f a i r advantage in a h i g h ly c o m p e ti t iv e m ar k e tp la c e .

Whether the

concern i s based on personal c o n v i c t i o n s o r p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s ,
f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y a g r e e , however, t h a t d i s h o n e s t y i s a
c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f a l e g i t i m a t e s t a n d a r d f o r academic work (Bowers,
1964).

In s p i t e o f t h e s t a t e d s t a n d a r d , a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y on

c o l l e g e campuses a r e f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d .
The p o p u la r p r e s s in r e c e n t y e a r s has given a t t e n t i o n to
d i s h o n e s t y by r e p o r t i n g such m a t t e r s as t h e development o f commercial
term pa per companies and t h e d i s c o v e r y o f mass c h e a ti n g a t i n d i v i d u a l
institu tio n s.

The p r o f e s s i o n a l l i t e r a t u r e has f o r t h e p a s t fo u r

1

2

decades c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p o r t e d a high i n cid en c e o f d i s h o n e s t y among
und e rgra du ate s t u d e n t s a t i n s t i t u t i o n s a c r o s s t h e c o u n tr y .

In a

comprehensive nationwide survey done in 1964 (Bowers), 49 p e r c e n t
o f t h e s t u d e n t s s e l f - r e p o r t e d c h e a ti n g b e h a v i o r s .

Although the

r e p o r t s o f o t h e r s t u d i e s vary somewhat, depending upon t h e p opula­
t i o n s s t u d i e d and t h e methodology use d, l i t t l e evidence was found
t o s u p p o r t the p o s i t i o n t h a t a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y a re i s o l a t e d b e h a v i o r s .
In s p i t e o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s , members o f u n i v e r s i t y communities g r o s s l y
u n d e re s t i m a t e t h e in cid en c e o f d i s h o n e s t y (Bowers) and many c o n ti n u e
to assume honesty on the p a r t o f s t u d e n t s when such an assumption
has been shown to be f a l l a c i o u s .
The dichotomy between th e s t a n d a r d o f honesty which i s
a r t i c u l a t e d and t h e p r a c t i c e s which a r e r e p o r t e d was noted e a r l y
in a study by James (1933).

He concluded t h a t t h e dichotomy was

so g r e a t and o f such a v i t a l n a t u r e t h a t f u r t h e r study was needed
to s u b s t a n t i a t e h i s f i n d i n g s .

Subsequent r e s e a r c h su p p o r ts t h e

dichotomy, and t h e q u e s t io n o f why s t u d e n t s c h e a t when they s t a t e
they b e l i e v e c h e a t i n g i s wrong has been th e s u b j e c t o f much
s p e c u l a t i o n and c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h .
Statem en t o f th e Problem
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , through i t s system o f academic
governance, has adopted a p o l i c y s t a te m e n t on t h e i n t e g r i t y o f
s c h o l a r s h i p and g rades which s t i p u l a t e s t h a t " t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f
t r u t h and honesty a r e recognized as fundamental to a community o f

3

t e a c h e r s and s c h o l a r s " (MSU, 1977-78, pp. 35-36).

The s t a te m e n t

f u r t h e r s t a t e s t h a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y e x p ec ts t h a t both f a c u l t y and
s t u d e n t s w i l l honor t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s and in so doing p r o t e c t th e
v a l i d i t y o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y grading system.

F a c u lt y a r e charged with

t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to e x e r c i s e c a r e in the s u p e r v i s i o n o f academic
work so t h a t honesty " w ill be p o s i t i v e l y enc ouraged."

The expec­

t a t i o n f o r honesty on t h e p a r t o f s t u d e n t s i s s e t f o r t h in General
S tu d e n t R e g u la ti o n s governing s c h o l a r s h i p and grades (MSU, 1977-79,
p. 33).

These r e g u l a t i o n s a r e as f o llo w s:

4.01

No s t u d e n t s h a l l knowingly, w i t h o u t p ro p er a u t h o r ­
i z a t i o n , p r o c u r e , provide or a c c e p t any m a t e r i a l s
which c o n t a i n q u e s t i o n s o r answers to any exam­
i n a t i o n o r assignment to be given a t a subsequent
date.

4.02

No s t u d e n t s h a l l , w i th o u t p r o p e r a u t h o r i z a t i o n ,
complete in p a r t o r in t o t a l , any examination o r
assignm ent f o r a n o t h e r person.

4.03

No s t u d e n t s h a l l , w ith ou t p ro p er a u t h o r i z a t i o n ,
knowingly allow any examination o r assignm ent to
be completed, in p a r t or in t o t a l , f o r him o r her
by a n o t h e r pers on.

4.04

No s t u d e n t s h a l l knowingly p l a g i a r i z e o r copy th e
work o f a n o t h e r person and submit i t as h i s o r her
own.

Although t h e s t a t e m e n t o f p r i n c i p l e i s c l e a r and t h e ge neral
e x p e c t a t i o n s f o r f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s a r e f a i r l y well d e f i n e d ,
l i t t l e i s known about how t h e p r i n c i p l e i s s u p p o r t e d , o r not
s u p p o r t e d , by t h e a t t i t u d e and a c t i o n s o f f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s .
C entr al t o t h i s s tu d y i s an exam ination of t h o s e a t t i t u d e s and
actions.

4

The Purpose and Importance o f th e Study
The stu d y i s und ertaken in an e f f o r t t o se cu r e info rm a ti o n
which can a s s i s t members o f t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y community
in t h e i r e f f o r t s t o promote and p r o t e c t honesty in academic work.

In

t h e absence o f b e t t e r i n f o r m a tio n as to how d i s h o n e s t y i s d e f i n e d , i t s
p r e v a l e n c e among s t u d e n t s , t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e
d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r s , and t h e response o f f a c u l t y when i t i s d i s c o v e r e d ,
i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y , and s t a f f to d i r e c t t h e i r con­
c e r t e d e f f o r t t o f u r t h e r t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t r u t h and honesty which
a r e s e t f o r t h as being fundamental to t h e community.

A lack o f concern

f o r h o n e sty in academic work, o r a lac k o f commitment to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e
a concern by members o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y community, could s e r i o u s l y under­
mine t h e i n t e g r i t y o f t h e e d u c a t i o n a l p ro ce ss i t s e l f .

I f expectations

f o r h o n e sty in academic work can be b e t t e r de fin e d and communicated,
i f i n d i v i d u a l s b e t t e r u n de rstand t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s and consequences
o f d i s h o n e s t b e h a v i o r s as well as t h e e x t e n t to which d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r s ,
perh aps t h o s e who b e l i e v e honesty i s fundamental t o t h e l e a r n i n g
p r o c e s s w i l l be b e t t e r a b l e t o a c t in f u r t h e r a n c e o f t h e i r p o s i t i o n .
T h is stu d y i s only e x p l o r a t o r y in n a t u r e .

Dishone sty i s

examined from a number o f p e r s p e c t i v e s ; however, t h e focus f o r t h e
s t u d y i s an e x am in a tio n o f how d i s h o n e s t y i s d e f i n e d , how s e r i o u s l y
b e h a v i o r s a r e viewed, and t h e in c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y among s t u d e n t s .
Although p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s have examined many o f th e q u e s t i o n s t h a t
w i l l be a d d re s s e d in t h i s s t u d y , a review o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d

5

few s t u d i e s which have examined t h e t o p i c from a number o f p e r s p e c t i v e s
w i t h t h e s p e c i f i c purpose o f hoping t o impact t h e p o p u l a t i o n under
study.

The model o f the stu d y may be o f value to o t h e r e d u c a ti o n a l

i n s t i t u t i o n s which sh a re a common concern f o r honesty in academic work.
Although c a u t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d in g e n e r a l i z i n g th e r e s u l t s beyond
t h e sample under s t u d y , t h e f i n d i n g s themselves may provide info rm a ti o n
which w i l l be o f valu e to members o f o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s s i m i l a r in
n a t u r e t o Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Four o b j e c t i v e s were developed to provide d i r e c t i o n f o r th e
st u d y .

These o b j e c t i v e s and th e r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e i r f o r m u la tio n a re

as f o l l o w s :
1.

To examine how f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s p e r c e i v e s p e c i f i c

b e h a v i o r s in r e l a t i o n s h i p to what they b e l i e v e i s an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d o f academic work.

Although previous s t u d i e s r e p o r t general

agreement among s t u d e n t s (Anderson, 1957) and between s t u d e n t s and
f a c u l t y (Frymier, 1960) on what b e h av iors c o n s t i t u t e a c t s o f d i s ­
h o n e s t y , t h e s e s t u d i e s a l s o r e p o r t t h a t t h e r e a r e some behav iors about
which t h e r e i s d isagreem ent o r u n c e r t a i n t y .

In t h e absence o f a b e t t e r

u n d e rs t a n d i n g o f what i s a c c e p t a b l e b eh av io r and how s e r i o u s l y c e r t a i n
b e h a v i o r s a re viewed, both f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s w i l l f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t
t o know what i s exp ec te d o f them and what th ey could r e a so n a b ly
a n t i c i p a t e should c e r t a i n b e h av io r s occur.
2.

To a s s e s s how p r e v a l e n t academic d i s h o n e s t y i s among

s t u d e n t s from s e l e c t e d c o l l e g e s a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
e s t i m a t e s o f th e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y could be made based on

While

6

p r e v io u s s t u d i e s o f o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n s , members in a u n i v e r s i t y
community, as p r e v i o u s l y n o te d , o f t e n u n d e re s tim a te th e i n cid en c e
o f dishonesty.

In a p r a c t i c a l s e n s e , th e commitment o f f a c u l t y and

s t u d e n t s t o promote and p r o t e c t honesty may be c o n t i n g e n t upon the
e x t e n t t o which th ey see d i s h o n e s t y to be a problem w i t h i n th e
environment w i t h i n which they work o r stud y .
3.

To examine the s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e s i t u a t i o n s

in which they engaged in academic d i s h o n e s t y .

As noted p r e v i o u s l y ,

c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h has been done on s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s and t h e i r
re la tio n s h ip to dishonesty.

For purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , however,

s t u d e n t s were asked t o respond with t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f th e s i t ­
u a t i o n s as th ey r e l a t e t o co u rs e c o n t e n t , th e i n s t r u c t o r , c l a s s m a t e s ,
and t h e i r own s t a t u s .

While many o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s have been exam­

ined p r e v i o u s l y , resp o nse t o th e combination o f v a r i a b l e s may pr ovide
an i n s i g h t i n t o th e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between s i t u a t i o n s and d i s h o n e s t
behaviors.

By b e t t e r u n d e rs ta n d in g t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which d i s ­

h onesty o c c u r s , i t may be p o s s i b l e to s t r u c t u r e s i t u a t i o n s which w i l l
encourage hone sty.
4.

To dete rm ine what a c t i o n s , i f any, a r e taken by i n s t r u c t o r s

when t h e y obse rve o r d i s c o v e r d i s h o n e s t y .

The e x t e n t to which

i n s t r u c t o r s a r e c o n s i s t e n t in t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f U n i v e r s i t y s t a n d a r d s ,
and in t h e a c t i o n s which th ey t a k e i f th o se s t a n d a r d s a r e v i o l a t e d ,
may o r may not communicate to s t u d e n t s t h e same e x p e c t a t i o n which i s
articulated.

I f t h e U n i v e r s i t y i s committed t o honesty in academic

work, t h a t commitment may well need to be communicated in p r a c t i c e
as well as in a s t a te m e n t o f p o l i c y .

7

From t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s t h e fo llo w in g q u e s t i o n s were developed
to pro vide f u r t h e r focus f o r t h e stu dy:
1.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y
in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f behaviors which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work?

2.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among s t u d e n t s in t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n s o f b eh avio rs which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e sta n d a r d
f o r academic work when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s s t a n d i n g , c o l l e g e ,
grade p o i n t a v e r a g e , o r sex?

3.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among f a c u l t y in t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e havio rs which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d
f o r academic work when c a t e g o r i z e d by c o l l e g e , s e x , o r y e a r s
o f c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g e x p erien c e?

4.

What a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e behaviors which a r e
p e rc e iv e d by s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y to be s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s
o f an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d f o r academic work?

5.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among s t u d e n t s in th e
i n c id e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y when c a t e g o r i z e d by
c l a s s s t a n d i n g , c o l l e g e , grade p o i n t a v e r a g e , se x , o r plac e
of residence?

6.

Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s t u d e n t ' s
p e r c e p t i o n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work and d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d ?

7.

Do the c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e e x i s t when they
engage in a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y d i f f e r by t h e s p e c i f i c type
o f b e h a v io r in which th ey engage?

8

8.

Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e l f - r e p o r t i n g
o f d i s h o n e s t y by s t u d e n t s and t h e i r r e p o r t i n g o f d i s h o n e s t y
by o t h e r s ?

9.

Do f a c u l t y d i f f e r in t h e a c t i o n s which they ta k e when a
s p e c i f i c ty pe o f d i s h o n e s t y i s observed o r disc ov ere d?
Although a number o f r e s e a r c h hypotheses could be developed

where t e n t a t i v e p r e d i c t i o n s o f d i r e c t i o n could be s t i p u l a t e d based on
p re v io u s r e s e a r c h , t h i s study w i l l e x p lo r e some a r e a s where t h e r e i s
l i t t l e b a s i s in r e s e a r c h or th e o r y f o r p r e d i c t i o n .

The review o f the

l i t e r a t u r e w i l l i n c l u d e t h e f i n d i n g s on which t e n t a t i v e p r e d i c t i o n s
could be based; however, t h e s e w i l l not be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o r e s e a r c h
h yp o th eses.

R a th e r, a l l hypotheses w i l l be s t a t e d in n u ll o r non­

d i r e c t i onal form in Chapter I I I .
Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e Study
C e r ta in l i m i t a t i o n s and parameters a r e i d e n t i f i e d which should
be c o n s i d e r e d in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h i s study.
The p o p u l a t i o n surveyed was l i m i t e d t o a sample o f s t u d e n t s
and f a c u l t y from 3 o f 17 c o l l e g e s a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

The

t h r e e , B usin e ss, Natural Science and Social S c ien c e, a r e t h e t h r e e
l a r g e s t c o l l e g e s and were s e l e c t e d because o f the wide v a r i e t y o f
programs which th ey o f f e r .

Of t h e l a r g e s t c o l l e g e s , t h e s e t h r e e a l s o

had s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n s most evenly matched in terms o f underg rad u ate
and g r a d u a t e e n r o l l m e n t s .

Although c a r e was taken in s e l e c t i n g a

9

sample t h a t might be re a s o n a b l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y , t h e f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d should be
c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n t h e p ara m eters o f t h e resp on ses o f the s t u d e n t s
and f a c u l t y who r e t u r n e d th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and c a u t i o n must be
e x e r c i s e d in g e n e r a l i z i n g t h e f i n d i n g s to the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n s o f
t h e c o l l e g e s s e l e c t e d f o r th e study as well as t h e t o t a l U n i v e r s i t y
p o p u l a t i o n o f s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y .
Because t h e stu dy i s e x p l o r a t o r y in n a t u r e , i t r e p r e s e n t s only
an i n i t i a l e f f o r t t o examine how an i n s t i t u t i o n might promote and p r o ­
t e c t h o ne sty in academic work.

A number o f a r e a s r e l a t i n g t o academic

d i s h o n e s t y were i n v e s t i g a t e d t o provide a broad p e r s p e c t i v e on the
t o p i c , and an i n - d e p t h exam ination o f some a r e a s was no t u ndertaken.
P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n was focused on t h e development o f an in str u m e n t
t o a s s e s s how s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y d e fin e d beh av io rs in terms o f what
c o n s t i t u t e s d i s h o n e s t y , how s e r i o u s l y s e l e c t e d beh avio rs a re viewed,
and t h e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y among s t u d e n t s .
I t must be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t t h e i n c i d e n c e o f
d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d i s based on behaviors which a r e s e l f - r e p o r t e d
o r r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y , and not on t h e b a s i s of
e x p e r im e n ta l st u d y .

The e x t e n t to which th e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y

r e p o r t e d in t h i s stud y r e f l e c t s t h e t r u e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y i s
f u r t h e r brought i n t o q u e s t i o n by t h e use o f a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , in t h a t
t h o s e who respond a r e e s s e n t i a l l y v o l u n t e e r i n g in f o r m a ti o n and t h e i r
r e s p o n s e s may d i f f e r from t h e nonresponding s u b j e c t s .

10

I t was de te rmined by the r e s e a r c h e r t h a t a 40 p e r c e n t r e t u r n
on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s would be n e c e ssa r y t o provide d a ta s u f f i c i e n t
for analysis.

A 40 p e r c e n t r e t u r n i s not uncommon with mailed ques­

t i o n n a i r e s ( K e r l i n g e r , 1964).

Because i nfo rm a tion sought could have

been i n t e r p r e t e d as s e n s i t i v e o r t h r e a t e n i n g , and because the ques­
t i o n n a i r e i t s e l f was f a i r l y e x t e n s i v e and was s e n t l a t e in s p r i n g term
when the s c h ed u le s o f s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y may have been u n u s u a l ly busy,
t h e 40 p e r c e n t t a r g e t f o r r e t u r n was c o n sid ere d t o be r e a s o n a b l e .
F o r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t s and 44 p e r c e n t o f the f a c u l t y
members in th e sample r e t u r n e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s which provided the
d a ta on which the a n a l y s i s was made.
Use o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a l s o assumes t h a t each re spondent
u n d e rs t a n d s t h e i n t e n t o f each q u e s t i o n ; t h a t t h e respo n se i s h o n e s t ;
t h a t i t r e f l e c t s t h e i n t e n t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t ; and t h a t resp o nses a re
c o r r e c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r .

Such assumptions may not

always be a c c u r a t e .
D esp ite t h e l i m i t a t i o n s n o t e d , th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i ­
g a t i o n should p r o v id e worthwhile in fo r m a tio n to th o se concerned with
academic d i s h o n e s t y a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y by g i v i n g a general
p i c t u r e o f the a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s o f s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y r e l a t i n g
to dishonesty.

More im p o r tan t may be t h e t e s t i n g o f an i n s t r u m e n t f o r

i t s worth in a s s e s s i n g p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e havio rs a p p r o p r i a t e t o academic
work.
Although i t i s n o t viewed as a l i m i t a t i o n t o t h e s t u d y , i t
i s noted t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h e r , in a d d i t i o n t o being a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t

11

a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , has a l s o been a s t a f f member f o r nine
y e a r s with th e J u d i c i a l Programs O f f i c e under t h e O f f i c e o f th e Vice
P r e s i d e n t f o r S tu dent A f f a i r s and S e r v i c e s .

During t h a t p e ri o d o f

time t h e r e were c o n t a c t s with both s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y on s p e c i f i c
academic d i s h o n e s t y i s s u e s .

Whether e i t h e r t h e r a t e o f r e t u r n o f

q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o r t h e resp on ses provided were in any way i n f l u e n c e d
by t h e s t a f f r o l e o f the r e s e a r c h e r i s unknown; however, because the
c o n t a c t s were l i m i t e d and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e c o n t a c t s did not in c l u d e
d ecision-m aking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , t h e s t a f f r o l e o f th e r e s e a r c h e r i s not
seen as a l i m i t a t i o n t o t h e stu dy .

I t i s noted h e r e , however, should

t h e r e be an i n t e r e s t i n , o r need f o r examining t h i s v a r i a b l e in
subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
O r g a n iz a t i o n o f t h e Study
This study i s p r e s e n t e d in f i v e c h a p t e r s .

Chapter I i n c l u d e s

an i n t r o d u c t i o n t o t h e s t u d y , t h e s t a te m e n t o f t h e problem, followed
by t h e purpose and importance o f t h e study and t h e o b j e c t i v e s and
q u e s t i o n s t o be a d d r e s s e d .

The scope and l i m i t a t i o n s which should

be c o n s i d e r e d in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e study a r e a l s o p r e s e n t e d , as i s
an o u t l i n e o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e stu d y .
Chapter I I p r e s e n t s a s e l e c t e d review o f l i t e r a t u r e r e l a t e d
to the to p ic .

The review fo c u s e s on r e s e a r c h which was undertaken

t o examine d i s h o n e s t y among s t u d e n t s in h i g h e r e d u c a ti o n i n s t i t u t i o n s .
P a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n i s given t o th o se s t u d i e s which have i n v e s t i g a t e d
s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s r e l a t e d t o d i s h o n e s t y and t h e personal

12

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th o se i n d i v i d u a l s who engage in behav iors
c a t e g o r i z e d as d i s h o n e s t .
Chapter I I I d e s c r i b e s t h e d e sign o f t h e study and p r e s e n t s
d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e development o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,
t h e p o p u l a t i o n and t h e sample, and t h e methods used in c o l l e c t i n g t h e
data.

Also i n clu ded a re th e hypotheses t o be t e s t e d and a d e f i n i t i o n

o f terms used in t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a .
Chapter IV i n c l u d e s a p r e s e n t a t i o n o f d a ta c o l l e c t e d , i t s
a n a l y s i s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

The r e s u l t s o f th e t e s t i n g o f each

h y p o t h e s is a r e p r e s e n t e d in t h e o r d e r o u t l i n e d in Chapter I I I .
Chapter V summarizes th e f i n d i n g s o f th e s t u d y , p r e s e n t s
the c o n c l u s i o n s drawn by the r e s e a r c h e r , and su g g e s ts p o s s i b l e
im plications of those conclusions.
stu dy a r e a l s o i n c l u d e d .

Recommendations f o r f u r t h e r

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction
Dishonesty in academic work has been examined e x t e n s i v e l y and
w i t h i n many d i s c i p l i n e s .

In 1966 a b i b li o g r a p h y was p u b lis h ed which

in c l u d e d a l i s t i n g o f over 400 books, pamphlets, j o u r n a l s , and news­
p aper a r t i c l e s r e l a t e d to t h e t o p i c ( S h u r t l e f f ) .

Since t h a t time

c o n s i d e r a b l y more i n v e s t i g a t i o n has taken p la c e and th e l i t e r a t u r e
has i n c r e a s e d g r e a t l y .

No a tt e m p t i s made in t h i s c h a p t e r t o review

a l l t h e r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e ; r a t h e r , t h a t r e s e a r c h which r e l a t e s to
d i s h o n e s t y among c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s w i l l be r e p o r t e d .
With t h e e x c e p tio n o f two e a r l y s t u d i e s which, in t h e op in io n o f
t h e w r i t e r , provided a b a s i s f o r much o f t h e subs eque nt r e s e a r c h ,
t h i s review o f th e l i t e r a t u r e w i l l focus on s t u d i e s which have been
conducted s i n c e 1960.

Within many o f t h e s e s t u d i e s d i f f e r e n t types

o f v a r i a b l e s have been examined, th us making i t d i f f i c u l t t o develop
d i s t i n c t c a t e g o r i e s w i t h i n which t h e s t u d i e s can be r e p o r t e d .

While

the review r e p o r t s s t u d i e s by c a t e g o r y , the c a t e g o r i e s a r e not mutu­
a lly exclusive.

In r e p o r t i n g t h e s t u d i e s c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n has

been given t o t h e methodology used in t h e s t u d i e s as well as th e
findings.

This has been done in an e f f o r t t o put t h e f i n d i n g s in

13

14

a c o n t e x t which w i l l a s s i s t the r e a d e r in u n de rstand in g the d i f f e r e n c e s
in f i n d i n g s which may appear to be based on examination o f t h e same
variables.
Background S tud ies
Although t h e s t u d i e s in d e c e i t by Hartsho rne and May (1928)
in the l a t e 1920s did not involve c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s and examined l y in g
and s t e a l i n g as well as c h e a ti n g b e h a v i o r s , t h e i r work pro vided a b a s i s
f o r study o f both t h e personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th o se who p r a c t i c e
academic d i s h o n e s t y and the s i t u a t i o n s in which d i s h o n e s t y o c cu rs.
T h e ir work focused p a r t i c u l a r a t t e n t i o n on t h e school environment
and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to honesty in beh av io rs o f c h i l d r e n .
In i n t r o d u c i n g t h e i r work t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t
t h e i r s t u d i e s were being undertaken a t a time when, in s p i t e o f an
o be is an c e to the i d e a l o f honesty, f r a u d , o r d i s h o n e s t y e x i s t e d in
every walk o f l i f e , in s c h o o l s , b u s i n e s s , t h e p r o f e s s i o n s , p o l i t i c s ,
r e l i g i o n , and p r i v a t e l i f e .

They sought to study b e h av io r involved

in d e c e i t , and altho u gh they did not negate the importance o f stud y in g
motives and i d e a l s , they f e l t t h e f i r s t need was t o e s t a b l i s h t h e f a c t
o f d e c e p tio n and i t s amount and c h a r a c t e r .

An i n i t i a l assumption made

by t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s , which was borne out by t h e i r f i n d i n g s , was t h a t
t h e amount and c h a r a c t e r o f the d e c e p tio n was a f u n c t i o n o f the
situation.
Over 11,000 c h i l d r e n , p r i m a r i l y in grades 5 t o 8, were t h e
s u b j e c t s involved in th e s t u d i e s .

As i n d i c a t e d , t h r e e typ es o f

15

d e c e p t i v e b e h av io rs were s t u d i e d :

c h e a t i n g , l y i n g , and s t e a l i n g .

Cheating b e h a v i o r was measured by a s e r i e s o f d e c e p tio n t e s t s which
c o n ta in e d 22 o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r c h e a ti n g in cla ssroom work, 4 oppor­
t u n i t i e s in a t h l e t i c c o n t e s t s , 2 in p a r t y games, and 1 in school work
done a t home.

The measure o f l y in g included some 36 q u e s t i o n s ; s t e a l i n g

t e s t s o f f e r e d 2 chances t o s t e a l money and 1 to s t e a l small a r t i c l e s .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e i r t e s t s were r e l a t e d to such f a c t o r s as a g e , sex,
i n t e l l i g e n c e , school g r a d e , fam ily background, and p e er a c c u s a t i o n s
o f th e s u b j e c t s .

Some o f t h e f a c t o r s which were found to be p o s i t i v e l y

r e l a t e d to honesty were i n t e l l i g e n c e , h i g h e r income o f f a m i l i e s , emo­
t i o n a l s t a b i l i t y , school achieve ment, and good deportment marks.

It

was found t h a t a s t u d e n t ' s c h e a t i n g sc o re on c e r t a i n cla ssroom t e s t s
was very much l i k e t h a t o f h i s a s s o c i a t e s .

The r e s e a r c h e r s concluded

t h a t d e c e i t o r h on e sty a re not u n i f i e d c h a r a c t e r t r a i t s b u t , r a t h e r ,
sp e c ific functions of s i tu a tio n s .

C h eatin g, l y i n g , and s t e a l i n g as

measured by t h e t e s t s u t i l i z e d , were found t o be only l o o s e l y r e l a t e d ,
and even w i t h i n t h e measures o f c h e a t i n g i t was found t h a t a s t u d e n t
might chea t on one ty pe o f t e s t but not on a n o t h e r .
Hartshorne and May s t a t e d t h a t :

From t h e i r work

"Whether a c h i l d w i l l p r a c t i c e d e c e i t

in any given s i t u a t i o n depends in p a r t on h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e , a g e , home
background, and t h e l i k e , in p a r t on t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n i t s e l f
and h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n t o i t " (p. 412).

I t i s w i t h i n t h i s frame­

work t h a t much o f t h e r e s e a r c h on academic d i s h o n e s t y has s i n c e been
conducted.

16

One o f t h e e a r l y s t u d i e s which examined hone sty among c o l l e g e
s t u d e n t s was done by James in 1933.

Although t h e study did n o t examine

b e h a v i o r which today might be c o n s t r u e d t o be d i s h o n e s t , an e f f o r t was
made t o s e p a r a t e c la im s r e g a r d i n g honesty from a c t u a l b e h a v io r .

In

h i s work James undertook t h e fo llo w in g fo u r s t u d i e s t o a n aly ze the
s t a t u s o f h on e sty among young p e o p le , p a r t i c u l a r l y c o l l e g e women.
(1)

Honesty as shown by b l u f f i n g among c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s was

a s s e s s e d by a d m i n i s t e r i n g a m u l t i p l e ch o ic e 2 0 - item t e s t t o 102 c o l l e g e
s t u d e n t s , t o which none o f t h e c h o ic es were c o r r e c t .

The r e s u l t s i n d i ­

c a t e d t h a t p r e t e n d i n g t o know t h e r i g h t answer i s g e n e r a l l y p r a c t i c e d
and t h a t t h e ten dency f o r b l u f f i n g i n c r e a s e s as t h e s t u d e n t p r o g r e s s e s
in c l a s s .

(2) Honesty as shown by c h e a t i n g was measured by response

t o a c o n f i d e n t i a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e given t o t e a c h e r s and c h i l d r e n in
e le m e n ta r y and high s c h o o l s .

Info rm a tio n was o b t a i n e d from 439

c h i l d r e n in 10 d i f f e r e n t s c h o o l s .

One hundred p e r c e n t o f th e high

school s t u d e n t s and 98 p e r c e n t o f t h e t e a c h e r s had been connected
with c h e a t i n g in some form.
f a c t o r in c h e a t i n g .

Expediency seemed t o be t h e d e c id in g

(3) Honesty as shown by l y i n g among c o l l e g e g i r l s

was a s s e s s e d by f i r s t d e v elop in g a check l i s t o f l i e s t o l d t o each
o t h e r , t o p a r e n t s , and t e a c h e r s .

S t u d e n ts were asked t o i n d i c a t e

whether t h e y l i e d r e g u l a r l y , o c c a s i o n a l l y , o r ne ver about the items
on t h e check l i s t .

In o r d e r t o check on whether t h e s u b j e c t s would

l i e on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e i t s e l f , t h e y were asked about t h e i r own
p r a c t i c e and t h e i r o p i n io n o f t h e p r a c t i c e o f o t h e r s .

James con­

c lu ded t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s were f r a n k in answering about t h e i r own

17

person al p r a c t i c e .

The ge neral c o n c lu sio n was t h a t l y i n g was th e

p r e v a l e n t p a t t e r n and, a g a i n , expediency seemed t o be t h e most
im p o r tan t v a r i a b l e whether in d e a l i n g with p e e r s , p a r e n t s , o r
teachers.

(4) Honesty as shown by c o l l e g e women concerning t h e i r

ch o ic e of a f u t u r e h usband's o c cu pa tio n was measured by a sking c o l l e g e
women t o name t h e v o c a tio n in which th ey most p r e f e r r e d t h e i r f u t u r e
husbands t o engage.

Vocations were f i r s t r a t e d by c o l l e g e and high

school s t u d e n t s , as well as t e a c h e r s , as to honesty p r a c t i c e d w i t h i n
groups.

The women ranked th e p r o f e s s i o n of law ne xt to l a s t in terms

o f an " ho n es t p r o f e s s i o n " but r a t e d i t f i r s t in terms of ch o ic e f o r
husband.

Honesty was g e n e r a l l y ov erb alanced by o t h e r f a c t o r s .

The

f i n d i n g s o f t h e f o u r s t u d i e s p o i n t t o t h e c o n c lu sio n t h a t honesty i s
not developed in o ur e d u c a ti o n a l procedure in home or school and t h a t
people r e l y more on t h a t which i s e x p e d i e n t , no t n e c e s s a r i l y t h a t which
i s h o n e st.
James concluded t h a t " t h e d i f f e r e n c e between p r a c t i c e , as
shown by t h e s e f i g u r e s , and t h e g e n e r a l l y a c c e p te d s t a n d a r d s o f s o c i a l
conduct i s so g r e a t and o f such a v i t a l n a t u r e t h a t more evid ence i s
needed t o s u b s t a n t i a t e the f i n d i n g s " (p. 578).

James, l i k e Hartshorne

and May, c a u t io n e d a g a i n s t t h i n k i n g o f honesty as a ge neral t r a i t and
n o t e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s may-be honest in one endeavor and d i s h o n e s t in
another.

His work p rov id ed evid ence t h a t genera l honesty was n o t

t a u g h t , and he su g gested t h a t i t might be n e c e s s a r y t o d i s r e g a r d a
s e n t im e n t a l idea o f honesty and s u b s t i t u t e a more p r a c t i c a l working
c o n c e p t.

18

Theory
Two w idely held t h e o r i e s o f honesty a r e the "General View"
o f h o ne sty, which holds c h e a t i n g to be an a s p e c t o f general m o r a l i t y
r e l a t e d t o background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and t h e " S p e c i f i c i t y Hypoth­
e s i s , " which holds c h e a ti n g to be a type o f c u l t u r a l t r a n s g r e s s i o n
not r e l a t e d t o background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r o t h e r forms o f t r a n s ­
gressions.

As r e p o r t e d , t h e e a r l y s t u d i e s o f Hartshorne and May and

James c a u t io n e d a g a i n s t t h i n k i n g o f honesty as a general t r a i t , g iv in g
a t t e n t i o n to t h e i n f l u e n c e o f s i t u a t i o n s on behavior.
Burton (1 963), in an a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a ta c o l l e c t e d by
Hartshorne and May, reached a somewhat d i f f e r e n t co n clu sio n than
t h e r e s e a r c h e r s r e g a r d i n g th e f u n c t i o n o f s i t u a t i o n to moral b e h a v io r .
The b a s i s f o r the c o n c l u s i o n s reached by Hartsho rn e and May was t h a t
the c o r r e l a t i o n s between c h e a t i n g t e s t s were too low to produce e v i ­
dence o f a u n i f i e d c h a r a c t e r t r a i t o f h o ne sty .

Burton, however,

concluded t h a t t h e r e were o v e r l a p p in g elements in the t e s t s i t u a t i o n s
and t h e d a ta led him to f a v o r a more general view o f hone st y.

He did

n o t , however, t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l ' s b e h av io r w i l l
n e c e s s a r i l y be c o n s i s t e n t over many d i f f e r e n t kinds o f s i t u a t i o n s ,
a p o s i t i o n which i s r e f l e c t e d in t h e work done by MacKinnon (1938).
Although MacKinnon acknowledged t h a t he did not t e s t over d i f f e r e n t
kinds o f s i t u a t i o n s , he argued t h a t t h e

t e s t i n g t h a t was done provided

s u f f i c i e n t support fo r his conclusion regarding the g e n e r a lity of
character.

19

In h i s review and r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f th e g e n e r a l i t y o f ho n esty ,
Burton had suggest ed t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e c o g n i t i v e , e s p e c i a l l y v e r b a l ,
a s s o c i a t i o n between two kinds o f t e m p t a t io n s i t u a t i o n s , t h e g r e a t e r
w i l l be t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e same response in both s i t u a t i o n s .
Based on t h i s s u g g e s t i o n , S t e i n i n g e r (1968) sought t o t e s t the
h y p o th e s is t h a t a s t u d e n t ' s s t a te m e n t about t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r
c h e a t i n g in a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n i s a compromise between a n e g a t iv e
a t t i t u d e about c h e a t i n g in general and t h e p r e s s u r e o f a p a r t i c u l a r
situation.

In a p rev io u s s t u d y , S t e i n i n g e r , with Johnson and K i r t s

(1964) developed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o measure s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e s about
cheating.

Because t h i s measure o f a t t i t u d e s has been used in se v e r a l

subseque nt s t u d i e s i t w i l l be d e s c r i b e d in d e t a i l in th e review o f
S t e i n i n g e r ' s stu dy:

" A t t i t u d e s Toward Cheating: . General and S p e c i f i c "

(1968).
In S t e i n i n g e r ' s stud y 189 freshmen a t Moravian College were
a d m i n i s t e r e d two q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a t a co n v o ca tio n .

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

were d i s t r i b u t e d on a random b a s i s and r esp on d en ts were assu re d
anonymity.

On both q u e s t i o n n a i r e s a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g were

measured by a skin g s t u d e n t s t o i n d i c a t e on a 1 to 5 s c a l e how g r e a t
t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r c h e a t i n g would be on each o f 32 s i t u a t i o n s
which were based on a l l p o s s i b l e combinations o f f i v e dichotomous
variables.

The f i v e dichotomous v a r i a b l e s i d e n t i f i e d in Q uestion­

n a i r e I were "new and i n t e r e s t i n g " vs "meager and u n i n t e r e s t i n g "
co u rs e c o n t e n t ; "good" vs "poor" p r o f e s s o r ; "hard" vs "easy" t e s t s ;
p r o f e s s o r " l e a v e s " vs " s t a y s " in t h e room d uring t e s t s ; and

20

"meaningful" vs " s e n s e l e s s " t e s t s .

On Q u e stio n n a ir e II t h e dichotomous

v a r i a b l e s were "meaningful" vs " s e n s e l e s s " t e s t s ; " o b j e c t i v e " vs
"essa y" t e s t s ; a "warm and f r i e n d l y " vs a "cold and a l o o f " p r o f e s s o r ;
a p r o f e s s o r who d i s c o v e r s c h e a ti n g " r a r e l y " vs one who d i s c o v e r s i t
" f r e q u e n t l y " ; and a cou rse average to d a te o f "D o r lower" vs "B or
higher."
A common f i n a l s e c t i o n o f both q u e s t i o n n a i r e s asked about the
s t u d e n t s ' r e a c t i o n s t o the r e s e a r c h , t h e i r e s t i m a t e s o f t h e t y p i c a l
c h e a t i n g b e havio r o f c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s g e n e r a l l y and t h a t o f t h e i r
clo sest friends.

Background in fo rm a tio n such as age and sex was

also s o lic ite d .
The f i n d i n g s f o r both s e t s o f s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s showed
t h e p r e d i c t e d J - c u r v e o f con fo rm ity ( A l l p o r t , 1934) f o r "good"
s i t u a t i o n s , as well as t h e p r e d i c t e d d e v i a t i o n from t h i s curve f o r
"bad" s i t u a t i o n s , th u s s u p p o r t i n g th e h y p o th e s is s t a t e d .

Unlike

p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s , no d i f f e r e n c e s were noted in t h e response s
between men and women.
Support f o r t h e " S p e c i f i c i t y Hypothesis" r e g a r d i n g h on e sty ,
as opposed t o t h e "General View," was r e p o r t e d by G a r f i e l d , Cohen,
and Roth (1967) based on a study in which they sought t o t e s t th e
d i f f e r e n t p r e d i c t i o n s o f t h e two p o s i t i o n s .

T h i r t y males and 50

fem ales in an urban u n i v e r s i t y were given a T-F t e s t and t o l d to
c o r r e c t t h e i r own p a p e r s , and a f t e r c o r r e c t i n g them th ey were advised
t h a t 50 t o 60 p e r c e n t o f a l l c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s c h e a t when given an
o p p o r t u n i t y t o do so.

An anonymous q u e s t i o n n a i r e was then given

21

which asked them i f th ey had c h e a te d .

I t also s o lic ite d personal-social

background in f o r m a tio n and asked them to r a t e t h e i r g u i l t about
c h e a t i n g with o t h e r types o f t r a n s g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r s .
Cheating was n o t found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with any
o f t h e background v a r i a b l e s ; however, g u i l t about c h e a t i n g did c o r r e l a t e
s i g n i f i c a n t l y ( . 0 1 ) with sex and r e l i g i o n .

There was found to be no

s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between c h e a ti n g and o t h e r t r a n s g r e s s i v e
b e h a v io r s s t u d i e d .

G u i l t about c h e a ti n g c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y

w ith g u i l t about d r i n k i n g but no o t h e r g u i l t ite m s.

While the r e s u l t s

te n d t o s u p p o r t t h e s p e c i f i c i t y h y p o th e s is o f c h e a t i n g , t h e t y p e s o f
t r a n s g r e s s i v e b e h av io r s which were compared with c h e a t i n g may be
q u e s t i o n e d as " accepted " t r a n s g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r s , thus r a i s i n g a
q u e s t i o n about t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d .
Measure o f A t t i t u d e s and T h e i r Impact
A study by Anderson (1957) was und ertaken to a s s e s s general
a t t i t u d e s o f u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s toward c h e a t i n g and, a l s o , to
d e l i n e a t e a t t i t u d e s by sex and t h e c o l l e g e in which t h e s t u d e n t s
were e n r o l l e d .

An o p i n i o n n a i r e was a d m i n i s t e r e d to 505 u n i v e r s i t y

s t u d e n t s , 224 women and 281 men from f i v e c o l l e g e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y
o f Alabama.

The s t u d e n t s were asked t o r a t e , 1 through 5, t h e i r

p e rs o n al a t t i t u d e toward 28 d i f f e r e n t b e havio r s i t u a t i o n s .

The

s i t u a t i o n s were based on b e h av io r s which o t h e r s than t h o s e who
p a r t i c i p a t e d in t h e st udy had observed and c o n s i d e r e d as c h e a t i n g .
The mean res po n se s i n d i c a t e d t h a t s t u d e n t s c l e a r l y d i s c r i m i n a t e d

22

among the s i t u a t i o n s .

C e r ta in s i t u a t i o n s , a ltho u gh l a b e le d as c h e a t i n g

by seme, n e v e r t h e l e s s were c o n sid e r e d by most t o be d e s i r a b l e ways o f
behaving.

Other s i t u a t i o n s were c o n sid e r e d h i g h ly o b j e c t i o n a b l e by

most s t u d e n t s , with a middle r a t i n g group o f s i t u a t i o n s on which t h e r e
was c o n s i d e r a b l e d isa g r ee m e n t.

U n i v e r s i t y women e x p re ss ed s t r i c t e r

f e e l i n g s toward c h e a t i n g than men, with g r a d u a t e women in e d u c a ti o n
e x p r e s s i n g the s t r i c t e s t and sophomore women in a r t s and s c i e n c e and
commerce r e l a t i v e l y much more t o l e r a n t .

Among men, t h e g r a d u a t e s and

freshmen in e d u c a tio n expre ssed t h e s t r i c t e s t a t t i t u d e s , with th e most
t o l e r a n t a t t i t u d e s found in commerce and e n g i n e e r i n g .
The Anderson a t t i t u d e o p i n i o n n a i r e was used in two subseque nt
s t u d i e s by Frymier and Uhlig and Howes.
Frymier (1960) sought t o i d e n t i f y beh avio rs t h a t would be
c o n s i d e r e d c h e a t i n g and t o a s s e s s whether s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y see
c h e a t i n g t h e same way.

The Anderson o p i n i o n n a i r e was a m i n i s t e r e d to

a random sample o f t h e f a c u l t y o f t h e t h r e e l a r g e c o l l e g e s w i t h i n t h e
university.

Four i n s t r u c t o r s a d m i n i s t e r e d the same o p i n i o n n a i r e t o

130 s t u d e n t s in t h e i r c l a s s e s .

The o p i n i o n n a i r e c a l l e d f o r a 1 to 5

r a t i n g o f a t t i t u d e s toward 28 be h av io ral s i t u a t i o n s .

The d i f f e r e n c e

in f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t t o t a l sc o r e s was s i g n i f i c a n t a t the .001 l e v e l .
In 24 o f t h e 28 b e h a v io r a l s i t u a t i o n s f a c u l t y were more s e v e r e in
l a b e l i n g t h e b e h av ior "n o t j u s t i f i e d " a lth ou g h many d i f f e r e n c e s were
slight.

F a c u l t y , more than s t u d e n t s , tended t o employ t h e extremes

o f t h e s c a l e , t h e d i f f e r e n c e beyond t h e .001 l e v e l o f c o n fi d e n c e .
The d a ta seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s see c h e a t i n g

23

differently.

While some d i f f e r e n c e s were noted in s p e c i f i c b e h a v i o r s ,

t h e d i f f e r e n c e s seemed to be more g e n e r a l i z e d and more in degree than
d irection.

As was e x p e c te d , f a c u l t y were g e n e r a l l y more s e v ere in

d e s c r i b i n g s i t u a t i o n s as c h e a t i n g than were s t u d e n t s .

While t h e r e

were s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e two groups in
t h e i r o r i e n t a t i o n to c h e a t i n g , t h e o v e r a l l p a t t e r n s were q u i t e s i m i l a r .
Frymier su g gested th e in s t r u m e n t used to a s s e s s a t t i t u d e s
may have lacked s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .

This s u g g e stio n r a i s e s an im p ortan t

c a u t io n s i n c e , as Frymier s t a t e d , very few f i n e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s in
perceptions occurred.
The study by Uhlig and Howes (1967) was undertaken to i n v e s ­
t i g a t e a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g , t o de termine t h e e x t e n t t o which
s t u d e n t s c h e a t d u rin g an examination given an o p p o r t u n i t y , and to
examine how a t t i t u d e s r e l a t e to a c t u a l b e h av io r.
conducted in t h r e e ph ase s:

The stud y was

(1) a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Anderson’s a t t i -

t u d i n a l s c a l e which e l i c i t s r e sp o nse s t o 28 c o n t r i v e d s i t u a t i o n s
ranging from g e n e r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e to wholly u n a c c e p t a b l e ; (2) oppor­
t u n i t y to s e l f - s c o r e exam in atio ns which had been p r e v i o u s l y graded
(one group in a s t r e s s s i t u a t i o n , t h e o t h e r n o t ) ; and (3) comparing
a t t i t u d e s and a c t u a l c h e a t i n g b e h a v io r .

The i n v e s t i g a t o r s found t h a t

a l a r g e p e rc e n ta g e o f s t u d e n t s w i l l c h e a t i f t h e s i t u a t i o n i s an
advantageous one, but t h a t t h e e x t e n t o f e x t e r n a l s t r e s s does not
appear to make a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e .

A t t i t u d e s as measured by

t h e Anderson s c a l e did not appear t o p r e d i c t a c t u a l b e h av io r .

24

The Anderson s c a l e , as an in s t r u m e n t to measure a t t i t u d e s was
q u e s t i o n e d by Uhlig and Howes s i n c e d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s have y i e l d e d
different resu lts.

The c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from t h i s study which r e l a t e

to t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t i t u d e s and a c t i o n s should perhaps be
viewed with c a u t i o n .
S h e r r i l l , S a l i s b u r y , Horowitz, and Friedman (1971) a l s o sought
to d e te rm in e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a t t i t u d e and p e r c e p t i o n s about
c h e a t i n g and a c t u a l observed c h e a t i n g b e h a v io r .

One hundred n i n e t y -

t h r e e s t u d e n t s in one s e c t i o n o f an i n t r o d u c t o r y s c i e n c e course a t
a l a r g e u n i v e r s i t y were the s u b j e c t s .

On t h r e e hourly exams dur ing

t h e s e m e s te r t h e s t u d e n t s were asked t o grade t h e i r own papers a f t e r
t h e exams had a l r e a d y been graded by the e x p e r i m e n t o r s , altho u gh t h i s
was n o t known t o t h e s t u d e n t s .

Following t h e t h i r d t e s t s t u d e n t s were

c l a s s i f i e d as " c h e a t e r s " or " n o n - c h e a t e r s " based on sc o r e d i s c r e p a n c i e s .
T h i r t y - f o u r p e r c e n t were i d e n t i f i e d as n o n - c h e a t e r s , 66 p e r c e n t as
ch eaters.
To a s s e s s an a t t i t u d e toward c h e a t i n g , a 15- item a t t i t u d e
s c a l e which was developed from a s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s a d d re ss ed to
a comparable s e c t i o n was a d m i n i s t e r e d .
f o l lo w in g q u e s t i o n s :

The items were based on t h e

(1) I s c h e a t i n g a good, bad, o r n e u t r a l a c t ?

(2) Should c h e a t i n g be s u b j e c t e d t o s t e r n , m ild , o r no punishment?
(3) I s c h e a t i n g r e l a t e d t o academic su c ce ss ? and (4) Is c h e a t i n g
j u s t i f i e d under given c o n d i t i o n s ?

Responses to each o f t h e items

were made on a s i x - p o i n t a g r e e / d i s a g r e e continuum.

Students' per­

c e p t i o n o f c h e a t i n g was a s s e s s e d by a q u e s t i o n n a i r e a d m i n i s t e r e d by

25

t h e i n s t r u c t o r a t th e time o f t h e f i n a l exam in atio n.

S u b j e c t s were

asked t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s t h a t had c h eate d on each exam and,
f o r t h o s e t h a t c h e a t e d , t h e amount.
In g e n e r a l , s t u d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g were n e g a t iv e
with t h o s e c a t e g o r i z e d as c h e a t e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s n e g a t iv e than
non-cheaters.
data.

A T - t e s t f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e was used in a n a ly z in g th e

D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between c h e a t e r s who had cheated on t h r e e

o c c a s i o n s , as opposed t o th o se c h e a t i n g only once, a l t e r e d the
findings.

Although t h e means were l i n e a r in d i r e c t i o n , no s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s were found.
The p e rc e n t a g e o f c h e a t i n g b eh av io r e s t im a t e d by c h e a t e r s was
s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r than t h a t e s t i m a t e d by n o n - c h e a t e r s .

In a l l

i n s t a n c e s i t was found t h a t c h e a t e r s had h i g h e r e s t i m a t e s o f t h e
a v erage number o f p o i n t s added t o a g rad e ; however, only in one
i n s t a n c e were t h e e s t i m a t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t .

The r e s u l t s

s u p p o rte d t h e h y p o t h e s is t h a t a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s were s u p p o r t i v e
of cheating behavior.

The r e s e a r c h e r s concluded t h a t t h e i r f i n d i n g s

argued a g a i n s t c h arg es o f i n v a l i d i t y o f i n d i r e c t measures.
A s tu d y conducted by Freeman and Ataov (1960) examined th e
r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c t u a l c h e a t i n g b e h a v i o r , t h r e e i n d i r e c t a t t i t u d e
items r e l a t e d to c h e a t i n g , and a d i r e c t q u e s t i o n r e g a r d i n g whether or
not t h e s u b j e c t s had c h e a te d .

The s u b j e c t s were 38 freshmen and

sophopmores e n r o l l e d in an i n t r o d u c t o r y so c io lo g y cours e a t Syracuse
U niversity.

Actual c h e a t i n g b e h a v i o r was measured by a method in

which s u b j e c t s c o u l d , supposedly w i th o u t d e t e c t i o n , change answers

26

t o exam q u e s t i o n s when c o r r e c t answers were read a f t e r the t e s t s
were completed.
Four weeks fo llo w in g t h e exam t h e s t u d e n t s were given an
"Honor System Q u e s t i o n n a i r e " with t h r e e s e t s o f q u e s t i o n s .
r egarded f a c t u a l d a ta about th e honor system.

The f i r s t

The second s e t r e q u i r e d

t h e s t u d e n t s t o de cid e whether s t u d e n t s d e s c r i b e d in ambiguous hypo­
t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s were o r were not c h e a t i n g .

The t h i r d s e t d e s c r i b e d

c h e a t i n g in a s e r i e s o f c o n t r i v e d s i t u a t i o n s and r e q u i r e d t h e s t u d e n t s
t o de cide whether o r n o t c h e a ti n g had o c cu rred .

F in a lly , the students

were asked d i r e c t l y whether they had e v er ch ea te d on an exam.
I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among v a r i a b l e s were computed and r e v e a l e d
no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between any o f t h e p a i r s o f v a r i a b l e s
studied.

Based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s concluded n e i t h e r

t h e i n d i r e c t items nor t h e d i r e c t q u e s t io n used in t h i s study were o f
any u t i l i t y whatso ever in p r e d i c t i n g o v e r t behavior.
Freeman and Ataov were quick t o acknowledge t h a t t h e i r r e s u l t s
did not demonstrate any ge neral la c k o f v a l i d i t y on t h e p a r t o f items
o f e i t h e r t y p e —d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t .

The r e s u l t s o f th e st udy do,

however, c a u t i o n a g a i n s t assumptions about the r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e i t h e r
d i r e c t or i n d i r e c t i n d i c e s t o a c t u a l b e h av ior.

The lack o f c o r r e l a t i o n

between a c t u a l c h e a t i n g and response to t h e d i r e c t q u e s t io n on whether
t h e y had e v e r c h ea te d may be m i s l e a d i n g , s i n c e s t u d e n t s were no t asked
t o s e l f - r e p o r t on t h e s i t u a t i o n in which a c t u a l c h e a t i n g was noted.
DeVries and Ajen (1971) undertook a study t o examine s t u d e n t s '
a t t i t u d e s and normative b e l i e f s toward c h e a t i n g , c h e a ti n g i n t e n t i o n s ,

27

and t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p to a c t u a l s e l f - r e p o r t e d c h e a t i n g b e h av ior.
F i s h b e i n ' s (1967) t h e o r e t i c a l model, which holds t h a t a p e r s o n ' s
b ehavior i n t e n t i o n s in any given s i t u a t i o n a re t h e j o i n t f u n c t i o n
o f h is a t t i t u d e towards performing t h e b e havio r and h i s b e l i e f s about
what o t h e r s exp ec t him t o do in t h a t s i t u a t i o n , was u t i l i z e d in th e
s tud y .
S u b j e c t s were 36 men and 36 women from a midwest s t a t e
u n i v e r s i t y and 37 men and 37 women from a midwest C a l v i n i s t c o l l e g e .
A f o u r - p a r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was a d m i n i s t e r e d by t h e r e s e a r c h e r s in a
regular class session.

The f i r s t p a r t o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e d e a l t with

" c h e a ti n g in c o l l e g e , " th e second with "copying answers from o t h e r
c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s ' t e s t p a p e r s , " t h e t h i r d with "allow ing o t h e r s to
copy from o n e ' s own t e s t p a p e r s , " and t h e f o u r t h p a r t r e q u e s t e d the
s u b j e c t s to i n d i c a t e sex, GPA, grade l e v e l , r e l i g i o s i t y , and the type
of college.

The a t t i t u d i n a l and normative v a r i a b l e s were d e fin e d

operationally.
C o r r e l a t i o n s were computed f o r each o f t h e b i o g r a p h i c a l
in d i c e s and both b e h a v i o r a l i n t e n t i o n s and s e l f - r e p o r t e d c h e a ti n g
b e h av io r.

All c o r r e l a t i o n s proved i n s i g n i f i c a n t .

There were, however,

hig h ly s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between t h e p r e d i c t i o n s in F i s h b e i n ' s
model and c h e a t i n g i n t e n t i o n s as well as s e l f - r e p o r t s o f c h e a ti n g
b e h a v io r .

Normative b e l i e f s o f t h e p e e r group and fam ily were h ig h ly

and s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o b e h a v io r a l components.
o f t h e church were found t o be u n r e l a t e d .

Normative b e l i e f s

28

The exp erim e n to rs acknowledged methodology problems in t h e
way t h e s u b j e c t s ' m o ti v a ti o n to comply w ith t h e s o c i a l normative
b e l i e f was measured.
analysis.

This component was l a t e r o m itted from the

The la c k o f r e l a t i o n s h i p between b i o g r a p h i c a l v a r i a b l e s

and c h e a t i n g b e h a v i o r i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t with f i n d i n g s in o t h e r s t u d i e s .
The i n v e s t i g a t o r s s u g g e st t h a t t h i s may be because s e l f - r e p o r t e d
b e h av ior r a t h e r than observed b eh av io r was used as t h e index o f
cheating.
Knowlton and Hamerlynck (1967) sought to determine t h e " c h e a ti n g
s i t u a t i o n " on two campuses and to t e s t t h e " s o c i a l - p e r c e p t u a l theory"
in r e l a t i o n s h i p to c h e a t i n g b e h av io r .

The i n v e s t i g a t o r s a s s e s s e d

s e l f - p e r c e p t i o n and p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e environment f o r both c h e a t e r s
and n o n - c h e a t e r s .

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were given t o a 10 p e r c e n t sample

o f u n d e rg r a d u a te s a t a small f o u r - y e a r l i b e r a l a r t s c o l l e g e and t o a
5 p e r c e n t sample o f u n d e rg r a d u a te s and g r a d u a t e s a t l a r g e m e t r o p o l i t a n
u n i v e r s i t i e s in o r d e r t o e l i c i t judgments about t h e c h e a t i n g b eh av io r
of them se lves and o t h e r s , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g and t h e i r
o p i n io n s about " t h e c h e a t i n g s i t u a t i o n " a t t h e i r s c h o o l.

Personal

d a ta were a l s o c o l l e c t e d .
Three s p e c i f i c hypotheses were t e s t e d :

(1) C he aters w i l l

p e r c e i v e more c h e a t i n g going on around them than w i l l n o n - c h e a t e r s ;
(2) i n d i v i d u a l s who d e v i a t e from group norms w i l l be l e s s condemning
o f t h i s b e h a v io r than t h o s e who do not d e v i a t e ; and (3) i n d i v i d u a l s
who d e v i a t e from s o c i a l l y p r e s c r i b e d norms w i l l tend t o a t t r i b u t e
t h e i r own d e v i a t i o n t o e x t e r n a l f o r c e s w h ile i n d i v i d u a l s who do no t

29

d e v i a t e w i l l tend to b e l i e v e t h a t th ose who do, do so because o f
i n t e r n a l f o r c e s ( e . g . , p e r s o n a l i t y with c h a r a c t e r d e f e c t ) .

Students

who c l a s s i f i e d themselves as c h e a t e r s tended to gi ve h i g h e r e s t i m a t e s
as to the e x t e n t o f c h e a t i n g , tended to be l e s s condemning o f c h e a t i n g ,
and e x p l a i n e d c h e a t i n g as due to environmental f a c t o r s , whereas, the
n o n - c h e a t e r s d e s c r i b e d t h e c h e a t e r s as having a b a s i c p e r s o n a l i t y
defect.

While th e d a ta r e p o r t e d g e n e r a l l y tended t o su pp o rt the

h y p o t h e s e s , the e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e f i n d i n g s , by the i n v e s t i g a t o r s '
acknowledgment, i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y found w i t h in the c l i n i c a l concept
o f p r o j e c t i o n u t i l i z e d w i t h in t h e study.

The f i n d i n g s do, however,

p ro v id e s u p p o r t f o r t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n
between a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g and a c t u a l b e h av io r .
I n d iv id u a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Those
A s so c ia te d with Acts o f Dishonesty
Based on t h e prev io u s r e s e a r c h , which has i n d i c a t e d t h a t
s t u d e n t s who were l e s s c r i t i c a l o f c h e a ti n g were more l i k e l y to
c h e a t , Centra (1970) sought t o i n d i r e c t l y study " c h e a t e r s " by s tud y in g
a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g .

S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e s t u d y examined the

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f s t u d e n t s with l e n i e n t a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a ti n g
and a tte m p te d to dete rm ine whether d i f f e r e n t typ es o f i n s t i t u t i o n s
e n r o l l s t u d e n t s who a r e more l i k e l y t o c h e a t .

The s t u d e n t sample

in c lu d e d 1,500 e n t e r i n g freshmen from 37 i n s t i t u t i o n s .

One hundred

n i n e t e e n f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s were used in compiling
i n s t i t u t i o n a l measures.

The 119 i n s t i t u t i o n s r e p r e s e n t e d 9 d i f f e r e n t

30

i n s t i t u t i o n a l types.

The s t u d e n t s were s t r a t i f i e d by sex and type

o f i n s t i t u t i o n attended.
The e n t e r i n g freshmen responded t o th e College Student
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , P a r t 1, which a s s e s s e s background and a t t i t u d i n a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , i n c l u d i n g each s t u d e n t ' s r e a c t i o n to c h e a t i n g .

Six

resp on ses from "do nothing" to " r e p o r t the s t u d e n t" were i n clu d ed .
Seven s c a l e s , Family Independence, Peer Independence, L i b e r a l i s m ,
So cial Conscience, C u l tu r a l S o p h i s t i c a t i o n , Mot ivation f o r Grades,
and Family So cial S t a t u s were a l s o i n clu ded.
An a n a l y s i s o f v a ri a n c e was done on s c a l e s c o r e s and d i f f e r e n t
a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g .

Stu d e n ts who s a i d th ey were not d i s t u r b e d

by, and would do n o th in g a b o u t , a n o th e r s t u d e n t c h e a ti n g

were found to

have l e s s academic m o ti v a ti o n and fewer a r t i s t i c - 1 i t e r a r y i n t e r e s t s and
found t o be more a c c e p t i n g o f u n e t h i c a l p r a c t i c e s in t h e l a r g e r s o c i e t y .
They were g e n e r a l l y from the lower socioeconomic group with males and
commuters s l i g h t l y more p r e v a l e n t .
I t was found t h a t s m a l l , all-w om en's or s e l e c t i v e i n s t i t u t i o n s ,
e n r o l l e d s t u d e n t s with s t r o n g a t t i t u d e s a g a i n s t c h e a t i n g .
i n s t i t u t i o n s a l s o had lower r e p o r t e d c h e a t i n g r a t e s .

These

C a th o l i c men's

c o l l e g e s had t h e h i g h e s t p e rc e n ta g e o f s t u d e n t s with d e v i a n t r e s p o n s e s .
This study su g g e s t s t h a t th e kind o f s t u d e n t who e n r o l l s in an
i n s t i t u t i o n i s an im p o r ta n t d e te r m i n a n t o f t h e p e e r c l i m a t e .

Centra

s t i p u l a t e s , however, t h a t f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h i s needed to i n v e s t i g a t e
ways, o t h e r than through s e l e c t i v e a d m is s io n s , in which i n s t i t u t i o n s
can change u n d e s i r a b l e p e e r c l i m a t e s .

31

H e th e rin g to n and Feldman (1964) undertook a study t o de termine
what i n t e r a c t i o n e x i s t s , i f any, between ty pes o f c h e a t i n g b eh avio rs
and s u b j e c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
defined:

Four ty pes o f c h e a t i n g b e havio r were

i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c - o p p o r t u n i s t i c , c h e a t i n g which i s unplanned

and im p u l s i v e ; i n d i v i d u a l i s t i c - p l a n n e d , c h e a t i n g which i nv o lv e s an
element o f f o r e s i g h t and p r e l i m i n a r y a c t i v i t y ; s o c i a l - a c t i v e , c h e a t i n g
which in v o lv e s two o r more people and in which the s u b j e c t a c t i v e l y
i n s t i g a t e s a c t i v i t y ; and s o c i a l - p a s s i v e , c h e a t i n g which in v o lv e s two
o r more people but the s u b j e c t p la y s a p a s s i v e r o l e .

Info rmatio n

r e l a t i n g t o the s u b j e c t s themselves was o b t a i n e d from a b a t t e r y o f
personality te s ts :

Concept Mastery T e s t (CMT), C a l i f o r n i a P e r s o n a l i t y

In v en to r y (CPI), Edwards Personal P r e f e r e n c e Schedule (EPPS), and
Minnesota M u l t ip h a s i c P e r s o n a l i t y In v en to r y (MMPI), as well as a
q u e s t i o n n a i r e e l i c i t i n g demographic d a t a .

The s u b j e c t s were 78

s t u d e n t s , 39 male and 39 fem ale, in two psychology c l a s s e s a t a
large u niversity.
All s u b j e c t s were e v a l u a t e d in t h r e e s i t u a t i o n s which they
reg arded as r o u t i n e cla ssroom p rocedures but which o f f e r e d them an
o p p o r t u n i t y to c h e a t .

In t h e f i r s t s i t u a t i o n , an o b j e c t i v e exam,

f i v e o b s e r v e r s rec o rd ed i n s t a n c e s o f c r i b n o t e s , copying, o r p e r ­
m i t t i n g someone to copy.

S u b j e c t s a l s o were asked t o grade t h e i r

own pa pers unaware t h a t they had been score d p r e v i o u s l y .

In th e

second s i t u a t i o n , an e ssa y exam, s t u d e n t s were given a l i s t o f f i v e
p o s s i b l e t e s t q u e s t i o n s and informed t h a t t h e t e s t would be two o f
those qu estio n s.

Examination b o o k l e t s passed out a t t h e time o f t h e

32

exam ination were i n c o n s p ic u o u s l y marked so t h a t i f an a l r e a d y completed
exam ination b o o k l e t were s u b s t i t u t e d i t could be i d e n t i f i e d .

In th e

t h i r d s i t u a t i o n , an o r a l e xam in atio n , t h e examiner was c a l l e d ou t o f
the room and l e f t e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e t h e t e x t c o n t a i n i n g answers t o the
q u e s t i o n s being ask ed .

The p o s i t i o n o f the t e x t was c a r e f u l l y marked

so as to i n d i c a t e whether i t had been moved o r opened.
F i f t y - n i n e p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s e x h i b i t e d some form o f
cheating.

S i t u a t i o n s 1 and 2 were about equal in t h e i r tendency to

i l l i c i t c h e a t i n g , in both s i t u a t i o n s about 50 p e r c e n t .
o f t h e s t u d e n t s c h ea te d in s i t u a t i o n 3.

Only 22 p e rc e n t

Ten p e r c e n t cheated in one

s i t u a t i o n , 64 p e r c e n t in two, and 24 p e r c e n t in a l l t h r e e .
Both the tendency to c h e a t and the s p e c i f i c type o f c h e a t i n g
employed were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to c e r t a i n personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
Cheaters appeared t o e x h i b i t a s e t o f b e h av iors s i m i l a r t o th o se p ro ­
duced by maternal o ver p r o t e c t i o n ; they seemed to m a n i f e s t a p a s s i v e dependent mode o f a d ju s tm e n t ; th ey appeared to seek o u t p e o p le , but
lacked awareness o f t h e i r general s o c i a l immaturity and i r r e s p o n s i ­
b ility .

There was a h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e o f males and f i r s t born among

c h e a t e r s than n o n - c h e a t e r s .

There was more c h e a ti n g by th o se o f lower

i n t e l l i g e n c e and lower g r a d e s .

S e l f - r e p o r t e d church a t t e n d a n c e was

a l s o found t o be more p r e v a l e n t in t h e c h e a t i n g group.
An e f f o r t was made t o group t h e a c t u a l t y p e s o f c h e a t i n g
b e h av ior i n t o t h e t y p e s as o r i g i n a l l y d e f i n e d .

Those s u b j e c t s engaging

in any o f t h e b e h av io r s t h a t d e f i n e d a c l u s t e r were compared t o a l l
o t h e r c h e a t e r s and t o a l l o t h e r s u b j e c t s .

Meaningful c l u s t e r s o f

33

p e r s o n a l i t y emerged f o r each o f the fo u r types o f c h e a t e r s .

The most

c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d c h e a t e r was th e i n d i v i d u a l who engaged in b e h av io rs
c l a s s i f i e d as s o c i a l - p a s s i v e .

This i n d i v i d u a l i s concerned with

s u s t a i n i n g m u tu a l ly s u p p o r t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s with o t h e r s and a c t i o n s
were o r i e n t e d toward t h e maintenance o f approval and a f f e c t i o n .

The

i n d i v i d u a l appeared t o be a calm, i n s i g h t f u l , and s o c i a l l y mature
person who p e rm its o t h e r s t o copy as a n u r t u r a n c e f o r s e l f .
In g e n e r a l , t h e f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s
tend t o e l i c i t s p e c i f i c ty pes o f c h e a t i n g be h av io r which a r e a t l e a s t
p a r t i a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with s u b j e c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .

This f i n d i n g was

su p po rte d by a stud y done by White, Z ie lo n k a , and Greer (1967) in
which i n d e p e n d e n t - o p p o r t u n i s t i c c h e a t i n g o f 179 women s t u d e n t s a t
a p r i v a t e women's c o l l e g e and s t a t e u n i v e r s i t y was measured by 16
p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s and 30 s i t u a t i o n s b e li e v e d t o r e f l e c t c h e a t i n g .
S e p a r a t e and d i s t i n c t p a t t e r n s o f p e r s o n a l i t y behavior were r e v e a l e d
f o r c h e a t e r s and n o n - c h e a t e r s a t each i n s t i t u t i o n .

Discriminations

between academic b e h a v io r s in t h e 30 s i t u a t i o n s were r e p o r t e d on both
campuses and d i f f e r e n c e s between c h e a t e r s and n o n - c h e a t e r s emerged in
e v a l u a t i n g s t u d e n t mores.
J a c o b s o n , B e rger, and Milliham (1970) i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e r e l a t i o n ­
s h i p s among s o c i a l d e s i r a b i l i t y (SD), need f o r s o c i a l approval (NA),
s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n (SES), sex d i f f e r e n c e s and t h e tendency to c h e a t
when c o n f r o n t e d with f a i l u r e .

S u b j e c t s , 276 und ergrad u ate v o l u n t e e r s

in an i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology c l a s s , were randomly a s s i g n e d t o two
gro ups.

The ex p erim e n tal group was plac ed in a s i t u a t i o n where

34

i n d i v i d u a l s could have cheate d and would not have thought t h e c h e a t i n g
would be d e t e c t e d .

The c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s were s i m i l a r e x c e p t f o r a

" t e m p t a t io n p e r i o d . "

Both groups were t o l d what the average c o l l e g e

s t u d e n t could do on t h e t a s k .
l e s s than th ey were t o l d .

In r e a l i t y t h e average was c o n s i d e r a b l y

SD, SES, and NA were measured by s c o r e s on

t h e Marlowe-Crowne Sc a le .
The c o r r e l a t i o n o f SES with NA was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h e c o r r e ­
l a t i o n o f SES and SD was low but s i g n i f i c a n t - - t h u s t h e SES was found
t o be r e l a t i v e l y independent o f the SD and NA measures.

Based on

m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e , no general c h e a t i n g e f f e c t r e s u l t e d
as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e tem p t a t io n s i t u a t i o n ; however, women more than men
were found t o c h e a t in t h e t e m p t a t i o n s i t u a t i o n s as were s u b j e c t s o f
high s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n .

The ge neral c h e a t i n g e f f e c t found in th e

t e m p t a t io n s i t u a t i o n f o r s u b j e c t s o f high s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n and f o r
women was found to be a f u n c t i o n p r i m a r i l y o f t h e tendency o f women
o f high s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n to c h e a t .

S u b j e c t s s c o r i n g high s i m u l t a ­

neously on both t h e need f o r approval and s e l f - s a t i s f a c t i o n measures
a l s o demonstrate d e x t e n s i v e c h e a t i n g .

G e n er a lly men were no t found

t o c h e a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y - - t h u s showing t h a t t h e sex v a r i a b l e i s
im p o r tan t in i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e o p e r a t i o n o f p e r s o n a l i t y f a c t o r s .
In a stu dy which a d d re s s e d c h e a t i n g among c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e
s t u d e n t s , Zastrow (1970) examined th e i n c id e n c e o f c h e a t i n g and r e a so n s
f o r c h e a t i n g as well as p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c h e a t e r s and non­
cheaters.

F o r t y - f i v e f i r s t - y e a r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s in s o c i a l work were

unw ittingly su b je c ts.

They were given an o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e l f - s c o r e

35

t h r e e unannounced qu izz es a f t e r s c o r e s had a l r e a d y been o b t a i n e d using
an i n v i s i b l e im press io n made on a second s h e e t , a method developed by
Howells (1932).

A f t e r being informed o f t h i s a s p e c t o f the study the

s u b j e c t s were given a q u e s t i o n n a i r e asking i f they had e v e r cheated
d u rin g the y e a r s th ey a t t e n d e d sc h o o l ; i f they had, t h e reasons f o r
c h e a t i n g and i n f o r m a tio n r e g a r d i n g what th ey b e l i e v e c o n s t i t u t e s
c h e a ti n g b e h av io r.

In an e f f o r t to d i s c o v e r i f t h e r e were p e r ­

s o n a l i t y d i f f e r e n c e s between c h e a t e r s and n o n - c h e a t e r s , the group
form o f t h e MMPI was a d m i n i s t e r e d .
At l e a s t 40 p e r c e n t o f th e s t u d e n t s c h eate d on one o f the
three quizzes.

P r e s s u r e t o g e t good grades was by f a r the most

f r e q u e n t l y given reason f o r c h e a t i n g .

There was a lac k o f consensus

about what b e h a v i o r c o n s t i t u t e d c h e a t i n g .

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

were found between t h e c h e a t e r s and n o n - c h e a t e r s in p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r ­
a c t e r i s t i c s as o b t a i n e d from s t a n d a r d s c a l e s on th e MMPI.

The MMPI

r e s u l t s su pp o rted " t h e d o c t r i n e o f s p e c i f i c i t y o f moral beh av ior" as
opposed t o the g e n e r a l i t y o f moral b e h a v io r p o s i t i o n which h y p o th es iz es
the e x i s t e n c e o f a ge neral t r a i t o f hone sty.
Because only one c l a s s in one i n s t i t u t i o n was under i n v e s t i ­
g a t i o n , i t would be d i f f i c u l t t o g e n e r a l i z e t o g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s as
a group because o f v a r i a b l e s t h a t may be a t play in o t h e r c l a s s e s
and a t o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

The lack o f a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in

p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s between c h e a t e r s and n o n - c h e a t e r s i s s u r p r i s i n g
in view o f o t h e r r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s in s t u d i e s o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e s ;
however, t h e re a so ns f o r c h e a t i n g may be d i f f e r e n t f o r g r a d u a te s
and t h i s may o f f s e t p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s .

36

S i t u a t i o n a l F a c to r s R e la te d to Dishonesty
A comprehensive and d e t a i l e d a ssessm en t o f academic d i s h o n e s t y
on c o l l e g e campuses a c r o s s t h e co u n try was undertaken by Bowers in
1964.

The t h r e e broad o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e stu dy were t o :

(1) determine

how much academic d i s h o n e s t y goes on among c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , (2) i d e n ­
t i f y t h e so urce and p r e s s u r e s c o n t r i b u t i n g to academic d i s h o n e s t y in
c o l l e g e , and (3) e v a l u a t e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f v a ri o u s arrangements
f o r c o n t r o l l i n g t h i s form o f b e h av ior.
The d a ta were g a th e r e d in two s t a g e s .

The f i r s t , a q u e s t i o n ­

n a i r e to deans o f s t u d e n t s and s t u d e n t body p r e s i d e n t s a t a l l r e g i o n ­
a l l y a c c r e d i t e d c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y , s o l i c i t e d
in f o r m a tio n about t h e problem o f academic d i s h o n e s t y a t t h e i r s c h o o l s .
The second s t a g e was a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o s t u d e n t s a t 99 o f the above
schools.

About 5,000 s t u d e n t s (50 p e r c e n t ) r e t u r n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .
In d e te r m i n i n g t h e sample, app ro x im ate ly equal numbers o f

s t u d e n t s were s e l e c t e d from a l l p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s r e g a r d l e s s
o f th e s i z e o f the s c h o o l .

By w eigh ting s t u d e n t resp on ses a c c o rd ing

to t h e type o f school an e f f o r t was made to compensate f o r d i s c r e p a n c y
between t h e sample and t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n .

The i n v e s t i g a t o r p o in te d

out t h a t t h e s c h o o l s in c l u d e d in t h e sample only r e p r e s e n t e d th o se
where th e dean was s u f f i c i e n t l y i n t e r e s t e d in t h e study t o p a r t i c i p a t e .
No e f f o r t was made t o f o llo w - u p with s t u d e n t s who di d not respond to
t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and f a i l u r e t o respo n d, i t was s p e c u l a t e d , might
have been due t o a r e l u c t a n c e t o admit c h e a t i n g b e h a v i o r .

The da ta

37

p r e s e n t e d r e g a r d i n g th e l e v e l o f academic d i s h o n e s t y a r e , by t h e
i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s own acknowledgment, only a rough appro ximation o f
t h e amount o f c h e a t i n g t h a t a c t u a l l y occurs on c o l l e g e campuses.
The f i n d i n g s o f h i s work can be summarized as f o l lo w s :
The i n c i d e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d academic d i s h o n e s t y i s g r o s s l y
u n d e r e s t i m a t e d by members o f t h e campus community.

Data showed

t h a t a t l e a s t h a l f o f t h e s t u d e n t s had engaged in academic d i s h o n e s t y
s i n c e coming t o c o l l e g e .

I t was a l s o shown t h a t th o se who have d i f ­

f i c u l t y a d j u s t i n g t o the s t u d e n t r o l e , as evidenced by poor study
h a b i t s and low g r a d e s , a r e more l i k e l y to c h e a t than t h e good s t u d e n t s ;
however, when c o n t r o l l e d f o r o t h e r f a c t o r s a s s o c i a t e d with c h e a t i n g ,
academic performance has only a minor e f f e c t .
Those who v a lu e t h e s o c i a l a s p e c t s o f c o l l e g e were found more
l i k e l y t o c h e a t th an t h o s e who emphasized i n t e l l e c t u a l i n t e r e s t s and
activ ities.

There i s a s t r o n g a s s o c i a t i o n between t h o s e who c h e a t in

high school and t h o s e who c h e a t in c o l l e g e .

S t u d e n t s ' c o l l e g e p e ers

were found t o have a powerful e f f e c t on t h e i r c h e a t i n g b e h a v i o r .

The

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e school i t s e l f was found t o have a s t r o n g impact
on t h e c h e a t i n g b e h a v i o r o f s t u d e n t s w ith " q u a l i t y " sch o ols a s s o c i a t e d
with low l e v e l s of c h e a t i n g .

Large s c h o o ls and coed scho o ls were found

to have t h e h i g h e r i n c i d e n c e o f c h e a t i n g .

In sch o o ls which pla c e d th e

primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r d e a l i n g w ith academic d i s h o n e s t y in t h e
hands o f t h e s t u d e n t s ( e . g . , honor system) t h e i n c i d e n c e o f c h e a t i n g
was found t o be much lower th an w ith o t h e r systems.

38

That p o r t i o n o f t h e study which examines th e s e t t i n g in which
academic d i s h o n e s t y occurs r e p o r t e d t h a t i n t r o d u c t o r y c o u r s e s , tho se
t a u g h t by t h e l e c t u r e method and th o se r e l y i n g on t e x t books, had th e
h i g h e r o c cu rren c e o f academic d i s h o n e s t y .

Large c l a s s e s and c l a s s e s

w i t h sc heduled t e s t s a l s o were more f r e q u e n t l y found t o be w i t h i n th e
group o f c l a s s e s where c h e a t i n g was s a i d t o have o c c u rr e d .

C las se s in

which t h e i n s t r u c t o r r a t e d on t h e curve and gave unscheduled q u i z z e s ,
as well as c o u r s e s which c a r r y l a r g e r c r e d i t s , more o f t e n had a c t s o f
cheating occurring.

O b j e c t iv e exams which were to be g iv e n , o r had

been on a n o t h e r o c c a s i o n , were a l s o f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o c l a s s e s where
cheating occurred.

Close p r o c t o r i n g was no t seen t o reduce c h e a t i n g .

The e x p l a n a t i o n was o f f e r e d t h a t s t r i c t r u l e s more o f t e n would occur
f o r l a r g e c o u rs es and c o u rs e s using s t a n d a r d i z e d examination p r o c e ­
d u r e s , t h u s , c l o s e p r o c t o r i n g and s t r i c t e r procedur es a r e probably
resp on ses t o t h e t e n d e n c i e s to c h e a t a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d .
The i n c i d e n c e o f c h e a t i n g r e p o r t e d f o r t h e previous term
d e c r e a s e d s l i g h t l y from t h e freshman t o s e n i o r y e a r .

The number of

s t u d e n t s t o t a l l y t h a t r e p o r t e d th ey c h ea te d was s t a r t l i n g in l i g h t o f
t h e alm ost unanimous d i s a p p r o v a l o f c h e a t i n g .

P a r e n t s ' commitment

t o good gr ades was found to be a p r e s s u r e t o c h e a t , whereas th e
s t u d e n t s ' own e x p e c t a t i o n o f them selves was n o t .

S tud en ts in the

most c l e a r l y c a r e e r - o r i e n t e d f i e l d s , such as b u s i n e s s , e n g i n e e r i n g ,
and e d u c a t i o n , were found much more l i k e l y t o c h e a t , with t h o s e in
h i s t o r y , l a n g u a g e s , and hu m an ities in t h e l e a s t l i k e l y t o c h e a t
category.

39

In examining i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangements f o r c o n t r o l l i n g
academic d i s h o n e s t y , most i n s t i t u t i o n s (55 p e r c e n t ) were found to
have " f a c u l t y - c e n t e r e d " c o n t r o l , both in terms o f " d e t e c t i o n " and
" s a n c t i o n " ; however, 40 p e r c e n t o f the c o l l e g e s had s t u d e n t s ta k e p a r t
in the s a n c t i o n i n g a s p e c t o f c o n t r o l e i t h e r by s e r v i n g on j u d i c i a l
bodies o r through an honor system--which i s d e fin e d as " s t u d e n t
centered" c o n tro l.

Honor systems were found in about o n e - f o u r t h

o f t h e c o l l e g e s while the remaining c o l l e g e s had j u d i c i a r i e s with
student p a rtic ip a tio n .

The h i g h e s t le v e l o f c h e a ti n g was found on

campuses with j u d i c i a r y bodies and th e lowest with honor systems.
In looking a t t h e e f f e c t o f th e c o n tr o l system, both r e l a t i v e and
a b s o l u t e , the honor system was seen to have i t s g r e a t e s t impact in
men's c o l l e g e s .
The e f f e c t o f honor systems and honor grading has been sp e ­
c i f i c a l l y examined in s t u d i e s done by Ackerman, Canning, and Williams.
Ackerman (1971) examined t h e e f f e c t s o f s e l f - g r a d i n g versus i n s t r u c t o r g rading on t e s t sc o r e outcomes.
S u b j e c t s o f t h e study were 377 s t u d e n t s in f i v e lower d i v i s i o n
psychology s e c t i o n s o f two s e p a r a t e c o u r s e s .

A t o t a l o f 213 s t u d e n t s

were in t h e experim ental s e c t i o n s , 164 s t u d e n t s in t h e comparison
sections.

All groups r e c e i v e d i d e n t i c a l s e r i e s o f exams and b a s i c a l l y

the exam procedure was t h e same f o r both groups.

S tud e n ts in both

groups were a l s o asked t o respond t o an anonymous " c h e a ti n g q u e s t i o n ­
n aire."

The resp o nses o f " a t t e n d e r s " versus " n o n - a t t e n d e r s " were

analyzed s e p a r a t e l y .

40

Before each o f the s e l f - s c o r i n g t e s t s , t h e ex perimental
s e c t i o n s were given a b r i e f but emotional "sermon" on t h e importance
o f not c h e a t i n g .

The c l a s s e s in t h i s study and t h e i n s t r u c t o r were

r e p o r t e d t o be very p o p u l a r with th e s t u d e n t s .
From t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e Chi Square t e s t s i t was concluded
t h a t i f t h e r e were an e f f e c t a t t r i b u t a b l e t o s e l f - g r a d i n g i t did
not r e s u l t in any d i f f e r e n c e in t e s t outcomes, a t l e a s t f o r the
ex p erim en tal c l a s s e s as a whole.

N e i th e r did t h e r e s u l t s show

t h a t s t u d e n t s stud y l e s s under a s e l f - g r a d i n g system, nor did i t
a f f e c t t h e number o f times th e s t u d e n t r e p e a t e d th e exam which was
p e r m i tt e d under t h e examination p ro ce d u res .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e on c h e a ti n g r e v e a l e d t h a t
32 p e r c e n t o f t h e experim e ntal group and 28 p e r c e n t o f t h e comparison
group r e p o r t e d c h e a t i n g a t l e a s t one time p e r s e m es te r .

The e x p e r i ­

mental c l a s s e s e s t i m a t e d a g r e a t e r frequency o f c h e a t i n g would r e s u l t
in s e l f - g r a d i n g .

Of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i s t h a t s e l f - r e p o r t e d c h e a ti n g

in the s e l f - g r a d e d c l a s s e s v ersus th e comparison group was g r e a t e r ;
however, t h i s was n o t found t o be c o n s i s t e n t with t h e a c t u a l t e s t
sc o r e s r e p o r t e d .

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e ( .0 5 ) was noted between

men and women o r between upper classmen o r lower classmen in r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip t o s e l f - r e p o r t e d c h e a t i n g beh av io r.
The a u t h o r c a u t i o n s , and a p p r o p r i a t e l y s o , a g a i n s t g e n e r a l ­
i z a t i o n from t h i s s t u d y because o f the v a r i a b l e s which combine and
i n t e r a c t in a c la ss roo m s i t u a t i o n .

41

The q u e s t i o n o f whether an honor system reduces cla ssroom
c h e a t i n g was examined by Canning (1956) over a s i x - y e a r p e r i o d .
s i x y e a r s were d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e time frames:

The

(1) one y e a r be fore th e

i n s t i g a t i o n o f t h e honor code, (2) t h r e e y e a r s d uring th e i n t r o d u c t i o n
and r e v i s i o n o f t h e system, and (3) f i v e y e a r s a f t e r t h e in a u g u r a ti o n
o f t h e system.

One i n s t r u c t o r performed a l l experiments by giv in g

s t u d e n t s in h i s c l a s s the o p p o r t u n i t y t o s e l f - s c o r e examinations when
t h e y had a l r e a d y been sc o r ed .

T abulated d i f f e r e n c e s in th e sc ores

pro v id ed t h e d a t a on who had c h e a te d .

Over the s i x - y e a r p e rio d i t

was found t h a t 45 p e r c e n t o f t h e s t u d e n t s ch ea te d .
had a high o f 81 p e r c e n t o f s t u d e n t s c h e a t i n g .

The " befo re" p e rio d

"During" the p e rc en ta g e

was redu ced t o 41 p e r c e n t , and t h e "now" p e ri o d showed 30 p e r c e n t .
f i v e y e a r s t h e c h e a t i n g in c i d e n c e was reduced by n e a r l y t w o - t h i r d s .
S i m i l a r l y t h e av erag e magnitude o f the c h e a t i n g was l e s s .
D i f f e r e n c e s d u rin g t h e s e p e ri o d s were examined in terms o f
s e x , s u b j e c t s ' method o f c h e a t i n g , c h e a t i n g r e l a t e d t o use o f pen or
p e n c i l , c h e a t i n g as r e l a t e d to MMPI s c o r e s , and c h e a t i n g r e l a t e d
t o academic p r o f i c i e n c y .

Before t h e honor system was i n a u g u r a te d ,

male s t u d e n t s c h e a te d s l i g h t l y o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n to t h e i r number
which, a f t e r f i v e y e a r s o f t h e system, t h e s i t u a t i o n was r e v e r s e d .
While t h e f a v o r i t e method o f c h e a t i n g was g e n e r a l l y w r i t i n g
in c o r r e c t answers where t h e q u e s t i o n s had p r e v i o u s l y been b la n k ,
p r i o r t o t h e honor system changing answers was t h e f a v o r i t e d e v ic e .
C h e a te r s more f r e q u e n t l y used p e n c i l and t h e d e c l i n e in c h e a t e r s ’
p r e f e r e n c e f o r p e n c i l s i s d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d to t h e r e d u c t i o n in

In

42

c h e a t i n g thro u g h o u t t h e e xperim ent.

No d i f f e r e n c e s were noted between

c h e a t e r s and n o n - c h e a t e r s on the MMPI.

Cheaters c o n s i s t e n t l y f e l l

below n o n - c h e a t e r s in academic performance and "p oorer" s t u d e n t s
r a i s e d th em se lv es more p o i n t s than d id t h e " b e t t e r " s t u d e n t s .
In terms o f s t u d e n t s ' v e r b a l i z a t i o n about hone sty and t h e i r
a c t u a l b e h a v i o r , i t was found t h a t 33 p e r c e n t cheate d a f t e r promising
n o t t o , 12 p e r c e n t cheate d as th ey s a i d they would, 52 p e r c e n t did not
l i e and d id not c h e a t , and 3 p e r c e n t promised to c h e a t and did no t.
Canning c a u t i o n s t h a t t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s stu d y must only
be i n t e r p r e t e d in view o f many l i m i t a t i o n s .

While t h i s i s t r u e , i t

n e v e r t h e l e s s r e p r e s e n t s an e f f o r t to make an assess ment o f the impact
o f an honor system under f a i r l y c o n t r o l l e d c irc u m s ta n ce s ov er a p e ri o d
o f tim e.
In W illia m s' study (1969) 37 s t u d e n t s in a general psychology
c l a s s a t Huntington Colle ge were given t h r e e examinations which were
graded and t h e n r e t u r n e d w i t h o u t marks.

The s t u d e n t s then graded t h e i r

own p a p e r s , and t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s markings and t h e s t u d e n t s ' markings
were compared to determine i f s t u d e n t s would c h e a t given t h e oppor­
t u n i t y t o do so.

A ge neral survey was given t o t h e same s t u d e n t s

t o d e te rm ine t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward class room c h e a t i n g and t h e honor
system.
The i n v e s t i g a t i o n concluded t h a t t h e number o f s t u d e n t s who
c h e a te d was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , t h a t c h e a t i n g di d not i n c r e a s e with the
number o f o p p o r t u n i t i e s , t h a t t h o s e c h e a t i n g on t h e f i r s t examination
d i d n o t n e c e s s a r i l y do so on t h e second and t h i r d and t h a t t h o s e who

43

c h ea te d were not n e c e s s a r i l y in t h e lower h a l f o f th e grade s c a l e
as he had hy p o th es iz ed .

R e su lts o f t h e survey showed s t u d e n t s to be

"somewhat evenly d iv id e d " in t h e i r o pinio n t h a t c h e a t i n g t o any de gree
would promote more c h e a t i n g .

S tu den ts f e l t p r o c t o r i n g would reduce

c h e a t i n g but t h a t t h e honor system would promote h i g h e r s t a n d a r d s o f
moral c h a r a c t e r .
While Williams concluded t h a t t h e number o f s t u d e n t s c h e a t i n g
was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t , he does not i n d i c a t e on what b a s i s
conclusion.
exams.)

he draws t h a t

(Six o f 37 s t u d e n t s cheate d on one o r more o f th e t h r e e

There may a l s o

t h e survey on a t t i t u d e s

be a q u e s t i o n about

whether t h e q u e s t i o n s in

were p r e c i s e enough to gi ve a very

clear

p i c t u r e o f a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g .
The e x t e n t t o which c h e a t i n g b e h av ior i s a r e s u l t o f class room
s i t u a t i o n s which aro use a n x i e t y and h o s t i l i t y was t h e focus o f a study
done by S t e i n i n g e r , Johnson, and K i r t s in 1964.

The i n t e r e s t l e v e l o f

co u rs e c o n t e n t , meaningful ness o f t e s t s , t e s t d i f f i c u l t y , q u a l i t y of
t e a c h i n g , and i n s t r u c t o r ' s s t a y i n g o r l e a v in g d u rin g an examination
were t h e v a r i a b l e s used in d e s c r i b i n g classroom s i t u a t i o n s .

The

s u b j e c t s , 49 s t u d e n t s in an i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology c o u r s e , were
asked t o r a t e , on a 1 t o 5 s c a l e , 32 randomly p r e s e n t e d d e s c r i p t i o n s
o f cla ss ro om s i t u a t i o n s in terms o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r c h e a t i n g , urge
t o c h e a t , a c t u a l b e h a v i o r , g u i l t f e e l i n g s , and l e t t i n g o t h e r s copy.
The 32 d e s c r i p t i o n s were based on a l l p o s s i b l e combinations o f th e
f i v e v a r i a b l e s , each with two l e v e l s ( e . g . , t e s t h a r d , t e s t e a s y ) .

/

44

In g e n e r a l , t h e d a ta showed t h a t t h e more n e g a t iv e the
s i t u a t i o n , the more th e s u b j e c t s c o n s i d e r e d c h e a t i n g j u s t i f i e d , th e
more th ey s a i d th ey would have an urge to c h e a t and th e more they s a i d
they would c h e a t .

A n a ly sis o f v a r i a n c e showed th e s t r o n g e s t n e g a t i v e

s t i m u l u s was a t e s t based on s e n s e l e s s d e t a i l followed by poor t e a c h i n g
and a t e s t which was c o n s i d e r e d hard.

When th e 32 s i t u a t i o n s were

grouped a cc o rd in g to t h e s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s which make f o r more,
r a t h e r than l e s s , h o s t i l i t y and a n x i e t y , th e combination o f "cour se
u n i n t e r e s t i n g , " " p r o f e s s o r p o o r ," " t e s t s e n s e l e s s , " and " t e s t hard"
was found.
When asked about t h e norm on c h e a t i n g among c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s
in g en eral and among t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s , no t one s t u d e n t s a i d the
norm i s ne ver t o c h e a t , and they i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r c l o s e s t f r i e n d s
c h e a t l e s s than s t u d e n t s in g e n e r a l .

D i r e c t l y e x p re ss ed g u i l t f e e l i n g s

v a r i e d as a f u n c t i o n o f a n x i e t y and h o s t i l i t y only when t h e s i t u a t i o n
invo lv ed t h e i n s t r u c t o r l e a v in g t h e room.

The i n v e s t i g a t o r s concluded

t h a t s t u d e n t s were b a s i c a l l y aware they were doing something wrong
when they ch ea te d b u t , in view o f th e f a c t t h a t they see c h e a t i n g as
j u s t i f i e d under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i t may no t be s u r p r i s i n g t h a t
g u i l t does not i n c r e a s e as copying and l e t t i n g o t h e r s copy i n c r e a s e s .
As t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s s u g g e s t t h e g u i l t may have been i n f l u e n c e d by an
i n s t i t u t i o n a l f a c t o r , such as whether s t u d e n t s had had e x p e r i e n c e with
an honor system.
The f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d in t h i s s tu d y a r e c o n s i s t e n t with the
r e s u l t s o f S t e i n i n g e r ' s s t u d y , which was reviewed p r e v i o u s l y , in which

45

she found the p r e d i c t e d J - c u r v e o f con fo rm ity f o r "good" s i t u a t i o n s
and t h e p r e d i c t e d d e v i a t i o n from t h i s curve f o r "bad" s i t u a t i o n s .
Johnson, with Kores, in 1968 undertook a study o f a t t i t u d e s
toward c h e a ti n g as a f u n c t i o n o f classroom d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and peer
norms.

The i n t e n t o f the study was to e x p lo r e t h e i n t e r a c t i o n between

s t u d e n t norms on c h e a t i n g and the number o f v a r i a b l e s in the c l a s s ­
room s i t u a t i o n expec ted to r e s u l t in classroom d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n .
S e v e n t y - e i g h t s t u d e n t s in an i n t r o d u c t o r y psychology c l a s s were
randomly a ssig ne d to two t r e a t m e n t groups.

One group was t o l d t h a t

c h e a t i n g was p r e v a l e n t on campus, th e o t h e r t h a t i t was r a r e .

All

s u b j e c t s r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e norm groups were asked t o r a t e 32 d e s c r i p ­
t i o n s o f cla ssroom s i t u a t i o n s on t h e fo llo w in g f i v e s c a l e s :

(1) j u s t i ­

f i c a t i o n f o r c h e a t i n g , (2) urge to c h e a t , (3) copying, (4) l e t t i n g
o t h e r s copy, and (5) f e e l i n g s o f g u i l t .

Again, 32 d e s c r i p t i o n s o f

cla ss ro om s i t u a t i o n s were based on a l l Dossible combinations o f f i v e
s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , each with two d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed l e v e l s .
The f i v e s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s were:

(1) i n t e r e s t le v e l o f c o u r s e ,

(2) q u a l i t y o f t e a c h i n g , (3) t e s t meaningful n e s s , (4) t e s t d i f f i c u l t y ,
and (5) p r o f e s s o r ' s presenc e.
A t e s t f o r a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e supported th e h yp o th es is
t h a t c h e a t i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r (p= .0001) in tho se classroom
s i t u a t i o n s in which t h e r e were a g r e a t e r number o f n e g a t iv e s i t u a t i o n a l
v a r i a b l e s and in t h a t group which was t o l d c h e a t i n g was p r e v a l e n t .
Because t h e t r e a t m e n t f a c t o r f o r s t u d e n t norms was so l i m i t e d ,
t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' c o n c lu sio n t h a t , c l e a r l y , group norms have an e f f e c t

46

on r e p o r t e d a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s with r e s p e c t to j u s t i f i c a t i o n
f o r c h e a t i n g , urge to c h e a t , copying, and l e t t i n g o t h e r s copy may be
questioned.

The d a ta g e n erate d from t h e study on th e e f f e c t o f c l a s s ­

room s i t u a t i o n s on a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s i s c o n s i s t e n t with p rev io u s
findings.
The i n f l u e n c e o f p e er norms on c h e a t i n g behavior was a l s o
examined in a study conducted by Harp and T a i e t z (1966).

The study

focused on an a n a l y s i s o f the s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s t h a t give r i s e to
p a t t e r n s o f b eh av io r r e p r e s e n t i n g a c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f norms governing
academic i n t e g r i t y .

Cheating on term p a p e r s , s e l f - r e p o r t e d , was the

i n d i c a t o r o f academic d i s h o n e s t y used f o r the a n a l y s i s .

A stratified

random sample o f men e n r o l l e d in t h e t h r e e l a r g e s t c o l l e g e s o f an Ivy
League u n i v e r s i t y were t h e s u b j e c t s .
Following the freshman y e a r a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in the
i n c i d e n c e o f c h e a t i n g on term papers was found f o r the t h r e e c o l l e g e s .
The v o c a t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d c o l l e g e s had a h i g h e r i n c id e n c e o f c h e a t i n g ,
and f o r a l l c o l l e g e s t h e in cid en c e o f c h e a t i n g was h i g h e s t during th e
j u n i o r and s e n i o r y e a r s .

When r e s i d e n t groups were compared ( f r a t e r ­

n i t i e s , u n i v e r s i t y d o r m i t o r i e s , of f-campus) f r a t e r n i t y members r e p o r t e d
a h i g h e r i n cid en c e o f c h e a t i n g , w ith th o se in v o c a t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d
c o l l e g e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than th o se t h a t did not have t h i s
emphasis.

F r a t e r n i t y membership was seen t o have been an " o p p o r t u n it y "

to c h e a t , both in a se nse o f p r o v i d in g the p h y sic al f a c i l i t i e s
n e c e s s a r y and the r e q u i s i t e normative s u p p o r t .

47

In exa m in atio n o f t h e q u e s t i o n o f why a l l f r a t e r n i t y members
do no t c h e a t , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s looked t o see i f t h e r e was evidence
t o i n d i c a t e t h a t s t r u c t u r e s o f t h i s kind f a c i l i t a t e t h e a d a p t i v e
re s p o n se o f c h e a t i n g f o r th o se who lack t h e a b i l i t y t o follo w a more
le g itim a te course.

In comparing SAT s c o r e s and cu mulative grade

a v e r a g e s , t h e evid e nce suggest ed t h a t t h e f r a t e r n i t y system may
p rov id e i l l e g i t i m a t e a d a p t i v e s o l u t i o n s f o r s t u d e n t s who sc ore
low on a b i l i t y and performance.
The v a r i a b l e o f " i n t e l l e c t u a l " s e l f - c o n c e p t was a l s o s t u d i e d
in r e l a t i o n s h i p to t h e in c i d e n c e o f c h e a ti n g and i t was found c h e a t i n g
r e p o r t e d f o r t h e " i n t e l l e c t u a l s " was s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than t h o s e not
so d e f i n e d .

C ontrolling for i n te lle c tu a l o r ie n ta tio n , f r a t e r n i t y

members were, however, s t i l l found t o c h e a t more than non-members.
In lo o kin g a t s t u d e n t s ' e d u c a ti o n a l g o a ls as d e fi n e d by plans
to e n t e r g r a d u a t e s t u d y , i t was found t h a t s t u d e n t s who a s p i r e to
a t t e n d g r a d u a t e school c h e a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than th o se who do n o t .
Data s u p p o r t t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t s t u d e n t s who a r e p lann in g t o a t t e n d
g r a d u a t e s c h o o l , but do not have an " i n t e l l e c t u a l " o r i e n t a t i o n a r e
more i n c l i n e d to c h e a t .

The s t u d y concludes t h a t r e g a r d l e s s o f an

i n d i v i d u a l s t u d e n t ' s o r i e n t a t i o n and g oa ls a h i g h e r in c i d e n c e o f
c h e a t i n g i s r e p o r t e d by f r a t e r n i t y members than by i n depe n dents.
While o n ly a l i m i t e d number o f p o s s i b l e v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c i n g
a s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e were s t u d i e d , t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y do o f f e r
f u r t h e r support fo r the influence o f the social m ilieu , p a r t i c u l a r l y
f r a t e r n i t i e s , in terms o f c h e a t i n g b e h a v io r .

48

The c o l l e g e environmental c o n d i t i o n s examined in 1961 by
Roskens and Dizney (1966) in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o academic c h e a t i n g were:
(1) p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e , (2) s t u d e n t - r a t e d e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t r u c t i o n ,
and (3) s t u d e n t - r a t e d f a i r n e s s o f marking and e v a l u a t i o n .

The da ta f o r

t h i s p a r t o f t h e s t u d y were o b t a i n e d through q u e s t i o n n a i r e s d i s t r i b u t e d
t o g r a d u a t e s a t s p r i n g commencement.

Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d by

487 g r a d u a t e s which was 61 p e r c e n t o f th e t o t a l group.
t y p e s o f c h e a t i n g were s t u d i e d :

Six s p e c i f i c

c r i b b i n g , copying, i l l e g a l l y o b t a i n i n g

exams, p l a g i a r i s m , ghost w r i t i n g , and c o o p e r a t i v e o rganiz ed c h e a t i n g .
Place o f r e s i d e n c e was n o t found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d
t o t h e e x t e n t o f person al c h e a t i n g r e p o r t e d ; however, i t was found t h a t
commuters were more concerned by c h e a t i n g than o t h e r groups.
Five o f t h e s i x typ es o f c h e a t i n g were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d to
f a i r n e s s o f marking and e v a l u a t i o n , whereas only two typ es o f c h e a ti n g
were p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f i n s t r u c t i o n .
The t y p e s o f c h e a t i n g in which s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d they had
engaged were s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d t o sex.

Males r e p o r t e d g r e a t e r

th an "ex pected" c r i b b i n g , but l e s s than expected p l a g i a r i s m .

Con­

v e r s e l y , females i n d i c a t e d l e s s than expected c r i b b i n g , but more
th an ex p ec te d p l a g i a r i s m and gh ost w r i t i n g .

The a n a l y s i s o f d a ta

a l s o s u g g e ste d t h a t females e x p re ss g r e a t e r concern abo ut c h e a t i n g
th an do males.
In Roskens and D iz n ey 's i n q u i r y o f 2,384 p r e - c o l l e g e i n d i ­
v i d u a l s , i t was found t h a t l e s s concern about c h e a t i n g was a s s o c i a t e d
w ith lower s t a t u s o f f a t h e r ' s o c c u p a ti o n .

L i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p was

49

found between t h e s i z e o f high sc hools a t t e n d e d and s e l f - r e p o r t e d
c h e a t i n g o r c h e a t i n g ob se rved.

A p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was found

in both se xes between e xp ressed concern about c h e a t i n g and t h e e x t e n t
of self-cheating.

Males were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from females in

both t h e i r concern f o r c h e a ti n g and s e l f - r e p o r t e d c h e a t i n g .

Males

r e p o r t e d more c h e a t i n g and l e s s concern.
From t h e i r study o f p r e - c o l l e g e i n d i v i d u a l s , th e r e s e a r c h e r s
concluded t h a t i t was c l e a r t h a t th o se e n t e r i n g c o l l e g e brought with
them d i f f e r e n t a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g .

T h e i r examination o f data

r e l a t i n g t o p r e - c o l l e g e i n d i v i d u a l s and c o l l e g e g r a d u a t e s r e v e a l e d
t h a t t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between p r e - c o l l e g e and p o s t ­
c o l l e g e groups in t h e e x t e n t to which i n d i v i d u a l s were concerned about
c h e a t i n g , with g r e a t e r than "expected" concern e x h i b i t e d by t h e p o s t c o l l e g e group.
This d i f f e r e n c e might be a t t r i b u t e d to t h e f a c t t h a t 97 p e r c e n t
o f t h e p r e - c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n were in clu d ed in t h e example, whereas
only 61 p e r c e n t o f t h e p o s t - c o l l e g e p o p u l a t i o n responded.

Those who

responded might r e p r e s e n t a group more concerned about c h e a t i n g than
t h e n o n -r e s p o n d e n ts.
Summary
In t h i s c h a p t e r an e f f o r t has been made to r e p o r t on s t u d i e s
conducted s i n c e 1960 which have examined academic d i s h o n e s t y among
s t u d e n t s a t c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s .

The review has been f u r t h e r

l i m i t e d t o s t u d i e s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o th e q u e s t i o n s under exam ination

50

in t h i s st u d y .

L i t t l e a t t e n t i o n has been given t o t h e o r y s p e c i f i c a l l y ;

however, a few s t u d i e s were included to pro vid e some t h e o r e t i c a l
framework f o r t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e o t h e r s t u d i e s reviewed.
In g e n e r a l , t h e review su g g e sts t o t h e w r i t e r t h a t while
a t t i t u d e s impact b e h a v i o r , s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s may a l t e r t h a t impact.
Thus s t u d e n t s , a lth o ug h they d isa p p ro v e o f c h e a t i n g , may c h e a t in
certain situ atio n s.

Classroom s i t u a t i o n s which a r e p e rc eiv e d by

s t u d e n t s t o be n e g a t i v e , r a t h e r than p o s i t i v e , may i n f l u e n c e th e
in c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y as may th e norms o f t h e p e er groups.
S t u d i e s which have examined demographic d a ta in r e l a t i o n s h i p
t o th o se i d e n t i f i e d as having engaged in d i s h o n e s t y s u g g e st t h a t th e
i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y i s g r e a t e r among men than women, and t h a t t h e
grade p o i n t averag e and i n t e l l e c t u a l o r i e n t a t i o n i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d
t o t h e in c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y .

There i s a l s o e vid ence to s u g g e s t

t h a t d i s h o n e s t y i s more p r e v a l e n t among s t u d e n t s in v o c a t i o n a l l y
o r i e n t e d f i e l d s o f stud y than in o t h e r f i e l d s .

These f i n d i n g s have

n o t , however, been c o n s i s t e n t l y r e p o r t e d th rou g ho u t t h e s t u d i e s and,
a lth o u g h a t t e n t i o n was given in t h e review t o t h e methodology o f the
s t u d i e s as well as t h e i r f i n d i n g s , t h e w r i t e r acknowledges t h a t i t i s
o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o a s c e r t a i n what t h e e f f e c t o f methodology has been
on d i s c r e p a n c i e s in f i n d i n g s which a r e r e p o r t e d .
In reviewing t h e l i t e r a t u r e i t became q u i c k l y e v i d e n t t o the
w r i t e r t h a t academic d i s h o n e s t y i s a h i g h ly complex b e h av ior about
which we have l i m i t e d knowledge, a ltho u gh i t has been examined
r e p e a t e d l y from a number o f p e r s p e c t i v e s .

I t a ppears t h a t t h e

51

r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s a r e fragmented and t h a t p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f
findings is d i f f i c u l t .

I t i s , in p a r t , f o r t h i s reason t h a t t h i s study

was u n d e rta k e n , not t h a t i t w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y c o n t r i b u t e g e n e r a l l y to
the l i t e r a t u r e , but r a t h e r t h a t i t might provide info rm a tio n which
could a s s i s t i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n an i n s t i t u t i o n to a d d re ss a concern.
In the f u t u r e i t may well be most p r o d u c t i v e f o r tho se concerned with
d i s h o n e s t y among c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s to c o n c e n t r a t e t h e i r
r e s e a r c h e f f o r t s on t h e t e s t i n g and f u r t h e r refin e m e n t o f i n s tr u m e n ts
a l r e a d y developed and to a tte m p t t o g e n e r a t e a body o f knowledge about
d i s h o n e s t y which w i l l have g r e a t e r general a p p l i c a t i o n .

CHAPTER I I I
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

Development o f th e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e
Two p a r t i c u l a r a r e a s o f i n t e r e s t a r e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n in
t h i s study.

The f i r s t r e l a t e s to how s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y p e r c e i v e

b e h a v i o r s in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o what they p e r s o n a l l y b e l i e v e i s an a p pro ­
p r i a t e s t a n d a r d f o r academic work.

P a r t I o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was

d e sig n ed t o examine t h i s a r e a o f i n t e r e s t .

The second are a under

i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t h e i n c id e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y which occurs among
students.

When d i s h o n e s t y i s s e l f - r e p o r t e d by s t u d e n t s , in fo r m a tio n

i s a l s o sou g ht r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s which th e y b e li e v e d e x i s t e d
a t t h e time t h e b e h a v io r o c c u r r e d .

When d i s h o n e s t y among s t u d e n t s i s

r e p o r t e d by f a c u l t y , in f o r m a tio n i s sought r e g a r d i n g a c t i o n s taken in
r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e s t u d e n t s i n vo lve d.

P a r t II o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e

r e l a t e s t o r e p o r t i n g o f d i s h o n e s t y , t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s c i t e
as b ein g p r e s e n t when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r s , and t h e a c t i o n s which f a c u l t y
t a k e when i t i s d i s c o v e r e d .

Because t h e primary emphasis i s on the

e xam in a tio n o f how d i s h o n e s t y i s d e f i n e d and how p r e v a l e n t b e h avio rs
a r e t h a t a r e c o n s i d e r e d d i s h o n e s t by c u r r e n t U n i v e r s i t y s t a n d a r d s ,
t h e exam in atio n o f t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e li e v e d e x i s t e d
when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r e d and a c t i o n s take n by f a c u l t y a re o f secondary
interest.

They a r e in c lu d e d p r i m a r i l y in an e f f o r t t o gain some

52

53

in f o r m a ti o n on which more e x t e n s i v e study can be undertaken in the
future.
P a r t I o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p a t t e r n e d a f t e r an in str u m e n t
developed by Anderson and s u b s e q u e n tly used by Frymier and Uhlig and
Howes in s t u d i e s which sought t o a s s e s s a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g .
The Anderson o p i n i o n n a i r e in clu d ed 28 d i f f e r e n t b e h av io rs which were
based on s i t u a t i o n s which o t h e r s than t h o s e who p a r t i c i p a t e d in th e
s t u d y had observed and c o n sid e r e d as c h e a t i n g .

Frymier sugge st ed

t h a t the Anderson i n s t r u m e n t may have lacked s o p h i s t i c a t i o n s i n c e
he noted in h i s work t h a t very few f i n e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s in p e r c e p t i o n s
occurred.

The Anderson i n s t r u m e n t as a measure o f a t t i t u d e s was f u r t h e r

brought i n t o q u e s t i o n by Uhlig and Howes when they found t h a t a t t i t u d e s
measured by t h e Anderson s c a l e did not appear to r e f l e c t a c t u a l behav­
i o r , f i n d i n g s which a r e no t supported by r e s e a r c h which u t i l i z e d
other scales.
T h i r t y - t h r e e b e h av io rs were s e l e c t e d f o r use in t h i s stu d y.
They were s e l e c t e d p r i m a r i l y on t h e b a s i s o f s i t u a t i o n s which t h e
r e s e a r c h e r had e n co un tere d in ten y e a r s o f work with t h e und ergrad u ate
j u d i c i a l system a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

In many i n s t a n c e s they

r e f l e c t s i t u a t i o n s about which t h e r e was e i t h e r concern o r c o n fu s ion
on t h e p a r t o f s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y .

The s i t u a t i o n s c over a b ro ad e r

range o f c ir c u m s ta n c e s than th o se used in t h e Anderson i n s t r u m e n t and
an e f f o r t was made t o develop items which might be more d i s c r i m i n a t i n g
in perception.

A t t e n t i o n was given to t h e i n c l u s i o n o f b e h av io r s where

t h e e f f e c t o f t h e b e h a v i o r d i r e c t l y b e n e f i t e d a n o t h e r , d i r e c t l y harmed

54

a n o t h e r , o r d i r e c t l y r e s u l t e d in s e l f - b e n e f i t f o r the i n d iv i d u a l
i n vo lv e d.

F u r t h e r , examples o f behav iors d e fin e d by H e theringto n

and Feldman as i n d e p e n d e n t - o p p o r t u n i s t i c , in d ep e n d en t-p lan n e d , s o c i a l a c t i v e , and s o c i a l - p a s s i v e were inclu ded .

These types o f behaviors

a r e d e fin e d as f o llo w s:
I n d e p e n d e n t - o p p o r t u n i s t i c b e h a v i o r - - b e h a v i o r which i s
unplanned and impulsive.
I ndependent-pl anne d b e h a v i o r — behavior which in v olv es
an element o f f o r e s i g h t and p r e l i m i n a r y a c t i v i t y .
S o c i a l - a c t i v e b e h a v i o r - - b e h a v i o r which i n v olve s two or
more people and in which t h e s u b j e c t a c t i v e l y i n s t i g a t e s
activity.
S o c i a l - p a s s i v e b e h a v i o r - - b e h a v i o r which i n v olve s two o r
more people in which th e s u b j e c t plays a p a s s i v e r o l e .
Fo rty -se v en s i t u a t i o n s were d r a f t e d from which t h e 33 were
selected.

The s e l e c t i o n was based on a review o f th e s i t u a t i o n s by

t h e J u d i c i a l Programs O f f i c e s t a f f a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and
a f t e r s e v e r a l r e v i s i o n s by t h e r e s e a r c h e r .

Face v a l i d i t y i s claimed

f o r t h e i n s t r u m e n t based on t h e above reviews.

A r e l i a b i l i t y analysis

o f t h e 33 items as one s c a l e provided an alp ha le v e l o f 9.2766 f o r
u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , 9.3914 f o r g r a d u a t e s , and 9.0345 f o r f a c u l t y .
on t h e s e c o n s i s t e n t and high c o r r e l a t i o n s , r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the
i n s t r u m e n t i s claimed.
The respo n se o p t io n s s e l e c t e d f o r each o f t h e behaviors
a r e as fo llo w s:

Based

55

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

No v i o l a t i o n ,
Minor v i o l a t i o n ,
Somewhat s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n ,
Serious v i o la t io n ,
Very s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n , and
Undecided.

These o p t i o n s were s e l e c t e d r a t h e r than th o se used in th e
Anderson i n s t r u m e n t in an e f f o r t to g e t respondents t o d e c l a r e t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e be h av io r w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f the s i t u a t i o n in which
i t occurred.

By u sin g t h e "not j u s t i f i e d " t o " e n t i r e l y j u s t i f i e d "

s c a l e o f t h e Anderson in s t r u m e n t i t was not b e li e v e d p o s s i b l e to
a s c e r t a i n whether th e behavior was, o r was n o t , p e rc eiv e d t o be
an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d f o r academic work.
In P a r t II o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r s t u d e n t s , ten behaviors
were d e s c r i b e d which a r e p r o h i b i t e d under Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ' s
r e g u l a t i o n s on s c h o l a r s h i p and grades (MSU, 1977-79).

These b e h a v i o r s ,

f o r purposes o f r e p o r t i n g in t h i s s t u d y , a r e c o n s i d e r e d as a c t s o f
dishonesty.
S t u d e n ts were asked t o r e p o r t on whether they p e r s o n a l l y
engaged in any o f t h e s e t e n b e h a v i o r s , and i f s o , on how many o c c a s i o n s .
The resp o nse o p t i o n s o f 0 through more than 5, were a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d
because t h e r e was no b a s i s on which to dete rm ine t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e
range.

The academic y e a r ( F a ll Term 1977, Winter term 1978, and Spring

Term 1978) was t h e time p e ri o d t h a t was used f o r r e p o r t i n g p u rp o ses.
The academic y e a r was used in o r d e r t o a llo w a l l s t u d e n t s surveyed t o
have a t l e a s t t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f one y e a r on which t o base t h e i r
responses.

A l o n g e r p e ri o d f o r r e p o r t i n g might have added to

56

problems o f r e c a l l and would have n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e e x c l u s i o n o f
freshmen from t h e sample.
Those s t u d e n t s who r e p o r t e d t h a t they had p e r s o n a l l y engaged
in a b e h av ior were asked whether th ey b e li e v e d any o f t h e fo llo w in g
c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t e d a t t h e time the b e h av io r o c curred:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

The c o u rs e was i n t e r e s t i n g ,
There was l i t t l e chance o f my b eh avio r being d i s c o v e r e d ,
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t was d i f f i c u l t ,
My b e h a v i o r was not d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s ,
Honesty was s t r e s s e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r ,
Com petition among c la s s m a t e s was keen,
I was u n p r e p a r e d ,
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t seemed m e a n in g le ss,
The i n s t r u c t o r was r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r , a n d / o r
I th ou g ht I needed a b e t t e r grade than I could e a r n .

Many o f t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s were v a r i a b l e s which had been i d e n t i f i e d by
S t e i n i n g e r (1968) i n h e r study o f s i t u a t i o n s in which s t u d e n t s were
asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e e x t e n t to which th ey f e l t t h e r e was a j u s t i f i ­
cation for cheating.

For purposes o f t h i s s t u d y , however, t h e focus

i s on c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e d a c t u a l l y e x i s t e d when d i s ­
h o n e sty o c c u r r e d and n o t on t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n s .
In t h e p re v io u s i n s t a n c e they were t o respond in r e l a t i o n s h i p to
whether they b e l i e v e d the b e h a v i o r was j u s t i f i e d .
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e 10 c o n d i t i o n s i n c lu d e d in a key from which
s t u d e n t s could s e l e c t r e s p o n s e s , space was provided f o r t h e i r comment
on o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s o r s p e c i a l c ir c u m s ta n c e s which th ey b e li e v e d
a p p l i e d in t h e i r s i t u a t i o n .

This r es po n se o p t io n was b e l i e v e d to

be p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a n t because t h e l i s t o f c o n d i t i o n s was l i m i t e d
and i t was t h o u g h t t o be e s s e n t i a l not t o r e s t r i c t t h e s t u d e n t s '

57

resp on se t o t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s i d e n t i f i e d w i t h i n t h e key.

The comment

s e c t i o n a l s o was employed in o r d e r t o e x p lo r e c o n d i t i o n s which may be
p r e s e n t when d i s h o n e s t y occurs t h a t have not been examined in previou s
r e s e a r c h , th u s perha ps p ro v id in g d i r e c t i o n f o r f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e s e l f - r e p o r t i n g on t h e 10 b e h a v i o r s , s t u d e n t s
were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e number o f times th ey knew o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s
engaging in each o f t h e b e h a v i o r s .

The same re sponse o p t io n s used f o r

s e l f - r e p o r t i n g were s e l e c t e d s i n c e t h e r e was no b a s i s on which to
p r e d i c t t h e amount o f d i s h o n e s t y which would be r e p o r t e d .
In P a r t I I o f t h e f a c u l t y q u e s t i o n n a i r e f a c u l t y were asked t o
r e p o r t t h e number o f t i m e s , i f any, they had observed o r d i s c o v e r e d any
o f t h e 10 b e h a v i o r s which were u t i l i z e d in P a r t II o f t h e s t u d e n t qu es­
tionnaire.

Response o p t i o n s o f 0 through more than 3 were pr ovided f o r

each o f t h e b e h a v i o r s .

Again, th e response o p t io n s were a r b i t r a r i l y

d e te rm ined because o f t h e l a c k o f i n f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g t h e in c i d e n c e
of dishonesty encountered.
demic y e a r .

The r e p o r t i n g p e rio d was t h e c u r r e n t a c a ­

I f f a c u l t y members r e p o r t e d t h a t they had observed o r

d i s c o v e r e d a b e h a v i o r in t h e i r c l a s s e s , th e y were asked to

indicate

t h e a c t i o n which they took in r e l a t i o n s h i p to the s t u d e n t involv ed.
A key t o a c t i o n s p rovided t h e fo llo w in g o p t i o n s :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

No a c t i o n t a k e n ,
Warning only (verb a l o r w r i t t e n ) ,
Required t o r e p e a t a ssig n m en t,
P e n a l t y grade o r f a i l i n g grade on a ssig n m en t,
P e n a l t y grade o r f a i l i n g grade f o r c o u r s e ,
R e f e r r e d f o r U n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n in l i e u
o f o r in a d d i t i o n t o a f a i l i n g g r a d e , o r
O ther.

58

These o p t io n s a re known to the r e s e a r c h e r t o have been
e x e r c i s e d by f a c u l t y and a r e w i t h i n t h e g u i d e l i n e s e s t a b l i s h e d
by t h e U n i v e r s i t y f o r f a c u l t y t o work with s i t u a t i o n s in v o lv in g
d i s h o n e s t y (MSU, 1971-72, pp. 41-43; 1977-78, pp. 35-36).
I f f a c u l t y members s e l e c t e d t h e o p t io n o f " o t h e r , " they
were asked t o i n d i c a t e in a comment s e c t i o n what t h e " o t h e r " a c t i o n
included.

Comments as to why c e r t a i n a c t i o n s were, o r were n o t , taken

was deemed im p o r ta n t to u n d e rs tan d in g d i f f e r e n c e s in a c t i o n s which
might be found.

For each o f t h e 10 b e h a v i o r s , in f o r m a tio n r e g a r d in g

a c t i o n taken in i n c i d e n t s 1 through 3 was s o l i c i t e d .
F a c u lty members were a l s o asked to comment g e n e r a l l y on
t h e i r concerns r e l a t i n g to academic d i s h o n e s t y and s p e c i f i c a l l y on
t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e used in t h e stu d y .

The o p p o r t u n i t y f o r open comment

was b e li v e d t o be p a r t i c u l a r l y im p ortan t because l i t t l e was known by
t h e r e s e a r c h e r about t h e e x p e r i e n c e o f f a c u l t y in working with
d i s h o n e s t y in academic work.
The Pop u la tio n and Sample
The s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n f o r t h i s study inclu ded a l l s t u d e n t s ,
g r a d u a t e and u n d e rg r a d u a t e , e n r o l l e d in t h e c o l l e g e s o f B usin e ss,
Natural S c ie n c e , and Social Science a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
d u r i n g Spring Term 1978.

In an e f f o r t t o o b t a i n a sample f o r study

which might be re a s o n a b l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n o f
s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y , t h e programs o f a l l c o l l e g e s w i t h i n t h e Univer­
s i t y were reviewed f o r d i v e r s i t y in programs o f f e r e d .

Enrollment

59

r e p o r t s from t h e O f f i c e o f t h e R e g i s t r a r , Winter 1978, were reviewed
in o r d e r t o d ete rm in e t h e number o f s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in each c l a s s
w i t h i n each o f the c o l l e g e s .

The c o l l e g e s of Natural Science and

S o cial Scienc e were s e l e c t e d f o r t h e i r d i v e r s i t y in programs o f f e r e d .
The College o f Busine ss was s e l e c t e d because o f an i n t e r e s t in having
a s p e c i f i c p a r t o f t h e s t u d e n t p o p u la tio n from a c o l l e g e with an
i d e n t i f i a b l e o r i e n t a t i o n toward a s p e c i f i c c a r e e r .
The p o p u l a t i o n from which t h e s t u d e n t sample was drawn i s as
f o l lo w s :
College

Freshman

Business

Sophomore

Junior

S e n io r

Graduate

Total

1,117

1,175

1,396

1,493

727

5,908

Natural Scienc e

888

737

937

999

862

4,423

Social Science

459

879

4,818

660

1 ,415

.1 ,405

The f a c u l t y p o p u l a t i o n included i n d i v i d u a l s who held t e n u r e
stre am appointments in t h e Colle ge o f B usin e ss, College o f Natural
S c i e n c e , o r C olle ge o f So cial Science a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y
d u r in g Spring Term 1978.

The l i s t i n g o f f a c u l t y members w i t h i n t h i s

d e f i n i t i o n was pro vid ed by t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y O f f i c e o f t h e
P r o v o s t.

The p o p u l a t i o n from which t h e f a c u l t y sample was drawn i s as

follows:
Col leg e

Facul t.y

B u s i n e s s .....................................................

110

Natural Scien ce ........................................
Social Scienc e ........................................
T o t a l .....................................................

310
207
627

60

In c o n s u l t a t i o n with two i n d i v i d u a l s from Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y ' s C olle ge o f E d u c a t i o n 's O f f i c e o f Research C o n s u l t a t i o n ,
a t o t a l s t u d e n t sample o f a pproxim ately 1,500 s t u d e n t s was s e t with
ap p ro x im ately 500 from each c o l l e g e , with 100 from each of the c l a s ­
s i f i c a t i o n s o f freshman, sophomore, j u n i o r , s e n i o r , and g r a d u a te .
The t o t a l s t u d e n t sample i s approxi m ately 10 p e r c e n t of the p o p u l a t i o n
under stu d y .

A s t r a t i f i e d random sample o f s t u d e n t s by c o l l e g e and

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was o b t a i n e d through t h e Department o f Evaluation and
Research, O f f i c e of t h e R e g i s t r a r , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

The

sample was drawn by a computer program w r i t t e n by s t a f f o f t h e Data
P r o c e s sin g Department a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

With t h e e x ce p tio n

o f th o se s t u d e n t s who had no lo ca l a d d re ss l i s t e d , th o se who l i s t e d
t h e i r l o c a l a d d re s s as a department o f f i c e and t h o s e who l i s t e d a local
a d d re ss o u t s i d e t h e c o n t i n e n t a l United S t a t e s , a l l o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s
whose names were s u p p l i e d by t h e O f f i c e o f t h e R e g i s t r a r were included
in t h e s t u d e n t sample.

The f i n a l s t u d e n t sample s i z e was 1,529.

The f a c u l t y sample was drawn from a l i s t provided by the O f f i c e
o f t h e Provost o f a l l t e n u r e st re am f a c u l t y in t h e t h r e e c o l l e g e s .
The names o f f a c u l t y who held a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s o r whose
appointment was with a r e s e a r c h u n i t in t h e c o l l e g e were removed
from th e l i s t b e ca u se, in t h e opinio n o f t h e r e s e a r c h e r , they would
pro bab ly have had l i t t l e o r no t e a c h i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y during the
past year.

A number was a s s i g n e d t o a l l o t h e r f a c u l t y members and

t h e sample was s e l e c t e d using t h e "Ten Thousand Randomly As sorted
D i g i t s " in Elementary S t a t i s t i c a l Methods in Psychology and Education

61

(Blommers & L i n q u i s t , 1960).

A sample s i z e o f 150 was s e t in

c o n s u l t a t i o n with a s t a f f member in Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ' s
Colle ge of E ducation, O f f i c e o f Research C o n s u l t a t i o n , and 150 names
were s e l e c t e d usi ng t h e method d e s c r i b e d .

The t o t a l f a c u l t y sample

i s ap p ro x im ate ly 24 p e r c e n t o f t h e f a c u l t y p o p u l a t i o n under stu d y.
C o l l e c t i o n o f t h e Data
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e , an accompanying l e t t e r , and a stamped,
s e l f - a d d r e s s e d r e t u r n envelope were s e n t by U.S. Mail to s t u d e n t s
l i v i n g off-campus and in U n i v e r s i t y Apartments on May 17, 1978
(Appendices A and C).

For s t u d e n t s l i v i n g on-campus in r e s i d e n c e

h a l l s t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n was made by personal d e l i v e r y to the
stu d e n ts ' places of residence.
D i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , accompanying l e t t e r , and
a stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope to f a c u l t y was made by d e l i v e r y to
the department o f f i c e s o f t h e f a c u l t y involved (Appendices B and E).
Both s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y were r e q u e s t e d to r e t u r n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
usi ng t h e stamped, s e l f - a d d r e s s e d envelope by May 24, 1978.

Because

a l l r e sp on se s were t o be made anonymously, a follo w -u p on non­
re s p o n se s was no t p o s s i b l e ; however, a reminder was s e n t on May 22
t o a l l s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y who were asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e in the study
r e q u e s t i n g them to complete t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , i f th ey had not done
s o , by June 5, 1978 (Appendices D and F).
o f f i n a l exam inations f o r Spring Term.

This d a te was t h e be ginning

In t h e reminder t o s t u d e n t s i t

was s t a t e d t h a t i f f o r some rea son they di d n o t choose t o complete the

62

q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o p l e a s e f i l l out th e background in f o r m a tio n r e q u e s t e d
and i n d i c a t e why they were n o t r esp o nd ing .

The method o f d i s t r i b u t i n g

t h e follow -u p l e t t e r to both s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y was th e same as t h e
i n i t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of the q u estio n n aire.
The l a s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s to be accepted f o r use in t h i s study
were r e c e i v e d on June 10, 1978.

The t o t a l number o f resp on ses from

s t u d e n t s was 747 o f which 740 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used in th e a n a l y s i s .
Three q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were not used because e i t h e r to o l i t t l e in f o r m a tio n
was s u p p l i e d to be o f value o r t h e r e was no d i s c r i m i n a t i o n in r e s p o n s e s .
On one q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h e w r i t t e n comments o f t h e . r e s p o n d e n t i n d i c a t e d a
l a c k o f u n d e rs ta n d in g r e g a r d i n g t h e in f o r m a tio n being sought which the
r e s e a r c h e r concluded was based on language d i f f e r e n c e s .

One s t u d e n t

responded by l e t t e r r a t h e r than by u sing th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and one
s t u d e n t responded with in f o r m a tio n not r e l e v a n t to th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , a s t u d e n t r e t u r n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e not completed and
s t a t e d t h a t the r e s e a r c h e r had not been c l e a r about f o r whom the
r e s e a r c h was being done and f o r what purpose.
The t o t a l number o f respo nses from f a c u l t y was 71 o f which 66
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were used in t h e a n a l y s i s .

Three i n d i c a t e d they were

not completing t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e because th ey had not been t e a c h i n g
during the year.

Of t h e t h r e e , two i n d i c a t e d they had been on lea ve

and one s t a t e d t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s had p reclud ed
teaching.

One s t a t e d t h a t r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s d i d not allo w time to

complete t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and a d d i t i o n a l l y one s t a t e d t h a t the
survey would do more harm than good and r e t u r n e d th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e
unanswered.

63

A naly sis o f t h e Data
The d a t a , once c o l l e c t e d , was coded and keypunched on computer
d a ta c ard s f o r a n a l y s i s on t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y " S c o p e h u s tle r "
system which u t i l i z e s t h e Control Data Corp o ration (CDC) 6500 Computer.
The S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r th e Social Sciences (SPSS) (Nie, H u ll,
J e n k i n s , S t e i n b r e n n e r , & Bent, 1975) was used in t h e t r e a t m e n t o f
the data.
One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s were used to examine
d i f f e r e n c e s among groups in both p e r c e p t i o n s and d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d .
An a lp ha lev e l o f a = .05 was s e l e c t e d to de termine s i g n i f i c a n c e in
t h o s e hypotheses o f primary i n t e r e s t .
Where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found among groups using
t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s , a p o st hoc t ec h n iq u e developed by
S cheffg was employed t o de termine which o f the s p e c i f i c group means
c o n t r i b u t e d t o d i f f e r e n c e s among groups.

This p o s t hoc procedure was

used p r i m a r i l y because o f i t s e x a c tn e s s in working with unequal sample
sizes.

An alp ha l e v e l o f a = .05 was a l s o s e t f o r t h e p o s t hoc

compari s o n s .
Where th e d a ta c o l l e c t e d d id n o t lend i t s e l f t o s t a t i s t i c a l
a n a l y s i s , d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s only a r e r e p o r t e d .

Not a l l q u e s t i o n s

which were o r i g i n a l l y posed r e s u l t e d in t h e f o r m u la ti o n o f h y p oth eses.
The fo llo w in g hypotheses were developed f o r t e s t i n g p urp oses.
They a r e c a t e g o r i z e d by t h e p a r t i c u l a r a re a o f i n t e r e s t under i n v e s t i ­
gation.

The hyp othes es in the f i r s t two c a t e g o r i e s a r e o f primary

64

i n t e r e s t , t h e l a t t e r two o f secondary i n t e r e s t .

The r e s u l t s from

t h e t e s t i n g o f t h e s e hypothes es a r e r e p o r t e d in Chapter IV.
Hypotheses
P e r c e p t io n s o f Behaviors
H-j:

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among und ergradu ate
s t u d e n t s , g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , and f a c u l t y in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s
o f b e h a v i o r s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.

H^:

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among und erg rad uate
s t u d e n t s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by s e x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e , o r grade
p o i n t a v e r a g e (GPA), in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f b eh av io rs
a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.

H3 :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among g r a d u a te s t u d e n t s ,
when c a t e g o r i z e d by se x , c o l l e g e , o r GPA, in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s
o f b e h a v i o r a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.

H^:

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among f a c u l t y , when
c a t e g o r i z e d by y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g and c o l l e g e , in t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n o f b e h a v io r s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.

H^:

There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between s t u d e n t s who s e l f r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y and t h o s e who do n o t , in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n
o f b e h a v i o r s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.

Dish onesty Reported
Hgi

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among u n d e rg ra d uate
s t u d e n t s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by s e x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e , o r GPA,
in t h e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d .

65

H^:

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s ,
when c a t e g o r i z e d by s e x , c o l l e g e , o r GPA, in t h e i n c i d e n c e o f
dishonesty s e lf-re p o rte d .

Hg:

There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between s t u d e n t s who s e l f r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y and th o se who do n o t , in t h e i n c id e n c e o f
d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d among o t h e r s t u d e n t s .

C o n d itio n s C i te d by S tud e nts when
D ishonesty Occurred
Hg:

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s ,
when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , o r GPA, in t h e c o n d i t i o n s
c i t e d when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r e d .

H^q :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among g r a d u a t e s , when
c a t e g o r i z e d by c o l l e g e o r GPA, in t h e c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when
dishonesty occurred.

A ctio ns Taken by F a c u lt y when Dishonesty
Was Discovered
H-ji :

There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e among f a c u l t y in t h e a c t i o n s
which th ey t a k e when a d i s h o n e s t b e h a v io r i s observed o r
discovered.

66

D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms
The f o l lo w in g o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n s a re used in the
hypothes es and thro ug h ou t t h e study:
F a c u l ty — Refers

t o any person who held a t e n u r e stream appointment

in t h e Colle ge o f B u sin e ss, College o f Natural S c ie n c e , o r
Colle ge o f Social Science a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y during
Spring Term 1978.
S t u d e nt —

Refers t o any person e n r o l l e d as a s t u d e n t in the College
o f B u sin e ss, College o f Natural S c ien c e, o r College o f Social
Science a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y during Spring Term 1978.

Acts o f dishonesty — Refers

t o th o se behaviors p r o h i b i t e d by Michigan

S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ' s r e g u l a t i o n s on s c h o l a r s h i p and g r a d e s .
P erception — Refers

to what a person d i s c e r n s o r i s c o g n iz a n t o f .

Nature of beh a v i o r — Refers

t o whether th e behavior i s indep enden t-

o p p o r t u n i s t i c , in d ep e n d en t-p lan n e d , s o c i a l - a c t i v e , o r s o c i a l p a s s i v e in n a t u r e .
Independent-opportunistic behavior —

Refers to t h a t b eh av io r which i s

unplanned and im p u lsive.
Independent-planned behavior —

Refers t o t h a t b e h a v io r which i n vo lve s

an element o f f o r e s i g h t and p r e l i m i n a r y a c t i v i t y .
Social-active behavior —

Re fers to t h a t b ehavior which in v o lv e s two

o r more people and in which t h e s u b j e c t a c t i v e l y i n s t i g a t e s
activ ity .
Social-passive behavior —

Refers t o t h a t behavior which i n v o lv e s two

o r more people bu t t h e s u b j e c t p lays a p a s s i v e r o l e .

67

Summary
A t w o - p a r t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed t o examine how s t u d e n t s
and f a c u l t y p e r c e i v e s e l e c t e d beh av io rs in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o what they
b e l i e v e i s an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f academic work and t o a tte m p t
t o de termine what the i n cid en c e o f d i s h o n e s t y i s among s t u d e n t s .
A d d i t i o n a l l y , an e f f o r t was made w i t h i n th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e to ex p lo re
t h e c o n d i t i o n s under which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e d i s h o n e s t y o c cu rs and t h e
a c t i o n s taken by f a c u l t y when i t i s d i s c o v e r e d .
The p o p u l a t i o n f o r th e study c o n s i s t e d o f s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y
in the c o l l e g e s o f B u sin ess, Natural S c ie n c e , and Social Science a t
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

Random sampling procedures were used in

s e l e c t i n g a sample o f 1,529 s t u d e n t s and 150 f a c u l t y .
The q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d t o i n d i v i d u a l s in the
sample through U.S. Postal S e rv ice o r personal d e l i v e r y t o r e s i d e n c e s
o r o f f i c e s and r e t u r n e d through th e U.S. Po stal S e r v i c e .

Seven hundred

and f o r t y r e t u r n e d s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and 66 r e t u r n e d f a c u l t y
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s provided t h e d a ta used in t h e a n a l y s i s .
The d a ta c o l l e c t e d were coded and keypunched on computer c ard s
and processed by a CDC 6500 Computer a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y using
t he SPSS program.

A one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t ec h n iq u e was used t o

t e s t t h e hypotheses s t a t e d and t h e Scheffe p o s t hoc comparison procedure
was employed to i n v e s t i g a t e d i f f e r e n c e s where s i g n i f i c a n c e was found
using t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s .

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA

Introduction
This c h a p t e r i s devoted t o the a n a l y s i s o f d a ta c o l l e c t e d f o r
examination o f the s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s o u t l i n e d in Chapter I .

Because

th e a n a l y s i s goes beyond the t e s t i n g o f the hypotheses s t a t e d in
Chapter I I I , t h e q u e s t i o n s used t o guide t h e r e s e a r c h e r in the
a n a l y s i s a re r e s t a t e d here .
1.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y
in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h av iors which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work?

2.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among s t u d e n t s in t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h av io r s which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d
f o r academic work when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s s t a n d i n g , c o l l e g e ,
grade p o i n t a v e r a g e , o r sex?

3.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among f a c u l t y in t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e havio rs which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d
f o r academic work when c a t e g o r i z e d by c o l l e g e , se x , o r y e a r s
o f c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g e x p e r ie n c e ?

4.

What a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e b e h av io r s which a r e
p e rc e iv e d by s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y to be s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s
o f an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d f o r academic work?
68

69

5.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among s t u d e n t s in th e
in c i d e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y when c a t e g o r i z e d by
c l a s s s t a n d i n g , c o l l e g e , grade p o i n t a v e r a g e , se x , o r p la c e
o f residence?

6.

I s t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s t u d e n t ' s
p e r c e p t i o n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work and d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d ?

7.

Do t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e d e x i s t e d when they
engaged in a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y d i f f e r by th e s p e c i f i c type o f
b e h a v i o r in which they engaged?

8.

I s t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e l f - r e p o r t i n g
o f d i s h o n e s t y by s t u d e n t s and t h e i r r e p o r t i n g o f d i s h o n e s t y by
others?

9.

Do f a c u l t y d i f f e r in t h e a c t i o n s which th ey ta k e when a
s p e c i f i c ty pe o f d i s h o n e s t y i s observed o r d isc o v ere d ?
A one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a ri a n c e te c h n iq u e was used t o t e s t the

hypotheses.

Where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found, a p o s t hoc

p rocedure developed by S c h e ffe was used to determine which s p e c i f i c
group mean c o n t r i b u t e d t o the o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e among th e groups under
study.

All h ypotheses a r e s t a t e d in n u ll form and a h y p o t h e s is i s

r e j e c t e d when t h e computed p r o b a b i l i t y valu es a r e g r e a t e r than th e
e s t a b l i s h e d alp ha l e v e l o f .05.
Computations f o r t h e p o s t hoc comparisons were done u t i l i z i n g
a p r o ce du re i n c l u d e d in t h e S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e S ocial Scien ces
(SPSS) (Nie e t a l . , 1975, pp. 426-428) which provided ranges f o r th e

70

.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r t h e Scheffe t e c h n iq u e .

The c r i t i c a l

d i f f e r e n c e between means was c a l c u l a t e d using th e va lu e s given with
the one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s .

In r e p o r t i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f

t h e p o st hoc t e s t s , the means f o r the groups being compared a r e l i s t e d
along with t h e d i f f e r e n c e in t h e means.

Where the d i f f e r e n c e in group

means i s g r e a t e r than the c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e i t i s noted as being
significant.

In the t a b l e s t h e c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e i s i nclu d ed in

p a r e n t h e s e s fo llo w in g the d i f f e r e n c e in group means.
The r e s u l t s of t h e a n a l y s i s o f d a ta a r e p r e s e n t e d in both
s t a t i s t i c a l and d e s c r i p t i v e form and a r e r e p o r t e d under the fo llo w in g
f o u r c a t e g o r i e s which f o llo w the fo u r o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e stud y .
1.

P e r c e p t io n s o f behav iors a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work,

2.

Dishone sty r e p o r t e d ,

3.

C onditions c i t e d by s t u d e n t s as being p r e s e n t when d i s h o n e s t y
o c c u r r e d , and

4.

Ac tions take n by f a c u l t y when d i s h o n e s t y was d i s c o v e r e d .
P e r c e p t io n s o f Behaviors A p p ro p riate
f o r Academic Work
Hypothesis 1 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f
b e h av io r s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.
The summary o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t , a p p ea ring
in Table 4 . 1 , shows t h a t t h e compute p r o b a b i l i t y i s g r e a t e r than the
.05 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e s p e c i f i e d .
rejected.

The h y p o th e s is i s t h e r e f o r e

71

Table 4.1

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e in means
between groups in p e r c e p t i o n s on a l l behaviors

Group

Undergraduate

Graduate

Fa c u lty

584
3.3528
.5992

156
3.4692
.6414

66
3.6897
.5234

Sample s i z e
Mean
Stand ard d e v i a t i o n

A n aly sis o f Variance

Between groups
Within groups

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F-Ratio

F-Probability

2
802

7.5770
290.8940

3.7885
.3623

10.4580

.0001*

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .05 l e v e l .

Since a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found by t h i s t e s t , the
S ch effe p o st hoc comparison t ec h n iq u e was used t o determine which
s p e c i f i c group mean c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e o v e r a l l d i f f e r e n c e .

The

r e s u l t s o f t h e p o s t hoc t e s t s a r e as p r e s e n t e d in Table 4.2

Table 4.2

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s among
u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y

Group
Undergraduates
Graduates
F a c u lt y

Mean

Graduates

F a c u lty

3.3528
3 4692
3.6897

.1164 (.1348)

.3369 ( .1 2 9 9 ) '
.2205 (.1647)*

aMean d i f f e r e n c e beyond c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e .

72

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between und e rg ra d uate s
and f a c u l t y and between g r a d u a t e s and f a c u l t y ; however, no s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e was found between und e rg ra d uate and g rad u a te s t u d e n t s in
t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s as measured by the o v e r a l l s c a l e o f 33 items.
In a d d i t i o n t o examining t h e p e r c e p t i o n s using t h e o v e r a l l
s c a l e , i t was b e l i e v e d im p o r ta n t to examine p e r c e p t i o n s by each
i n d i v i d u a l item which d e s c r i b e d a s p e c i f i c behavior in o r d e r t o d e t e r ­
mine on what b e h a v i o r s t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s .

A one-way

a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was made on each behavior and a summary o f
the a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r t h o s e behav iors where s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s were found i s r e p o r t e d in Table 4 . 3 .

In c o n s u l t a t i o n with

a s t a f f member in t h e O f f i c e o f Research C o n s u l t a t i o n i t was decided
to e s t a b l i s h a .005 l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e in t e s t i n g f o r d i f f e r e n c e s
on i n d i v i d u a l i t e m s .

On t h o s e b e h a v io r s where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

were found between u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y , Scheffe p o st
hoc comparisons were made t o dete rm ine where d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d among
groups.

The r e s u l t s o f t h e post, hoc t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d in Table 4 . 4 .
Based on t h e p o s t hoc comparisons i t was found t h a t f a c u l t y

viewed more s e r i o u s l y than u n d e rg r a d u a t e s o r g r a d u a te s t h e fo llow in g
behaviors:
1.

Let f r i e n d copy,

2.

Submitted p a p e r f o r two c o u rs e s changing only t h e t i t l e page,

3.

Did no t a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t l a b experiment f i n d i n g s ,

4.

C r i t i q u e d take-home f i n a l f o r c la s s m a te when c l a s s was t o l d
t o do own work,

5.

F a i l e d t o use q u o t a t i o n marks w ith m a t e r i a l copied v e rb a t im ,

73

Table 4 .3

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a ria n c e t e s t s f o r behaviors where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r
ences were found In p e r c e p tio n s among u n d e rg ra d u a tes, g r a d u a te s , and f a c u l t y

Behavior

OF

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

F-R atio

F - P r o b a b il ity

Let f r i e n d copy

B
W

2
796

50.6842
945.0380

25.3421
1.1872

21.3455

.0001*

R eferred to t e x t d u rin g exam
when l e f t "on t h e i r honor"

B
W

2
791

16.3570
822.1871

8.1785
1.0394

7.8683

.0004*

Submitted pap er f o r two cou rse s
changing only t i t l e page

B
M

2
786

105.3826
1072.4273

52.6913
1.3644

38.6184

.0001*

Reviewed f r a t f i l e p r i o r to
exam

B
W

2
782

55.1951
1421.9591

27.5975
1.8184

15.1771

.0001*

Gave neighbor wrong answer when
nudged f o r h elp

B
W

2
722

27.2649
1683.5627

13.6324
2.3318

5.8463

.0030*

Did n o t a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t la b
experim ent f in d i n g s

B
W

2
774

108.4852
866.6216

54.2426
1.1197

48.4453

.0001*

Received in fo rm a tio n about t e s t
from roommate in p r i o r s e c t i o n

B
W

2
788

31.5551
1183.9999

15.7775
1.5025

10.5006

.0001*

Looked a t a n o t h e r 's exam fo r
formula du rin g t e s t

B
W

2
794

36.0254
934.8052

18.0127
1.7773

15.2996

.0001*

F a ile d to l i s t p r i o r work on
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r adm ission

B
W

2
762

22.7741
1243.2599

11.3871
1.6316

6.9792

.0010*

Had b e e r w ith i n s t r u c t o r in
hopes o f g e t t i n g b e t t e r grade

B
W

2
781

15.6596
1060.7575

7.8298
1.3582

5.7648

.0033*

C ri tiq u e d take-home f i n a l f o r
c la ss m a te when c l a s s was t o l d
t o do own work

B
U

2
786

82.9244
1060.8323

41.4622
1.3497

30.7205

.0001*

F a ile d t o use q u o ta tio n marks
w ith m a te r ia l cop ie d v erbatim

B
W

2
780

18.5253
951.6918

9.2627
1.2201

7.5916

.0005*

S ig naled answers d u rin g exam

B
W

2
795

39.4995
886.4203

19.7497
1.1150

17.7129

.0001*

P u r p o s e f u lly f a i l e d t o do p a r t
on j o i n t p r o j e c t b u t s t i l l
r e c e iv e d an A grade

B
W

2
781

25.0539
974.5877

12.5269
1.2479

10.0386

.0001*

Faked f o o tn o te s

B
W

2
781

21.2322
696.7053

10.6161
0.8921

11.9065

.0001*

Prepared bluebook p r i o r t o
exam and s u b s t i t u t e d i t f o r
one t o be done in c l a s s

B
W

2
782

24.5967
784.2226

12.2983
1.0016

12.2792

.0001*

Note:

B r e p r e s e n t s between gro up s; W, w ith in groups.
• S i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .005 l e v e l .

74
Table 4 .4

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s 1n p e rcep tion s among und ergraduates, g r a d u a te s,
and f a c u l t y on those behaviors where s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s were found

Behavior

Group

Let f r i e n d copy

Faculty

Mean

Graduates

Undergraduates
Graduates
Faculty

3.5216
3.8710
4.3692

.3494 (.2 4 1 8 )a

.8476
.4982

.3497)?
.3951)

Referred to t e x t during exa/n
when l e f t "on t h e i r honor"

Undergraduates
Graduates
Faculty

3.9617
4.1818
4.4242

.2263 (.2312)

.4625
.2424

. 3274)a
.3726)

Submitted paper f o r two courses
changing only t i t l e page

Undergraduates
Graduates
Facu lty

2.1254
2.4834
3.4375

.3580 (.2594)°

1.3121
.9541

.3860)?
.4332)

Reviewed f r a t f i l e p r i o r to
exam

Undergraduates
Graduates
Faculty

2.5219
2.2467
1.5781

.2752 (.3036)

.9438
.6686

.4457)?
.5024)

Gave neighbor wrong answer when
nudged f o r help

Undergraduates
Graduates
F aculty

2.5547
2.9720
3.0164

.4173 (.3 4 3 5 )a

.4617
.0444

.4924)
.5566)

Did not a c c u r a t e ly r e p o r t lab
experiment fin d in g s

Undergraduates
Graduates
F aculty

2.3922
2.9241
3.6212

.5319 (.2604)*

1.2290
.6971

.3640)?
.4155)

Received inform ation about t e s t
from roommate in p r i o r se c tio n

Undergraduates
Graduates
Faculty

2.5557
3.0654
2.7188

.5097 (.2 6 5 7 )a

.1631
.3466

.3850)
.4349)

Looked a t a n o t h e r 's exam f o r
formula during t e s t

Undergraduates
Graduates
F aculty

3.5687
3.8910
4.2576

.3223 ( .2333)a

.6889
.3666

.1475 )a
.3797)

F a ile d to l i s t p r i o r work on
a p p l i c a t i o n f o r admission

Undergraduates
Graduates
F aculty

2.8221
2.9800
3.4375

.1579 (.2886)

.6154
.4575

.4139)a
.4679)

Had b eer w ith i n s t r u c t o r in
hopes o f g e t t i n g b e t t e r grade

Undergraduates
Graduates
F aculty

2.0230
1.8039
1.5692

.2191 (.2606)

.4538
.2347

.3745)a
.4233)

C ritiq u e d take-home f in a l f o r
c la ssm a te when c l a s s was to ld
to do own work

Undergraduates
Graduates
Facu lty

2.2680
2.6405
3.4000

.3725 (.2 5 9 5 )a

1.1320
.7595

.3732)?
.4220)

F a ile d to use q u o ta tio n marks
with m a te ria l copied verbatim

Undergraduates
Graduates
Facu lty

2.1479
2.2848
2.7031

.1369 (.2482)

.5552
.4183

.3574)?
.4043)

Signaled answers during exam

Undergraduates
Graduates
F ac u lty

3.8700
4.1677
4.6212

.2977 (.2 3 4 4 )a

.7512
.4535

.3367)?
.3808)

P u rp o s e fu lly f a i l e d t o do p a r t
on j o i n t p r o j e c t but s t i l l
re c e iv e d A grade

Undergraduates
Graduates
Faculty

3.9296
3.5592
3.4688

.3704 ( .2503)a

.4608
.0904

.3614)®
.4084)

Faked fo o tn o te s

Undergraduates
Graduates
Fa c u lty

2.1270
2.2781
2.7121

.1511 (.2122)

.5851
.4340

.3014)?
.3420)“

Prepared bluebook p r i o r to
exam and s u b s t i t u t e d 1t f o r
one t o be done 1n c la s s

Undergraduates
Graduates
Facu lty

4.1664
4.4768
4.7031

.3104 (.2 2 4 7 )a

.5367
.2263

.3237)“
.3663)

aMean d i f f e r e n c e beyond c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e .

75

6.

Signale d answers d u rin g exam, and

7.

Faked f o o t n o t e s .
F a c u lty viewed more s e r i o u s l y than und erg rad uates the

fo llow in g b e h a v io r s :
1.

R e ferred t o t e x t during exam when l e f t "on honor,"

2.

F a i l e d to l i s t p r i o r work on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r ad m iss ion , and

3.

Prepared bluebook p r i o r to exam and s u b s t i t u t e d i t f o r one
t o be done in c l a s s .
There were no b e h av io rs where t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­

ences between f a c u l t y and g ra d u a t e s t u d e n t s where t h e r e were no t a l s o
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between f a c u l t y and u n d e rg r a d u a t e s .
Those b e h av io r s viewed more s e r i o u s l y by g r a d u a t e s than
und erg rad u ates a re as f o llo w s:
1.

Let f r i e n d copy,

2.

Submitted pa per f o r two c o u r s e s , changing only t i t l e page,

3.

Gave n e ig hbor wrong answer when nudged f o r h e l p ,

4.

Did not a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t lab experiment f i n d i n g s ,

5.

Looked a t a n o t h e r ' s exam f o r formula during t e s t ,

6.

Received in f o r m a tio n about t e s t from roommate in p r i o r

7.

Signale d answers during exam,

8.

Prepared bluebook p r i o r t o exam and s u b s t i t u t e d i t

section,

f o r one

t o be done in c l a s s , and
9.

C r i t i q u e d take-home f i n a l f o r c la ss m a te when c l a s s
t o do own work.

was t o l d

76

Undergraduates viewed t h e fo llo w in g behaviors more s e r i o u s l y
than f a c u l t y :
1.

Reviewed f r a t f i l e p r i o r t o exam,

2.

Had beer with i n s t r u c t o r in hopes o f g e t t i n g b e t t e r g r a d e ,
and

3.

P u r p o s e f u l l y f a i l e d t o do p a r t on j o i n t p r o j e c t but s t i l l
r e c e i v e d A g rade.
"Reviewing f r a t f i l e p r i o r to exam" was seen by both

u n d e rg ra d u ate s and g r a d u a t e s as being more s e r i o u s than by f a c u l t y .
On f i v e o f t h e ten behavio rs where t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s found between u n d e rg ra d u ate s and f a c u l t y , s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o found between un de rg ra d u ate s and g r a d u a t e s .
Although t h e r e were n ine b e havio rs on which s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
between u n d e rg r a d u a te s and g r a d u a t e s were found, t h e r e a d e r i s reminded
t h a t in using t h e s i n g l e s c a l e to measure p e r c e p t i o n s , no o v e r a l l
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between t h e two groups.
In a d d i t i o n to examining the d i f f e r e n c e s among g r ou p s, t h e
rank o r d e r o f b e h a v io r s i s r e p o r t e d so t h a t t h e o v e r a l l s e r i o u s n e s s
with which t h e b e h a v i o r s were p e rc e i v e d can be examined.
The ranking o f b e h av io r s in terms o f t h e s e r i o u s n e s s with which
they a r e viewed by u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y i s shown in
Table 4 . 5 .

The l i s t i n g o f b e h av io r s r e f l e c t s t h e ranking o f t h e behav­

i o r s by u n d e rg r a d u a t e s with t h e rank o f t h e b eh av io r by g r a d u a t e s and
f a c u l t y noted in t h e two fo llo w in g columns:

77
Table 4 .5

Rank o rd e r o f p e rce p tio n s by und ergradu ates, gradu ate s, and f a c u l t y
Rank

Behavior

Undergraduates

Graduates

Faculty

Persuaded s e c r e t a r y to change two grades ......................................

1

1

1

Submitted c la s s m a t e 's paper by changing t i t l e page .................

2

2

2

Took a l l r e s e rv e books from l i b r a r y f o r "house" l i b r a r y

3

4

7

Took exam f o r f r a t b r o t h e r on advice o f f r a t o f f i c e r . . . .

4

5

4

Twin s i s t e r took e n t i r e course ...........................................................

5

3

3

Exchanged f o o t b a ll t i c k e t s f o r a B grade ......................................

6

7

5

Prepared bluebook p r i o r to exam; s u b s t i t u t e d i t fo r
one to be done in c l a s s ........................................................................

7

6

6

Found I n s t r u c t o r ' s b r i e f c a s e and copied mid-term exam

8

8

12

R eferred to t e x t in exam when l e f t on "honor"

. .

. . .

.........................

9

9

9

I n t e n t i o n a l l y gave classm ate wrong formula ..................................

10

10

8

P u rp o s e fu lly f a i l e d t o do share on j o i n t p r o j e c t ; s t i l l
re c e iv e d an A .............................................................................................

11

18

19

Changed t h r e e answers when s e l f - s c o r i n g exam ..............................

12

11

13

F a ls e ly advised i n s t r u c t o r t h a t exam was "out" b efore given.

13

13

14

S ign aled answers d u rin g exam ...............................................................

14

10

8

Used c a l c u l a t o r du ring exam when in s t r u c t e d not to .................

15

17

17

Looked a t a n o t h e r 's exam f o r formula ...............................................

16

14

11

Took t e s t bo ok let a f t e r exam w ithout a u th o r iz a t io n .................

17

16

15

Let f r i e n d copy du ring exam

................................................................

18

15

10

Had d o c to r w rit e excuse to cover m issing exam; was
unprepared ......................................................................................................

19

20

35

Paid classm ates f o r term papers to put in cornnercial
company f i l e .................................................................................................

20

24

24

F a ile d t o l i s t p r i o r work on a p p l i c a t i o n f o r admission . . .

21

21

21

Gave f r i e n d cornnercial term paper t o submit

..............................

22

25

27

............................................................................

23

27

26

Received Information on exam from roomnate in p r i o r
s e c t io n ..........................................................................................................

24

19

29

Gave neighbor wrong answers when nudged f o r help .....................

25

22

25

Reviewed f r a t f i l e p r i o r t o exam .......................................................

26

30

32

Did no t a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t r e s u l t s o f lab experiment

27

23

18

C rit iq u e d classm a tes take-home f i n a l when c l a s s to ld
t o do own work ..............................................................................................

28

26

22

F a il e d t o use q u o ta t io n marks on m a te ria l used verbatim

. .

29

30

31

Faked fo o t n o te s when c o u l d n ' t f in d notes ......................................

30

31

30

Submitted same paper f o r two c o u rs e s; changed only
t i t l e page ......................................................................................................

31

29

20

Had b eer w ith I n s t r u c t o r 1n hopes o f g e t t i n g b e t t e r grade

32

32

33

Received t u t o r i n g in exchange f o r b a b y s i t t i n g

33

33

31

Used un auth orized PNC

. . . .

..........................

78

On exam ination o f t h e ranking o r d e r o f th e s e r i o u s n e s s o f
b e h a v i o r s by u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y i t i s noted t h a t
on only e i g h t b e h av io r s i s t h e r e a d i f f e r e n c e g r e a t e r than f o u r in the
p o s i t i o n o f rank.

This o b s e r v a t i o n would su gg est t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s

among t h e t h r e e groups a r e g r e a t e r in degree than in d i r e c t i o n .
I t i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t th e seven b e h av iors which
u n d e rg r a d u a te s ranked as being t h e most s e r i o u s , were a l s o ranked as
the seven most s e r i o u s by g r a d u a t e s and f a c u l t y , although n o t in the
same rank o r d e r .
I t would g e n e r a l l y appear t h a t t h e g r e a t e s t d i s c r e p a n c y in
rank i s found in t h e b e h av iors which f a l l t o t h e middle o f t h e ranking
s c a l e , w ith l e s s d i s c r e p a n c y a t e i t h e r th e high o r low extreme.
The f i v e b e h av io r s ranked most s e r i o u s by unde rgra du ate s and
t h o s e f i v e ranked l e a s t s e r i o u s were examined in an e f f o r t t o de termine
t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b e h av io r s a t t h e extremes o f t h e continuum.
F i r s t , t h e w r i t e r c a t e g o r i z e d a l l beh av io rs as t o whether they
were i n d e p e n d e n t - o p p o r t u n i s t i c ( 1 - 0 ) , in dep end en t-p lann ed ( I - P ) ,
s o c i a l - a c t i v e (S-A), o r s o c i a l - p a s s i v e (S-P ).

F u r t h e r , t h e beh av io rs

were c a t e g o r i z e d in terms o f whether t h e e f f e c t o f t h e b e h av io r r e s u l t e d
in d i r e c t s e l f - b e n e f i t (S-B), d i r e c t b e n e f i t t o a n o th e r (B-A), o r d i r e c t
harm t o a n o t h e r (H-A).

A f t e r t h e w r i t e r had c a t e g o r i z e d t h e b e h a v i o r s ,

f o u r personnel s t a f f members made t h e i r own independent judgments
regarding the nature of the behaviors.

The c a t e g o r i z a t i o n o f t h e

b e h a v io r s r e f l e c t e d in Table 4 .6 r e p r e s e n t s t h e c a t e g o r y d e s i g n a t i o n
o f f o u r o u t o f t h e f i v e i n d i v i d u a l s who reviewed t h e b e h a v i o r s .

79

Table 4 . 6

Nature o f behaviors p e rc eive d most s e r i o u s and l e a s t s e r i o u s

Behavior

S-B

B-A

H-A

1 -0

I-P

S-A

Most Se rio u s Behaviors:
Persuaded s e c r e t a r y t o change
two grades

X

X

Submitted c l a s s m a t e ' s paper
by changing t i t l e page

X

X

X

X

X

Took a l l r e s e r v e books from
library
Took exam f o r f r a t b r o t h e r
on ad v ic e o f f r a t o f f i c e r
Twin s i s t e r took e n t i r e
co u rse

X

X

X

X

X

Least Se rio u s Behaviors:
F a i le d to use q u o t a t i o n marks
on m a t e r i a l copied verbatim

X

X

Faked f o o t n o t e s when c o u l d n ' t
f i n d note c a r d s

X

X

Submitted same paper f o r two
c o u rs es

X

X

Had b e er with i n s t r u c t o r in
hopes o f g e t t i n g b e t t e r grade

X

X

Received t u t o r i n g in exchange
for babysitting

X

X

S-P

80

The t h r e e b e h a v io r s viewed most s e r i o u s l y by und erg radu ates
and ranked high by g r a d u a t e s and f a c u l t y were beh av io rs where both
d i r e c t harm t o a n o t h e r and d i r e c t s e l f - b e n e f i t r e s u l t e d .

Only two

o t h e r b e h a v io r s w i t h i n t h e 33 items were c a t e g o r i z e d as d i r e c t l y
harming a n o t h e r .

They were " i n t e n t i o n a l l y g i v in g a c la s s m a te a

wrong formula" and " i n t e n t i o n a l l y giv in g a c la ss m a te a wrong answer
when nudged d u rin g an exam."

The harm r e s u l t i n g from having a grade

changed, having someone s u b s t i t u t e papers t o be s u b m i tt e d , and t a k i n g
a l l r e s e r v e books i s probably seen as being g r e a t e r in de gree than t h e
harm o f t h e two b e h a v i o r s excluded from th o se ranked most s e r i o u s .
Those b e h av io r s ranked l e a s t s e r i o u s , i t would a p p e a r, were
in dependent a c t s where t h e r e i s no evidence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t any
d i r e c t harm r e s u l t e d .
n e c e ssa rily derived.

Although s e l f - b e n e f i t i s inte nded i t was not
From an i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of

a l l 33 b e h a v io r s and t h e i r r a n k i n g , i t would appear t h a t whether the
b e h a v i o r i s i n d e p e n d e n t - o p p o r t u n i s t i c , in d e p e n d e n t- p la n n e d , s o c i a l a c t i v e , o r s o c i a l - p a s s i v e does n o t , in and o f i t s e l f , i n f l u e n c e the
s e r i o u s n e s s with which i t was p e r c e i v e d ; r a t h e r , who, i f anyone, i s
d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by t h e b e h a v i o r , and t h e de gree o f b e n e f i t or harm
may be more r e l a t e d t o t h e s e r i o u s n e s s w ith which i t i s p e rc e i v e d .
Other than v i s u a l i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e d a t a , an a n a l y s i s of t h e
n a t u r e o f b e h a v i o r s and t h e i r p e rc e iv e d s e r i o u s n e s s was not u ndertaken.
An i n i t i a l e f f o r t was d i r e c t e d toward t h e development o f s u b - s c a l e s
which might be used in f u r t h e r t r e a t m e n t o f t h e d a t a ; however, s c a l e
b u i l d i n g t o a llo w f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a was not seen

81

as c e n t r a l t o t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n and, t h e r e f o r e , not pursued.
I t might be u s e f u l , however, t o do so in a subsequent study.
H yp o th esis 2 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s when c a t e g o r i z e d by se x, c l a s s , c o l l e g e ,
o r GPA, in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f b eh avio rs a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic
work.
A one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e among groups
w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y was used t o determine i f t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t
differences.

T a b le 4 .7 r e p o r t s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s .

Since a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found using t h e one-way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e on a l l v a r i a b l e s — se x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and grade
p o i n t a v e r a g e — h y p o t h e s is 2 i s r e j e c t e d .
A one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was a l s o used to de termine
whether t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between und erg rad u ates
e n r o l l e d in p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l programs and th ose who were n o t .

Table 4 .8

reports the r e s u l ts of th is analysis.
The r e s u l t o f t h i s t e s t shows no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
in p e r c e p t i o n s between p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s and t h o s e not in
p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l programs.
U n de rgraduate women were found t o r a t e t h e behaviors more
s e r i o u s l y t h a n men.

The p o s t hoc comparisons using t h e Scheff£

t e c h n i q u e f a i l e d t o r e v e a l where t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
between fr esh m en , sophomores, j u n i o r s , and s e n i o r s although th e alp ha
level

(.0 4 9 3 ) d e n o te s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s by c l a s s .

82

T a b le 4 . 7

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among u n d e r g r a d u a te s when
c a t e g o r i z e d by s e x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA
Sex

Group
Sample s i z e
Mean
S ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

Female

Male

303
3.4215
.5672

248
3.2550
.6256

A n a ly s i s o f V a rian ce

Between groups
W ith in g ro u p s

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

1
549

3.7779
193.8230

3.7779
0.3530

F -R a tio

F -P r o b a b il i t y

10.7009

.0011*

C lass
Group
Mean
S ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

Freshmen

Sophomores

3.2965
.6027

3.2862
.5719

Juniors

S e n io r s

3.3546
.6495

3.4627
.5296

A n a ly s i s o f V a riance
----------------------

Between groups
W ithin g ro u p s

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

3
575

2.7678
201.4246

0.9226
0.3503

F -R a ti o

F -P ro b ab ility

2.6337

.0491*

Col le g e
B u sin es s

Group

N a tu ra l S cie n c e

3.2360
.6169

Mean
S tandard d e v ia tio n

S o c ia l S cien ce

3.4338
.5321

3.3763
.6205

A n a ly s i s o f V arian ce

Between groups
W ithin groups

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

2
567

4 .0 38 8
197.6504

2.0194
.3486

F -R a tio

F -P ro b ab ility

5.7931

.0032*

Grade P o in t Average
Group
Sample s i z e
Mean
S ta n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

1 .7 6 2 .0 0

2 .0 1 2 .2 5

2 .2 6 2 .5 0

2 .5 1 2 .7 5

2 .7 6 3 .0 0

3 .0 1 3.2 5

3 .2 6 3.5 0

3 .5 1 3.7 5

3 .7 6 4 .0 0

25
3.3369
.6543

26
3.0299
.5971

68
3.2568
.6104

86
3.3408
.6127

97
3.3185
.5734

105
3.4216
.5763

87
3.4129
.5756

58
3.5041
.4637

23
3.2612
.7444

A n a ly s i s o f V arian ce

Between groups
W ithin g rou ps

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

8
566

5.8021
195.2041

.7253
.3449

• S i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .0 5 l e v e l .

F -R a ti o
2 .102 9

F - P r o b a b i 1i t y
.0338*

83

Table 4 . 8

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e in
p e r c e p t i o n s o f p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l and n o n p r e p r o f e s s io n a l
students

Group
Sample s i z e
Mean
Standard d e v i a t i o n

Preprofessional

Nonpreprofessi onal

216
3.3727
.5923

351
3.3547
.5818

A nalysis o f Variance

Between groups
Within groups

DF

Sum o f
Squares

1
565

.0436
193.9086

Mean
Square
.0434
.3432

F-Ratio

F -P r o b a b i1i ty

.1270

.7217

S t u d e n ts in Natural Science were found t o r a t e b e h av iors
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s l y than s t u d e n t s in t h e College o f Business.
Although s t u d e n t s in Natural Science a l s o r a t e d behaviors more
s e r i o u s l y than s t u d e n t s in th e College o f Social S c i e n c e , t h e p o st
hoc comparisons between s t u d e n t s in t h e s e two c o l l e g e s did n o t show
signi ficance.
In an e f f o r t t o determine where th e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
e x i s t e d among s t u d e n t s by GPA, p o s t hoc comparisons between t h o s e
GPA groups with t h e lowest and h i g h e s t mean s c o r e s on p e r c e p t i o n s
were compared.

This t e s t di d not i d e n t i f y where t h e d i f f e r e n c e s

e x i s t e d ; however, when t h e two groups with t h e lowest mean s c o r e s
were compared with t h e two groups with h i g h e s t mean s c o r e s , s i g n i f ­
i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found.

Thus, th o se s t u d e n t s whose GPA f e l l

84

w i t h i n t h e range o f 3.26 t o 3.75 were found t o p e r c e i v e beh avio rs
more s e r i o u s l y than s t u d e n t s whose GPA f e l l w i t h i n t h e range o f
2.01 t o 2.5 0 .

I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e , however, t h a t th o se

s t u d e n t s whose GPA's were a t t h e extreme upper and lower l i m i t s
(1.76 to 2.00 and 3.76 to 4.0 0 ) did not vary t o any g r e a t degree
(mean s c o r e s — 3.336 and 3.26 1 2).

Table 4 .9 r e p o r t s t h e r e s u l t s

o f p o s t hoc comparisons which were made t h a t provide s u p p o r t f o r
these findings.
In a d d i t i o n to examining d i f f e r e n c e s by s e x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e ,
and GPA in p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e havio rs a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work as
measured by t h e o v e r a l l s c a l e , t h e d a ta were f u r t h e r examined to
determine on what s p e c i f i c b e havio rs t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­
e nces.

A one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was performed on each o f

the 33 items in t h e p e r c e p t i o n s c a l e .

Table 4.10 summarizes t h e t e s t s

on b e h av io r s where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found.

The s i g n i f i c a n t

le v e l was s e t a t .005 f o r t h e s e t e s t s because t h e same s u b j e c t s were
r es po nding to a l l 33 ite m s.
S c h e ffe p o s t hoc t e s t s were performed to d ete rm in e where t h e r e
were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among groups in each c a t e g o r y .

Table 4.11

rep o rts the r e s u l t s of these t e s t s .
Women viewed seven b e h av io r s t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s
than men.

Examination o f t h e p o s t hoc t e s t s r e v e a l s t h a t on t h r e e

b e h av iors t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s a t t h e .005 l e v e l by
class.

S e n io r s r a t e d two b e h av io r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than freshmen,

sophomores, o r j u n i o r s .

On t h e t h i r d b e h a v i o r , s e n i o r s r a t e d t h e

b e h a v io r more s e r i o u s l y th an freshmen and sophomores but not j u n i o r s .

85

Table 4 . 9

Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s among
u n de rg ra d u ate s when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA
Class

Group
Freshmen
Sophomores
Juniors
S eniors

Mean

Sophomores

Juniors

Sen io rs

3.2965
3.2862
3.3546
3.4627

.0103 (.1975)

.0581 (.1906)
.0684 (.1963)

.1662 (.1949)
.1765 (.2004)
.1081 (.1937)

College
Group

Mean

Business
Natural Science
So cial Science

3.2360
3.4338
3.3763

Group
Grade p o i n t averag e 2 . 0 1 - 2 . 5 0
Grade p o i n t a vera ge 3 .2 6 - 3 . 7 5

Natural Science

Social Science

.1978 ( . 1 4 6 6 )a

.1403 (.1502)
.0575 (.15 00)

Mean

Grade P oint Average

3.0871
3.4510

3.63 ( 3 . 0 0 7 ) a

aMean d i f f e r e n c e beyond c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e .

86

Table 4 .1 0

Summary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a ria n c e t e s t s on b eh aviors where a s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e was found among u n dergrad uates when c a te g o r iz e d by se x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e ,
and GPA

OF

Behavior

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

F-R atio

F -Probab1l1ty

—

Reviewed f r a t f i l e p r i o r to exam

B
U

1
536

18.6540
1013.8293

18.6540
1.8915

9.8622

.0018*

P u r p o s e f u lly f a i l e d t o do p a r t on
j o i n t p r o j e c t but s t i l l re c e iv e d
an A

B
W

1
533

14.0142
628.3671

14.0142
1.1789

11.8873

.0006*

Paid c la s s m a te s f o r p apers t o put
in commercial term p ap er f i l e s

B
W

1
515

31.8650
1154.4019

31.8650
2.2416

14.2156

.0002*

Subm itted c l a s s m a t e 's pa p e r as
own by changing t i t l e page

B
W

1
540

6.0486
210.1236

6.0486
0.3891

15.5444

.0001*

R e fe rre d t o t e x t in exam when
l e f t on "honor"

B
W

1
540

17.5264
574.6600

17.5264
1.0642

16.4693

.0001*

Gave f r i e n d a co rn n e rd a l term
pa p e r t o submit

B
W

1
525

45.1242
817.1035

45.1242
1.5564

28.9929

.0001*

Had b e e r w ith i n s t r u c t o r 1n
hopes o f a b e t t e r grade

B
W

1
531

26.5934
731.3391

26.5934
1.3773

19.3085

.0001*

j^i+ma inuriiiiinMn

_■■■
__

Let f r i e n d copy

B
W

3
570

21.8749
673.5136

7.2916
1.8160

6.1710

.0004*

Received in fo rm a tio n about t e s t
from roommate 1n p r i o r s e s s io n

B
W

3
565

18.7525
772.0700

6.2508
1.3665

4.5743

.0036*

R e fe rred t o t e x t du rin g exam
when l e f t on "honor"

B

3
565

16.0950
598.1300

5.3650
1.0586

5.0678

.0018*

M

•

Gave wrong form ula to c la ssm a te

B
W

2
542

16.8695
696.7928

8.4348
1.2856

6.5610

.0015*

Changed answers when s e l f ­
s c o r in g exam

B
W

2
558

13.3278
565.8201

6.6639
1.0140

6.5718

.0015*

Had b e e r w ith I n s t r u c t o r in
hopes o f b e t t e r grade

B
W

2
550

17.4910
784.2486

8.7455
1.4259

6.1333

.0023*

u i flue

rDuai4i ni u4* nA vucai mo /yi ca _

Received In fo rm a tio n on exam
from roommate in p r i o r s e c tio n

B
W

8
556

31.2023
754.6101

3.9003
1.3572

2.8738

.0038*

S ig n a le d answer d u rin g exam

B
W

8
556

31.0199
621.8534

3.8775
1.1124

3.4856

.0006*

Note:

B r e p r e s e n t s between gro up s; W, w ith in groups.
♦ S i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .005 l e v e l .

87

Table 4.11

Post hoc comparisons f o r behaviors where s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s 1n p e rc e p tio n s were
found among undergraduates by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA
Class

Behavior

Group

Mean

Sophomores

J u n io rs

Seniors

Let f r i e n d copy

Freshmen
Sophomores
Ju n io r s
Seniors

3.3649
3.3684
3.4805
3.8489

.0035 (.3646)

.1156 (.3646)
.1121 (.3612)

.4840 (.3604)®
.4805 (.3 7 0 1 )®
.3684 (.3570)

Received inform ation
about t e s t from
rooimate in
p r i o r s e c tio n

Freshmen
Sophomores
Ju n io rs
Seniors

2.4041
2.4662
2.4733
2.8643

.0621 (.3934)

.0692 (.3815)
.0071 (.3908)

.4602 (.3876)®
.3981 (.3973)?
.3910 (.3856)

R eferred to t e x t
when l e f t "on
honor"

Freshmen
Sophomores
J u n io r s
Seniors

3.8288
3.8258
3.9536
4.2429

.0030 (.3469)

.1248 (.3441)
.1278 (.3441 )

.9549 (.3 4 1 6 )a
.4171 (.3504 a
.2898 (.3389)

College
Behavior

Group

Mean

Natural Science

Social Science

Gave wrong formula to
classm ate when nudged
f o r help

Business
Natural Science
Social Science

3.7112
4.0372
4.1176

.3260 ( . 2B73)a

.4064 (.2 9 4 8 )'
.0804 (.2951)

Changed answers when
s e l f - s c o r i n g exam

Business
Natural Science
Social Science

3.6859
4.0518
3.9322

.3659 ( .2522)a

.2463 (.2578)
.1196 (.2134)

Had beer w ith
i n s t r u c t o r in hopes
o f b e t t e r grade

Business
Natural Science
Social Science

1.7937
2.2199
2.0520

.4262 (.3 0 0 6 )a

.2583 (.3083)
.1679 (.3075)

Grade Point Average
Behavior

GPA Group

Mean

3.7 6-4.00

Received inform ation about
t e s t from roommate in
p r i o r s e c tio n

2.0 1-2.25
3.7 6-4.00

1.1667
2.8697

1.203 (1.216)

Grade P oint Average
Behavior

GPA Group

Mean

3.01-3.25

Signaled answers during
exam

2.0 1 -2 .2 5
3 .01 -3 .25
3 .2 6 -3 .5 0

3.0800
4.0673
4.1395

.9873 (.9286)®

aMean d if f e r e n c e beyond c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e .

3 .2 6 -3 .5 0
1.0595 (.9 4 7 3 )®

88

On t h e t h r e e b e havio rs where a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found
by c o l l e g e , t h e s t u d e n t s in Natural Science were found t o view the
b e h a v i o r s more s e r i o u s l y than t h o s e in the College o f Business.

No

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between Natural Science and Social
Science s t u d e n t s o r between Business and Social Science s t u d e n t s on
these behaviors.
In looking f o r where d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d in s t u d e n t groups by
GPA, t h e Scheffe p o s t hoc t ec h niqu e f a i l e d t o i d e n t i f y s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s between groups on t h e behavior " r e c e i v e d in form a ti on on
exam from roommate in p r i o r s e c t i o n , " although t h e comparison between
s t u d e n t s with GPA's o f 2 .0 1 - 2 . 2 5 and th ose with GPA's o f 3 .7 6 - 4 .0 0 was
n e a r th e s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l .

On t h e behavior " s i g n a l e d answers du rin g

exam" a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between tho se with GPA's
between 2.01 and 2.25 and tho se with GPA's between 3.01 and 3.50.

An

i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e d a ta again r e v e a l e d t h a t , although t h e r e i s a t e n ­
dency f o r t h o s e with the h i g h e r GPA's to view a be h av io r more s e r i o u s l y
than t h o s e with lower GPA's, t h o s e s t u d e n t s a t the extremes o f t h e GPA
range did not n e c e s s a r i l y hold t h e most d i v e r g e n t p o s i t i o n s r e g a r d i n g
t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e b e h a v io r .
Hypothesis 3 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s when c a t e g o r i z e d by se x , c o l l e g e , o r GPA in
t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e havio rs a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.

The

r e s u l t s o f a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s among
groups w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y a r e p r e s e n t e d in Table 4.1 2.

89

Table 4.12

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s among gr a d u a te s t u d e n t s when
c a t e g o r i z e d by se x, c o l l e g e , and GPA
Sex

Group

Female

Sample s i z e
Mean
Standard d e v i a t i o n

Male

52
3.6864
.6272

102
3.3609
.6289

A n aly sis o f Variance

Between groups
Within groups

DF

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

1
152

3.6491
60.0065

3.6491
0.3948

Group
Sample s i z e
Mean
Standard d e v i a t i o n

F-Probabil i t y

F-Ratio
9.2435

.0028*

Business

Col leg e
Natual Science

Social Science

44
3.5051
.6111

54
3.4231
.7185

57
3.4827
.5998

A n aly sis o f Variance

Between groups
Within groups

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

2
152

0.1817
63.5603

.0908
.4182

Group

3.01-3.25

Sample s i z e
Mean
Sta nd ard d e v i a t i o n

13
3.5306
.6092

DF
Between groups
Within groups

3
147

.2172

Grade P o i n t Average
3 . 2 6 - 3 .5 0
3 .5 1 - 3 .7 5
38
3.3099
.7234

A na lysis o f Variance
Sum o f
Mean
Squares
Square
2.2604
59.1200

F-Ratio

.7535
.4022

48
3.4310
.6578

F-P robability
.8050

3 .7 6 - 4 .0 0
52
3.6199
.5418

F-Ratio

F-Probability

1.8735

.1366

90

Sinc e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found betwen male and
female g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h av io r a p p r o p r i a t e
f o r academic work, h y p o t h e s is 3 i s r e j e c t e d a lth ou g h t h e r e were no
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s found in g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s when
c a t e g o r i z e d by e i t h e r c o l l e g e o r grade p o i n t av erag e .

Graduate women

were found t o have a s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r mean sc o r e than g r a d u a t e men,
th us i n d i c a t i n g t h a t th ey see th e b e h av io r s as being o f g r e a t e r concern
than do t h e men.
To d e te rm in e on what b e h av io rs t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­
ences by s e x , a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was used on each o f
the 33 items w i t h i n t h e s c a l e .

Table 4.13 summarizes th e r e s u l t s o f

t h e s e t e s t s f o r t h e b e h a v io rs where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found
between men and women.
On a l l b e h a v io r s where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found
g r a d u a t e women p e r c e i v e d th e b e havio rs as more s e r i o u s than di d
g r a d u a t e men.

Of t h e f o u r b e h a v i o r s , t h r e e a r e t h e same as t h o s e

which were i d e n t i f i e d by u n d e rg ra d u ate women as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y
more s e r i o u s .

The b e h a v i o r i d e n t i f i e d by g r a d u a t e women and n o t by

u n d e rg r a d u a t e women i s " u n a u t h o r i z e d use o f a PNC."
Hypothesis 4 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among f a c u l t y , when c a t e g o r i z e d by y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g and c o l l e g e , in
t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f b e h a v i o r s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.

Because

only 5 o f 66 f a c u l t y r e s p o n d e n ts were women, t h e sex v a r i a b l e was
dropped from a n a l y s i s .

Table 4.13

Summary of one-way analysis of variance t e s t s on behaviors where a s i g n i f i c a n t
di fferen ce was found among graduate students when categorized by sex

Behavior

DF

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

F-Ratio

F-Probability

Paid classmates fo r term papers
to put in commercial company
file

B
U

1
143

21.5354
312.6991

21.5354
2.1867

9.8483

.0021*

Used unauthorized PNC

B
W

1
145

15.7279
184.1224

15.7279
1.2698

12.3860

.0006*

Purposefully f a i l e d to do p a rt
on j o i n t p r o j e c t , s t i l l
received A

B
W

1
147

13.2267
199.6067

13.2267
1.3487

9.8070

.0021*

Had beer with i n s t r u c t o r in
hopes of g e ttin g b e t t e r grade

B
W

1
149

11.7560
161.4625

11.7560
1.0836

10.8486

.0012*

Note:

B represents between groups; W, within groups.
*Beyond signific ance level of .005.

92

The r e s u l t s o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r
d i f f e r e n c e s among groups w ith in each c a t e o g r y a r e r e p o r t e d in
Table 4.1 4 .

Table 4.14

One-way a n a l y s i s t e s t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s in the p e r c e p t i o n o f
f a c u l t y when c a t e g o r i z e d by y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e and
col lege
Years o f Teaching Experience

Group

Less
than 4

4-8

9-13

14-18

More
than 18

Sample s i z e
Mean
Standard d e v i a t i o n

8
3.7404
.7031

12
3.6237
.4722

14
3.7394
.3727

12
3.7847
.3749

18
3.5517
.6614

Analysis o f Variance

Between groups
Within groups

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

4
59

.5419
16.7010

.1355
.2831

F-Ratio

F-Probability

.4786

.7513

College
Group
Sample s i z e
Mean
Standard d e v i a t i o n

Business

Natural Science

Social Science

20
3.7552
.5866

18
3.5996
.4145

22
3.6683
.5573

Analysis o f Variance

Between groups
Within groups

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

2
57

.2317
15.9811

.1158
.2804

F-Ratio

F-P robability

.4131

.6635

93

Based on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
were found among f a c u l t y , when c a t e g o r i z e d by y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g
e x p e r ie n c e o r c o l l e g e ; t h e r e f o r e , the n u ll h y p o th e s is cannot be
rejected.
Hypothesis 5 s t a t e s :

There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

between s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y and th o se who do not
in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f behaviors a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t t o
determine i f t h e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e in p e r c e p t i o n s between
t h e s e groups i s r e p o r t e d in Table 4 .1 5 .

Table 4 .1 5 .

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t r e s u l t s in comparing the
p e r c e p t i o n s o f th ose s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y
and t h o s e who d id not

Group
Sample s i z e
Mean
Standard d e v i a t i o n

Se l f - R e p o r t e d
Di shonesty

No S e l f - R e p o r t e d
Dishonesty

421
3.2501
.5757

319
3.5453
.6136

Analysis o f Variance

Between groups
Within groups

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

1
738

15.8178
258.9387

15.8178
0.3509

♦ S i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e .05 l e v e l .

F-Ratio
45.0823

F-Probability
.0001*

94

Based on t h i s t e s t , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between
gro u ps; t h e r e f o r e , t h e n u ll h y p o t h e s is i s r e j e c t e d .

Those s t u d e n t s who

s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y were found t o p e r c e i v e t h e b e havio rs in the
s c a l e w i t h l e s s con cern than t h o s e who did no t s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y .
Dishonesty Reported
P r i o r to r e p o r t i n g on t h e t e s t i n g o f t h e hypotheses r e l a t i n g
t o d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d , t h e fo llo w in g t a b l e s (Tables 4.16 through 4.18)
a r e p r e s e n t e d in an e f f o r t t o g ive an o v e r a l l p i c t u r e r e g a r d i n g the
ex ten t of dishonesty reported.
In an e f f o r t to p u t t h e s e f i g u r e s o f d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d in
c o n t e x t , t h e number o f c l a s s e s taken by s t u d e n t s and t a u g h t by f a c u l t y
was examined.

S t u d e n ts were asked on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e to i n d i c a t e

c l a s s e s ta k e n d u r i n g t h e y e a r .

Table 4.19 r e p o r t s t h i s in f o r m a ti o n .

Using t h e m i d - f i g u r e in each range as t h e a v e r a g e , th e t o t a l
number o f c l a s s e s tak e n by s t u d e n t s in t h e sample i s 7,574.

This

r e p r e s e n t s a p p ro x i m a t e ly 10 c l a s s e s p e r s t u d e n t p e r y e a r .
F a c u l t y were asked t o i n d i c a t e by term and s i z e th e number
of c lasses taught.

Table 4 .2 0 r e p o r t s t h i s i n f o r m a ti o n .

The number o f c l a s s e s t a u g h t by t h o s e in t h e f a c u l t y sample
was 445.

This r e p r e s e n t s a p p ro x im ate ly seven c l a s s e s p e r y e a r p e r

f a c u l t y member.

Using t h e m id - p o i n t in each range f o r c l a s s s i z e ,

t h e number o f s t u d e n t s t a u g h t by members o f t h e f a c u l t y sample i s
a p p ro x i m a t e ly 20,000.

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t about 30 p e r c e n t

o f t h e t o t a l s t u d e n t c o n t a c t s were in c l a s s e s o f l e s s than 40 and about
30 p e r c e n t in c l a s s e s o f o v e r 160.

95

T a b le 4 . 1 6

S tu d e n t s e l f - r e p o r t e d d is h o n e s ty by b e h a v io r

Incidents
Behavior

5

+5a

Total

2

2

4

171 (98)

26

14

4

22

494 (226)

36

18

8

2

17

350 (161)

6

1

1

1

1

1

542

85

46

23

2

3

22

401 (181)

721

554

46

9

5

1

1

5

112 (67)

Changed answers or
a lte re d evaluation

717

670

29

10

6

0

1

3

90 (47)

Submitted p a p er or
p r o j e c t , n o t own work

724

658

46

10

7

0

0

3

105 (66)

Exchanged in f o r m a tio n
d u rin g exam

722

682

15

11

5

4

0

5

98 (40)

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t
submit t h e i r work
for cred it

720

630

52

21

3

6

2

6

173 (90)
2,020

N

0

1

2

3

Used " c r i b sh e e t"
d u rin g exam

723

625

61

19

10

Copied from a n o t h e r
d u rin g exam

722

496

112

48

Submitted work w i t h o u t
g i v in g p r o p e r c r e d i t

716

555

80

Took exam o r course
fo r another student

724

713

Let a n o t h e r copy from
exam

723

Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t
ta k e c o u rs e o r exam

Note:

4

26

(ID

Number in p a r e n t h e s e s f o l lo w in g t o t a l i s number o f s t u d e n t s s e l f r e p o r t i n g one o r more i n c i d e n t s o f d i s h o n e s t y .
aThe number 6 was used t o r e p r e s e n t "more th an 5" in t a b u l a t i o n .

96

T a b le 4 . 1 7

D is h o n e s ty r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s tu d e n ts by b e h a v io r

Incidents
Behavior

N

0

1

2

3

4

5

+5a

Total

Used " c r i b sh eet"
d u r i n g exam

721

382

99

94

46

28

8

64

961 (339)

Copied from a n o th e r
d u rin g exam

723

236

65

101

76

44

9

192

1,868 (487)

Submitted work w i t h ­
o u t g i v i n g p roper
credit

715

448

63

71

35

11

8

79

868 (267)

Took exam o r course
fo r another student

724

646

57

12

4

1

3

1

Let a n o t h e r copy
from exam

722

337

78

93

70

26

7

111

Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t
ta k e c o u rs e o r exam

719

713

2

0

2

1

0

2

Changed answers or
a lte r e d evaluation

718

581

45

33

26

4

2

27

377 (137)

Submitted paper or
p r o j e c t , not own
work

726

401

119

79

49

20

6

52

846 (325)

Exchanged informa­
t i o n d u r i n g exam

722

563

56

27

26

13

4

33

458 (159)

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t
submit t h e i r work
for cred it

719

468

93

56

41

14

3

44

633 (251)

118 (78)
1,279 (385)
24 (6)

7,432
Note:

Number in p a r e n t h e s e s f o l lo w in g t o t a l i s number o f s t u d e n t s
r e p o r t i n g one o r more a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y among o t h e r s t u d e n t s .
aThe number 6 was used t o r e p r e s e n t "more th an 5" in t a b u l a t i o n .

97

T a b le 4 . 1 8

D is h o n e s ty r e p o r t e d by f a c u l t y

I n c i d e n ts
Behavior

N

0

1

2

3

+3a

Total

Used " c r i b sh e e t"
d u rin g exam

60

55

3

1

0

1

9 (5)

Copied from a n o th e r
during exam

60

42

7

3

0

8

45 (18)

Submitted work w i th o u t
g iv in g p rop er c r e d i t

63

46

6

4

1

6

41 (17)

Took exam o r cou rse f o r
another student

63

61

2

0

0

0

2 (2)

Let a n o th e r copy from
exam

62

47

8

2

2

3

30 (15)

Had a n o th e r s t u d e n t
t a k e co u rse o r exam

60

59

1

0

0

0

1 (1)

Changed answers o r
a lte re d evaluation

61

54

3

2

0

2

15 (7)

Submitted pa per o r
p r o j e c t , n o t own work

61

50

6

3

1

1

19 (11)

Exchanged i n f o r m a tio n
during exam

60

58

1

0

0

1

5 (2)

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t
submit t h e i r work
for c re d it

61

59

0

2

0

0

4 (2)
171

Note:

Number in p a r e n t h e s e s i s number o f f a c u l t y r e p o r t i n g one o r more
in cid en ts of dishonesty.
aThe number 4 was used t o r e p r e s e n t "more than 3" in t a b u l a t i o n .

98

T a b le 4 . 1 9

C lasses taken by s tu d e n ts

Number o f C lasse s

Number o f s t u d e n t s

1-3

4-6

7-9

10-12

13-15

More
than 15

38

80

105

307

139

55

I t cannot be assumed t h a t s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y a r e r e p o r t i n g
d i s h o n e s t y based on t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h i n t h e same c l a s s e s , however,
because th e samples were randomly drawn from th e s t u d e n t and f a c u l t y
p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e same c o l l e g e s , c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e rla p in c l a s s expe­
r i e n c e s might be e x p e c te d .

Stu d e n ts r e p o r t a ppro xim ately one i n c i d e n t

o f d i s h o n e s t y p e r c l a s s a t t e n d e d while t h e r e p o r t o f f a c u l t y would be
c l o s e r to one i n c i d e n t o f d i s h o n e s t y p e r t h r e e c l a s s e s t a u g h t ( . 3 8 per
class).

The in c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d would be approx­

i m a te ly one i n c i d e n t p e r f o u r c l a s s e s a tt e n d e d ( .2 7 p e r c l a s s ) .

It

should be ke pt in mind, in c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s e f i g u r e s , t h a t f o r nine
o f t h e t e n b e h a v i o r s , t h e m a j o r i t y o f s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y r e p o r t e d
no d i s h o n e s t y o bse rved; t h e r e f o r e , i t should be recognized t h a t the
f i g u r e s r e p r e s e n t t h e r e p o r t i n g o f t h e m i n o r i t y o f th e sample.

Like­

w ise , f o r example, t h e f i g u r e s r e l a t i n g to t h e i n c i d e n t s o f s e l f r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y r e p r e s e n t t h e a c t i o n s o f 421 i n d i v i d u a l s ou t
o f 740, and t h e av erag e i n c i d e n c e p e r c l a s s , using t h i s f i g u r e as
a b a s e , would be a p p ro x im ate ly one i n c i d e n t p e r two c l a s s e s r a t h e r

Table 4.20

Classes taught by term and size
Term

Fall Term
Number of Classes

0

1

24
42
59
63
53

28 11 1
17
5 0
3
2 0
1 0 0
8
3 0

2

Winter Term

3 +3a

0

1

2

29
47
55
63
57

23 12
10
7
6
3
1 0
5 2

Spring Term

3 +3a

0

0
0
0
0
0

26 24 12
5
49 10
4
2
58
3 0
61
54
9
1

1

2

3 +3a

Total
Classes

Total
Students

Size of Class:
Less than 40
41-80
81-120
121-160
.
More than 160

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

2
0
0
0
0

aThe number 4 was used to represe nt "more than 3" in tab u latio n .
bThe number 180 was used to represe nt "more than 160" in tab u latio n .

0
0
0
0
0

308
71
27
5
34

6,160
4,260
2,700
700
6,120

445

19,990

100
than one per f o u r f o r the t o t a l sample.

As can be noted f o r s t u d e n t s

who s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y , t h e number o f i n c i d e n t s i s a ppro xim ately
f i v e ( 4 .8 ) per s t u d e n t p e r y e a r , whereas t h e average o f the t o t a l
s t u d e n t sample would be l e s s than t h r e e (2.73) per s t u d e n t p e r y e a r .
F i f t y - s e v e n p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l s t u d e n t sample s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y
d uring t h e y e a r , g r a d u a te s 27 p e r c e n t and unde rgra du ate s 64 p e r c e n t .
While no d i r e c t comparisons can be drawn between t h e a c t s of
d i s h o n e s t y observed by f a c u l t y and t h e a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y about which
s t u d e n t s r e p o r t they have d i r e c t knowledge, i t would appear t h a t s t u ­
d e n ts may be c o n s i d e r a b l y more c o g n iz a n t o f d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r i n g than
a re f a c u l t y .

In p a r t , t h i s may be due t o t h e f a c t t h a t s t u d e n t -

r e p o r t i n g i s based on c o n t a c t s with pe ers o t h e r than in c l a s s s e t t i n g s ,
whereas f a c u l t y may be l i m i t e d p r i m a r i l y t o c l a s s c o n t a c t s .
Table 4.21 r e p o r t s t h e ranking o f b e h av io rs s e l f - r e p o r t e d by
s t u d e n t s , r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s , and r e p o r t e d by f a c u l t y .
Copying and l e t t i n g a n o th e r copy a r e among t h e most f r e q u e n t l y
r e p o r t e d b e h a v i o r s , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e source o f r e p o r t i n g .

I t i s not

s u r p r i s i n g t h a t s e l f - r e p o r t i n g by s t u d e n t s and r e p o r t i n g by f a c u l t y o f
" f a i l u r e t o give p r o p e r c r e d i t " i s h i g h e r than r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s t u ­
dents.

Other beh av io rs where t h e r e i s a d i f f e r e n c e o f t h r e e o r more

p o s i t i o n s in rank between t h e so urc es o f r e p o r t i n g a r e :

"using ' c r i b

s h e e t s , ' " " l e t t i n g a n o t h e r submit t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t , " "changing
answers o r a l t e r i n g e v a l u a t i o n , " and " s u b m i tt i n g paper o r p r o j e c t ,
not own work."

I t would appear t h a t f a c u l t y and o t h e r s t u d e n t s a re

not p a r t i c u l a r l y aware o f " r i n g e r s " in c l a s s nor a re f a c u l t y aware

101

Table 4.21

Ranking o f t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f d i s h o n e s t b eh av io rs
s e l f - r e p o r t e d by s t u d e n t s , r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s , and
by f a c u l t y
Rank

Behavior

SelfReported

S tu d e n tReported

F a c u lty Reported

Copied from a n o t h e r d uring exam

1

1

1

Let a n o t h e r copy from exam

2

2

3

Submitted work w i t h o u t givin g
p rop er c r e d i t

3

5

2

Used " c r i b s h e e t " d u r in g exam

4

3

6

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t submit t h e i r
work f o r c r e d i t

5

6

8

Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t ta k e cou rse
o r exam

6

10

10

Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t , not
own work

7

4

4

Changed answers o r a l t e r e d
evaluation

8

8

5

Exchanged in f o r m a ti o n during
exam

9

7

7

10

9

9

Took c o u r s e o r exam f o r a n o t h e r
student

102

o f t h e amount o f " cr ib b in g " which t a k e s p l a c e .

I t is in te re s tin g

t o n ote t h a t o t h e r s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y rank as being more p r e v a l e n t
t he b e h a v i o r o f " s u b m i t t i n g a pa per o r p r o j e c t , not own work" than do
stu d en ts s e l f - r e p o r t i n g behaviors.

I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t

t h e "sub mission o f a p a p e r / p r o j e c t which i s not own work," i s more a
f r e q u e n t l y d i s c o v e r e d behavior by f a c u l t y than by o t h e r s t u d e n t s .

The

ranking would s u g g e s t t h a t i t i s a behavior more r e a d i l y d isc o v e r e d by
f a c u l t y than t h e o t h e r s , perhaps with t h e e x ce p tio n o f "changing
answers o r a l t e r i n g an e v a l u a t i o n . "
Hypothesis 6 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among u n d e rg r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by se x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e ,
and GPA in t h e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d .
One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s f o r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
among groups w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y were used t o t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s .
A summary o f f i n d i n g s a r e r e p o r t e d in Table 4.2 1 .
Some s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in s e l f - r e p o r t e d
d i s h o n e s t y among u n d e rg ra d uate s w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y on a t l e a s t
one b e h a v i o r ; h y p o t h e s is 6 i s r e j e c t e d .
The r e s u l t s o f the p o s t hoc comparisons made t o determ ine
where t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among g roups, when s i g n i f ­
i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found on a b e h a v i o r , a r e r e p o r t e d in Table 4 .2 3 .
On n in e o f t h e ten b e h a v io r s c l a s s i f i e d as d i s h o n e s t t h e r e were
no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between underg raduate men and women in t h e
incidence of dishonesty s e l f - r e p o r t e d .

Men r e p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y more

i n c i d e n t s on t h e b e h a v i o r "changed answers o r a l t e r e d e v a l u a t i o n . "

103

Table 4.22

Sumnary o f one-way a n a ly s is o f variance t e s t s fo r d if f e r e n c e 1n s e l f - r e p o r t e d
d is h o n e sty by behavior among undergraduates when ca te g o riz e d by se x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e ,
and GPA

Behavior

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F-Rat1o

F-Probab11Ity

Sexa ....................
Used " c r i b s h e e t ” during exam

B
W

1
539

0.8085
323.4429

0.B085
0.6001

1.3473

.2463

Copied from an o th er during exam

B
W

1
538

2.0002
1113.3535

2.0002
2.0694

0.9665

.3260

Submitted work w itho ut giving
p rop er c r e d i t

B
W

1
535

4.3417
735.4014

4.3417
1.3746

3.1585

.0761

Took exam or course f o r another
s tu d e n t

B
W

1
538

0.0545
33.5825

0.0545
0.0624

0.8738

.3503

Let an o th e r s tu d e n t copy from
exam

B
W

1
539

3.4784
948.0558

3.4784
1.7589

1.9776

.1602

Had an o th er s t u d e n t ta k e exam
o r course

B
W

1
536

0.2649
71.1328

0.2649
0.1327

1.9962

.1583

Changed answers o r a l t e r e d
e v a lu a tio n

B
U

1
539

1.9042
198.8500

1.9042
0.3689

5.1614

.0235*

Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t .
n o t own work

8
W

1
539

1.1300
192.5631

1.1300
0.3573

3.1630

.0759

Exchanged Information during
exam

B
W

1
53B

0.0167
248.0037

0.0167
0.4610

0.0362

.8492

Let a n o th e r s tu d e n t submit
t h e i r work fo r c r e d i t

B
W

1
535

2.4652
368.4547

2.4652
0.6887

3.5795

.0590

oio iiuifiy . . .•.
■Class c#*nriinn^
Used " c r i b s h e e t ” du ring exam

B
W

3
565

0.8632
352.9962

0.2877
0.6248

0.4606

.7100

Copied from an o th e r during exam

B
W

3
564

10.5264
1181.0634

3.5088
2.0941

1.6756

.1711

Submitted work w ithout giving
proper c r e d i t

B
W

3
560

1.3421
787.2590

0.4474
1.4058

0.3182

.8122

Took exam o r course f o r ano ther
s tu d e n t

B
W

3
564

0.0873
33.5677

0.0291
0.0595

0.4887

.6903

Let an o th e r stu d e n t copy from
exam

B
U

3
565

10.1576
1015.5437

3.3859
1.7974

1.8837

.1312

Had an o th e r s tu d e n t tak e exam
o r course

B
W

3
562

0.1879
71.2396

0.0626
0.1268

0.4941

.6865

Changed answers o r a l t e r e d
e v a lu a tio n

B
U

3
565

0.7959
200.5116

0.2653
0.3549

0.7476

.5241

Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t .
n ot own work

B
W

3
564

2.1954
193.5775

0.7318
0.3434

2.1321

.0951

Exchanged Inform ation during
exam

B
W

3
564

2.9860
292.0686

0.9953
0.5179

1.9220

.1249

Let an o th er s t u d e n t submit
t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t

B
N

3
561

6.8964
402.2116

2.2988
0.7170

3.2063

.0228*

aT otal number o f women * 297; t o t a l number o f men ■ 240.
^ o t a l number of freshmen * 149; t o t a l number o f sophomores * 130; t o t a l number o f
j u n i o r s » 151; and t o t a l number o f s e n i o r s * 138.
S i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .05 le v e l .

104
Table 4.22--Continued

Behavior

DF

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F-Ratio

F-Probabil i t y

Used " c r i b sheet" during exam

B
W

2
557

6.1869
343.1685

3.0934
0.6161

5.0210

.0069*

Copied from a n o th er during exam

B
W

2
555

9.9144
1161.3629

4.9572
2.0888

2.3733

.0941

Submitted work w itho ut giving
proper c r e d i t

B
H

2
552

5.4749
780.7223

2.7380
1.4144

0.9358

.1453

Took exam o r course fo r another
s tu d e n t

B
W

2
556

0.0631
33.5863

0.0315
0.0604

0.5220

.5936

Let an oth er s tu d e n t copy from
exam

B
W

2
557

6.3005
1014.7977

3.1503
1.8219

1.7291

.1784

Had an oth er s tu d e n t take exam
or course

B
W

2
554

0.02B6
62.5674

0.0143
0.1129

0.1267

.8810

Changed answers o r a l t e r e d
e v alu a tio n

B
W

2
557

0.0546
201.0811

0.0273
0.3610

0.0756

.9272

Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t
not own work

B

2
556

0.0620
191.4478

0.0310
0.3443

0.0901

.9139

W

Exchanged Inform ation during
exam

2
556

0.7046
294.1255

0.3523
0.5290

0.6660

.5142

W

Let an oth er s tu d e n t submit
t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t

2
553

0.9117
400.7501

0.4559
0.7247

0.6291

.5335

U

B
B

nb

Used " c r i b sh eet" during exam

B
W

Copied from an oth er during exam

B
H

8
556

25.9501
316.8039

3.2438
0.5698

5.6929

.0001*

B
555

57.7972
1092.9617

7.2247
1.9747

3.6586

.0004’

16.4722
759.3117

2.0590
1.3781

1.4942

.1562

Submitted work w ithout giving
proper c r e d i t

W

8
551

Took exam o r course f o r another
stu d e n t

B
W

0.2454
17.5773

0.0307
0.3170

0.9685

.4597

555

Let an oth er s tu d e n t copy from
exam

B
W

8
556

33.7725
984.0080

4.2215
1.7698

2.3853

.0156*

Had a noth er stu d en t take exam
o r course

B

8
553

1.2624
61.3373

0.1578
0.1109

1.4226

.1839

W

8
556

4.1327
188.1753

0.5163
0.3384

1.5264

.1449

8
555

7.7167
183.9216

0.9646
0.3314

2.9107

.0035*

8
555

9.4395
284.1403

1.1799
0.5120

2.3047

.0195*

8
555

8.2863
386.6692

1.0358
0.7005

1.4787

.1619

Changed answers o r a l t e r e d
e v a lu a tio n

B

n»ci oyc

B
U

Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t ,
not own work

W

B

Exchanged inform ation during
exam

U

Let an o th e r s tu d e n t submit
t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t

W

B
B

a

cTotal numbers in Business - 191; t o t a l numbers in Natural Science * 190 ; and t o t a l
numbers in Social Science « 175.
^Number o f stu d e n ts by GPA ranges::

S i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .05 l e v e l .

1.76 - 2 .0 0 * 24
2.01 -2 .2 5 * 25
2.26 - 2 .5 0 * 68

2.5 1-2 .7 5 • 84
2 .7 6 -3 .0 0 - 96
3 .01 -3.2 5 - 102

3.26-3..50 = 85
3.51-3..75 = 58
3.76-4..00 * 23

105

Table 4.23

Post hoc comparisons f o r d if fe r e n c e s among und ergraduates, when c a te g o riz ed by c l a s s ,
c o lle g e , and GPA, in th e incidence o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d dish on esty by behavior
Class

Behavior
Let an o th e r stud ent
submit t h e i r work
for c re d it

Group
Freshmen
Sophomores
Ju niors
Seniors

Mean

Sophomores

Jun io rs

Seniors

.1081
.3984
.3421
.2409

.2903 (.2869)a

.2340 (.2745)
.0563 (.1939)

.1328 (.2818)
.1575 (.2922)
.1012 (.2800)

College
Behavior
Used " c r i b sheet"
during exam

Group
Business
Natural Science
Social Science

Mean

Natural Science

Social Science

.4093
.1719
.2114

.2374 (.1963)

.1979 (.2010)
.0395 (.2013)

G ra de P o i n t A verage
B ehavior

GPA Group

Mean

2.51-2.75

2.76 -3.0 0

Used " c r i b s h e e t "
d u r i n g exam

2.01 -2.2 5

1.2000

--

2 .7 6-3.0 0
3.01-3.25
3.76 -4.0 0

0.1458
0.1471
0.1739

--

1.0542
(.6700)
_
—
--

1.7 6-2 .00

1.0400

--

2 .01 -2 .25

1.2609

2 .26 -2 .50

C op ied from
a n o th er during
exam

Let a n o th e r
s t u d e n t copy
from exam

S u b m i tt e d p a p e r /
p r o j e c t n o t own
work

E xchanged
in fo rm atio n
d u r i n g exam

3.01-3.25
1 .5 2 9 0 ,
(.6659)

3.51-3.75

3.76-4.0C

—

1.0261
(.1862)
--

__

--

—

--

--

--

—

—

--

—

—

—

—

1.5294

—

—

—

—

3.7 6-4 .00

0.1739

—

--

--

--

0.8610
(1.605)
1.0870
(.1638)
1.3550
(.1340)
—

1.76-2.50

1.0680

—

—

—

—

2 .2 6-2.5 0

1.1323

—

—

—

3.76-4.00

0.2273

—

—

—

--

0.8307
(1.222)
0.9050
(1.290)
--

2.01-2.25

0.6667

—

—

2 .51 -2 .75
3.5 1-3 .75
3.7 6-4.00

0.1294
0.0517
0

0 .5 3 7 3 ,
(.5260)
__
__

—

_

—

--

--

0 .6 1 5 0 ,
(.5523)
_
_
--

0.6667
(.6640)
—
—
—

2 .2 6 -2 .5 0

0.4328

—

—

—

0.4328
(.6872)

3.51-3.75
3 .76 -4 .00

0.0345
0

—

—

—
—

0.3983
(.5072)

aMean d if f e r e n c e beyond c r i t i c a l d if f e r e n c e .

__

--

—

—

106

Although s i g n i f i c a n c e was n o t found on t h e o t h e r nine b e h a v i o r s , on
a l l t h e b e h a v io r s th e mean o f i n c i d e n t s was h i g h e r f o r men than f o r
women.
The i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y was g r e a t e r f o r sophomores than
freshmen on t h e b e h a v io r " l e t a n o th e r s t u d e n t submit t h e i r work f o r
cred it."

No o t h e r s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between c l a s s e s

on t h e o t h e r nine b e h a v i o r s ; however, on s i x o f t h e nine behaviors
sophomores had t h e h i g h e s t mean o f i n c i d e n t s .
S t u d e n ts in t h e Colle ge o f Business were found t o r e p o r t a
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n c id e n c e o f "u sing ' c r i b s h e e t s ' d uring exam"
than s t u d e n t s in Natural S c ien c e.

On f i v e o f t h e remaining nine

b e h a v i o r s , t h e in c i d e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y was h i g h e r f o r
s t u d e n t s in t h e Colle ge o f Business than in the College o f Natural
Science o r S ocial Sc ien c e.
Although s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found on f i v e behaviors
by GPA, on only t h r e e b e h av io r s could t h e d i f f e r e n c e s be i d e n t i f i e d
u s in g t h e S ch eff e p o s t hoc p r o ce du re.

"Used ' c r i b s h e e t ' d uring exam"

was found to be more p r e v a l e n t with s t u d e n t s in t h e GPA range o f 2 .0 12 .2 5 than w ith s t u d e n t s with GPA's between 2.76 and 3.25 and 3 . 7 6 - 4 . 0 0 .
"Copying on an exam" was found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r e v a l e n t among
s t u d e n t s in t h e GPA range o f 2 . 2 6 - 2 . 5 0 than th o se with GPA's between
3.76 and 4 . 0 0 .

"Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t not own work" was s i g n i f i ­

c a n t l y more p r e v a l e n t among t h o s e s t u d e n t s in t h e GPA range o f 2.0 12.25 than t h o s e with GPA's between 2 .5 0 and 2.75 and th o se with GPA's
o ver 3 .5 1 .

107

In a d d i t i o n to examining t h e in cid en c e o f d i s h o n e s t y among
u n d e rg r a d u a te s by se x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA, one-way a n a l y s i s
o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s were run to determine i f t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s between p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s and n o n p r e p r o f e s s io n a l
students.

The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s , which a r e r e p o r t e d in Table 4.24

show no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between groups on any o f the behaviors
c a t e g o r i z e d as d i s h o n e s t .

On seven o f t h e ten b e h a v i o r s , however, the

mean s c o r e s f o r p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s were h i g h e r , thus perhaps
in d ic atin g a trend.

The t h r e e behaviors where p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t

mean s c o r e s were not h i g h e r a r e :

( 1 ) subm itted p a p e r / p r o j e c t , not own

work; (2) exchanged in fo rm a tio n during exam; and (3) l e t a n o th e r
s t u d e n t submit t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t .
Hypothesis 7 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among g r ad u a te s t u d e n t s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by sex, c o l l e g e , or GPA
in t h e i n c id e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d by b eh av io r.
One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s were employed t o determine
d i f f e r e n c e s among groups by c a t e g o r y .

The summary o f t h e s e t e s t s a re

r e p o r t e d in Table 4.25.
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s show no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among
g r a d u a t e s when c a t e g o r i z e d by sex o r c o l l e g e .

On one o f t h e ten behav­

i o r s c l a s s i f i e d as d i s h o n e s t , a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found by GPA;
however, t h e Scheff£ p o s t hoc pr ocedure f a i l e d to i d e n t i f y where t h e r e
were d i f f e r e n c e s between groups.

Although a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was

found on one b e h av io r in one c a t e g o r y , i t was no t deemed a p p r o p r i a t e
t o r e j e c t t h e n u ll h y p o th e s is on t h i s b a s i s , p a r t i c u l a r l y in l i g h t o f

Table 4.24

Summary of one-way analysis of variance t e s t s fo r differen ces between preprofessional
students and nonpreprofessional stude nts 3 in the incidence of dishonesty s e l f reported

Used "crib sheet" during exam
Copied from another during exam
Submitted work without giving
proper c r e d i t
Took exam or course fo r another
student
Let another student copy from
exam
Had another student take exam
or course
Changed answers or a lt e r e d
evaluation
Submitted p a p er/p ro je ct, not
own work
Exchanged information during
exam
Let another student submit
t h e i r work for c r e d i t
Note:

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

555

0.9667
345.2280
7.2405
1114.8349

0.9667
0.6220
7.2405
2.2009

1

0 .0 1 0 2

0 .0 1 0 2

DF

Behavior
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
N
B
W
B
U
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
M

1

555
1

551
1

554
1

555
1

552
1

555
1

554
1

554
1

551

748.1381
0.1699
33.4776
1.7179
1011.8979
0.2363
70.2416
0.0209
199.6093
0.0810
181.9244
0.2660
285.7394
0.0185
393.9054

1.3578
0.1699
0.0604
1.7179
1.8232
0.2363
0.1272
0.0209
0.3697
0.0810
0.3284
0.2660
0.5158
0.0185
0.7149

B repre se nts between groups; W, within groups.
a Preprofessional students = 211; nonpreprofessional students = 346.

F-Ratio

F-Probability

1.5701

.2107

3.6046

.0581

0.0075

.9310

2.8118

.0941

0.9422

.3321

1.8603

.1731

0.0581

.8096

0.2468

.6196

0.5157

.4730

0.0261

.8718

109
T able 4 .2 5

Suirmary o f one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s t o d e te rm in e d i f f e r e n c e s 1n
s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y by g ra d u a t e s t u d e n t s when c a t e g o r i z e d by s e x , c o l l e g e ,
and GPA

DF

B e h a v io r

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F -R a tio

F -P ro b ab ility

•Sex®.....................
Used " c r i b s h e e t " d u r i n g exam

B
W

1
145

0.4898
50.9796

0.4898
0.3516

1.3931

.2398

Copied from a n o t h e r d u r i n g exam

B
W

1
145

0.1021
73.9388

0.1021
0.5099

0.2001

.6553

Sub m itted work w i t h o u t g i v i n g
proper c r e d i t

B
W

1
144

1.1533
210.3261

1.1533
1.4606

0.7896

.3757

Took exam o r c o u r s e f o r a n o t h e r
student

B
W

1
146

0.0530
36.6160

0.0530
0 .25 08

0.2112

.6465

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t copy from
exam

B
W

1
145

1.3111
60.0903

1.3111
0.4144

3.1637

.0774

Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t ta k e exam
o r course

B
W

1
145

0.1224
35.6327

0.1224
0.2457

0.4983

.4814

Changed answ ers o r a l t e r e d
e v alu a tio n

B
W

1
142

0.2813
42.7187

0.2813
0.3008

0.9349

.3352

S u b m itted p a p e r / p r o j e c t ,
n o t own work

B
W

1
147

0.0272
45.0063

0.0272
0.3063

0.0889

.7659

Exchanged in f o r m a t i o n d u r i n g
exam

B
U

1
145

0.0804
37.4842

0.0804
0.2585

0.3110

.5779

L et a n o t h e r s t u d e n t subm it
t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t

B
U

1
146

0.2436
71.7769

0.2436
0.4 91 6

0.4955

.4826

Used " c r i b s h e e t " d u r i n g exam

B
U

2
145

0.9674
51.3028

0.4837
0.3538

1.3672

.2581

Copied from a n o t h e r d u r i n g exam

B
W

2
145

1.2189
72.8554

0.6095
0.5025

1.2130

.3003

S u b m itte d work w i t h o u t g i v i n g
proper c r e d it

B
W

2
144

2.0975
209.5079

1.0488
1.4549

0.7208

.4881

Took exam o r c o u r s e f o r
an o th er stu d e n t

B
W

2
146

0.6319
36.0392

0 .31 60
0.2 46 8

1.2800

.2811

L e t a n o t h e r s t u d e n t copy from
exam

B
W

2
145

1.8615
93.4360

0 .9 40 8
0.6444

1.4600

.2356

Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t t a k e exam
o r course

B
M

2
145

0.4626
35.2941

0.2313
0.2434

0.9503

.3890

Changed an sw ers o r a l t e r e d
ev alu a tio n

B
U

2
141

0.5 02 5
42.4976

0.2512
0.3014

0.8335

.4366

S u b m itte d p a p e r / p r o j e c t ,
n o t own work

B
U

2
147

0.7644
44.2756

0.3822
0.3012

1.2689

.2842

Exchanged i n f o r m a t io n d u r i n g
exam

B
U

2
145

0.3489
37.2186

0.1745
0.2567

0.6797

.5084

L et a n o t h e r s t u d e n t subm it
t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t

B
W

2
146

1.5115
70.5288

0 .75 57
0.4831

1.5644

.2127

N ote:

B r e p r e s e n t s between g r o u p s ; W, w i t h i n g ro u p s .
“T o ta l g r a d u a t e women ■ 49 ; t o t a l g r a d u a t e men = 100.
^Number o f g r a d u a t e s i n B u s in e s s ■ 4 4 ; N a tu r a l S c ie n c e « 5 2 ; S o c ia l S c ie n c e « 53.

Table 4.25--Continued

DF

Behavior

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

F-Ratio

F -P ro b ab ility

Average3 Used " c rib sheet" during exam

B
W

3
141

0.7437
47.9045

0.2479
0.3397

0.7297

.5359

Copied from another during exam

B
W

3
141

4.5450
68.7929

1.5151
0.4873

3.1052

.0286*

Submitted work w ithout giving
proper c r e d it

B
W

3
140

2.7978
187.7578

0.9326
1.3411

0.6954

.5564

Took exam o r course fo r another
student

B
W

3
142

0.4670
36.1974

0.1557
0.2549

0.6107

.6092

Let another stu d en t copy from
exam

B
W

3
141

0.8465
83.1811

0.2822
0.5899

0.4783

.6979

Had another stu d en t take exam
o r course

B
W

3
141

0.5343
35.2174

0.1781
0.2498

0.7131

.5457

Changed answers o r a lte re d
evaluation

B
W

3
138

0.2478
42.7382

0.0825
0.3097

0.2667

.8493

Submitted p a p e r/p ro je c t, not
own work

B
W

3
143

0.6298
43.5472

0.2099
0.3045

0.6894

.5600

Exchanged inform ation during
exam

B
W

3
141

0.7244
36.8342

0.2415
0.2612

0.9244

.4308

Let another student submit
t h e i r work fo r c r e d it

B
W

3
142

0.7797
46.6792

0.2599
0.3287

0.7907

.5010

Note:

B re p resen ts between groups; W, w ithin groups.
aNumber o f graduates by GPA range:
♦ S ig n ific a n t beyond the .05 le v e l.

3.00-3.25 = 13
3.26-3.50 = 38

3.51-3.75 = 46
3.76-4.00 = 50.

Ill

the f a c t t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups could not be i d e n t i f i e d
through t h e p o s t hoc pr ocedure s e l e c t e d f o r use in t h i s st udy.
Hypothesis 8 s t a t e s :

There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

between s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y and th o se who do not
in t h e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d among o t h e r s t u d e n t s .
A one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was used w ith each d i s ­
h on e st b e h a v io r t o determine i f t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e
between groups.

Table 4.26 summarized t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s .

Based on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s th e n u ll h y p o t h e s is i s
rejected.

Those s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y were found to

r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more d i s h o n e s t y among o t h e r s than t h o s e did
who d id n o t s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t b e h a v i o r s .
C on d ition s C ite d by Stu d e n ts as Being
P r e s e n t When Dishone sty Occurred
General in f o r m a ti o n r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s
c i t e d when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r e d i s p r e s e n t e d p r i o r to t h e r e s u l t s o f
t h e h y p o t h e s is t e s t i n g in t h i s a r e a .

Table 4.27 r e p o r t s t h e number

o f tim es t h e c o n d i t i o n was c i t e d f o r each d i s h o n e s t b e h a v io r and a l s o
g i v e s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f tim es t h e c o n d i t i o n was c i t e d by each s t u d e n t
who r e p o r t e d engaging in t h e b e h av io r .
As can be n o t e d , " l i t t l e chance o f d isc o v ery " i s much more
f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d th an any o t h e r c o n d i t i o n (537).

"Work d i f f i c u l t "

i s c i t e d second in fre q u e n c y , follo w ed by " b e h a v io r not d i f f e r e n t
than o t h e r s t u d e n t s . "

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s

Table 4.26

Summary of one-way analysis of variance t e s t s , by behavior, for s i g n i f i c a n t
d ifferen ces between students who se lf - r e p o r te d dishonesty and those who did not
in dishonesty reported among o th ers 9

Behavior
Used "crib sheet" during exam

Note:

B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
U
B
W

1

719
1

721
1

713
1

722
1

726
1

719
1

716
1

724
1

720
1

717

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

208.9912
2351.1198
632.7216
3534.9658
235.6481
2592.6121
3.7891
244.9789
425.0946
2976.1977
2.0335
326.6545
38.0063
1261.0424
162.6193
2069.5460
53.9387
1549.5294
111.3426
1846.2958

208.9912
3.2700
632.7216
4.9029
235.6481
3.6362
3.7891
0.3393
425.0946
4.1336
2.0335
0.4543
38.0063
1.7612
162.6193
2.8585
53.9387
2.1521
111.3426
2.5750

F-Ratio

F-Probability

62.9120

. 0001 *

129.0514

. 0001 *

64.8061

. 0001 *

11.1671

.0009*

102.8386

. 0001 *

4.4759

.0347*

21.5794

. 0 001 *

56.8900

. 0001 *

25.0630

. 0001 *

43.2394

. 0001 *

B represents between groups; W, within groups.

aStudents s e l f - r e p o r ti n g dishonest behavior= 419; students not s e l f - r e p o r t i n g dishonest
behavior= 308.
♦Significance beyond .05 lev e l.

112

Copied from another during
exam
Submitted work without giving
proper c r e d i t
Took exam or course fo r another
student
Let another student copy from
exam
Had another student take exam
or course
Changed answers or a lt e r e d
evaluation
Submitted p a per/p roje ct, not
own work
Exchanged information during
exam
Let another student submit
t h e i r work fo r c r e d i t

DF

No
Discovery

Work
D if f i c u l t

Behavior Not
D ifferent

Honesty
Stressed

Competition
Keen

Unprepared

Meaningless

Instructor Fair
and Reasonable

Needed B etter
Grade

Number of
Students

Used "crib sheet"
during exam

16
(16.3)

49
(50.0)

46
(46.9)

24
(24.5)

2
(2.0)

27
(27.6)

47
(48.0)

14
(14.3)

14
(14.3)

41
(41.8)

98

Copied from another
during exam

43
(19.0)

126
(55.C)

113
(50.0)

87
(38.5)

9
(4.0)

58
(25.7)

76
(33.6)

38
(16.8)

29
(12.8)

79
(35.0)

226

Submitted work without
giving proper credit

31
(19.3)

110
(68.3)

27
(16.8)

53
(32.9)

4
(2.5)

13
(8.1)

22
(13.7)

40
(24.8)

18
(11.2)

16
(9.9)

161

Took exam or course
for another student

0
(0)

4
(36.4)

4
(36.4)

2
(18.0)

0
(0)

2
(18.0)

2
(18.0)

1
(9.0)

0
(0)

2
(18.0)

11

Let another student
copy from exam

36
(19.9)

108
(59.7)

67
(37.0)

50
(27.6)

8
(4.4)

24
(13.3)

17
(9.4)

28
(15.5)

22
(12.2)

12
(6.6)

!£L

Had another student
take exam or course

1
(11.5)

3
(54.5)

3
(54.5)

2
(33.0)

2
(33.0)

1
(11.5)

3
(54.5)

1
(11.5)

0
(0)

2
(63.0)

67

Changed answers or
altered evaluation

12
(25.5)

28
(59.6)

16
(34.0)

14
(29.8)

2
(4.3)

10
(21.3)

8
(17.0)

12
(25.5)

8
(17.0)

14
(29.8)

47

Submitted paper/
project, not own work

7
(10.6)

39
(59.1)

17
(25.8)

19
(28.8)

0
(0)

8
(12.1)

22
(33.3)

25
(37.9)

3
(4.5)

19
(29.7)

66

Exchanged Information
during exam

8
(20.0)

21
(52.5)

20
(50.0)

13
(32.5)

1
(2.5)

11
(27.5)

8
(20.0)

3
(7.5)

5
(12.5)

12
(30.0)

40

Let another student
submit th e ir work
for credit

12
(13.3)

49
(54.4)

19
(21.1)

19
(21.1)

2
(2.2)

9
(10.0)

9
(10.0)

24
(26.7)

6
(6.6)

4
(4.4)

90

166
(7.5)

537
(24.2)

332
(15.0)

283
(12.8)

30
(0.1)

163
(7.4)

214
(9.7)

186
(8.4)

105
(4.7)

201
(9.0)

Behavior

Totals

Note:

1

Course
I n te re s tin g

1

Table 4.27 Conditions cited when dishonesty occurred

Number in parentheses is the percentage of those who cited the condition for the behavior; the number underlined
a t the end of the percentage row is the number of students who reported the behavior.

114

ranked f o u r t h and f i f t h ("unprepared" and "needing b e t t e r grade than
could be e a r n e d " ) a r e c o n d i t i o n s which r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to s t a t u s o f
th e i n d i v i d u a l , n o t c o n d i t i o n s o f the s i t u a t i o n .

A r e l a t i v e l y low

p e rc e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s thou ght t h a t c o u rs es in which d i s h o n e s t y
o c cu rred were " i n t e r e s t i n g " o r "meaningful" and fewer s t i l l c i t e d
t h e c o n d i t i o n " i n s t r u c t o r r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r . "

"Competition keen

among c la s s m a te s " was ranked e i g h t h in terms o f c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d ,
which i s lower than might have been a n t i c i p a t e d c o n s i d e r i n g th e c u r r e n t
d i s c u s s i o n among s t u d e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e p r e s s u r e f o r g rad e s.

I t may

be, however, t h a t t h e p r e s s u r e f o r grades i s not t h a t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d
t o c o m p e ti t io n among c l a s s m a t e s .
Perhaps, in a d d i t i o n t o t h e high pe rc e n ta g e of s t u d e n t s who
f e l t t h a t t h e r e was l i t t l e chance o f t h e i r b e h a v i o r being d i s c o v e r e d ,
th e o t h e r o b s e r v a t i o n o f g r e a t e s t i n t e r e s t i s t h a t s t u d e n t s r a r e l y
r e p o r t e d t h a t "h o nesty was s t r e s s e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r . "

Whether

g r e a t e r emphasis on honesty by f a c u l t y a n d / o r c l o s e r m o nitoring o f
s i t u a t i o n s would, in f a c t , reduc e t h e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y i s not
known; however, t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s w a r r a n t f u r t h e r stu d y i n t o ways
in which f a c u l t y might i n f l u e n c e t h e in c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y among
students.
Because o f t h e high frequ ency w ith which " l i t t l e chance o f
d isc o v e r y " was c i t e d , a ran k in g o f b e havio rs by t h e p e rc e n ta g e o f
s t u d e n t s who l i s t e d the c o n d i t i o n a s being p r e s e n t when t h e b e havio r
o c cu rred i s p r e s e n t e d in Table 4 .2 8 .

115

T able 4 .2 8

Rank

Rank o r d e r o f b e h av io r s where " l i t t l e chance o f d isc o v ery "
was c i t e d
Percentag e
Listing
Condition

Behavior
Submitted work w i t h o u t g iv in g p r o p e r c r e d i t
Let a n o t h e r copy from exam
Changed answer o r a l t e r e d e v a l u a t i o n
Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t not own work
Copied from a n o t h e r d urin g exam
Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t tak e exam o r course
Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t submit t h e i r work f o r
credit
Exchanged i n f o r m a ti o n d u rin g exam
Used " c r i b s h e e t s " d uring exam
Took exam o r cou rse f o r a n o t h e r s t u d e n t

1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

68 .3
59.7
59.6
59.1
55.8
54.5
54.4
52.5
50.0
36.4

From t h e ranking i t can be noted t h a t s t u d e n t s see t h e g r e a t e s t
r i s k o f d e t e c t i o n in " t a k i n g an exam o r co urse f o r someone e l s e , " with
t h e s m a l l e s t r i s k o f d e t e c t i o n r e p o r t e d f o r " s u b m i tt i n g work w ith o ut
giving proper c r e d i t . "
Although t h e r e a r e some d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e p e rc e n t a g e o f s t u ­
d e n t s who c i t e t h e c o n d i t i o n by a p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v i o r , i t i s im po rtant
t o n o t e t h e c o n s i s t e n c y with which t h e c o n d i t i o n i s c i t e d a c r o s s a l l
behaviors.
Hypothesis 9 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , o r GPA, in
t h e c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r e d .
One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s were performed on a l l con­
d i t i o n s t o d e te rm in e d i f f e r e n c e s among groups w i t h i n each c a t e g o r y .
A summary o f t h e s e t e s t s i s r e p o r t e d in Table 4 .2 9 .

116
Table 4.29

Sunrnary of one-way a n a ly s is o f v arian ce t e s t s f o r d if f e r e n c e s among un dergraduates,
when c a te g o riz e d by c l a s s , c o ll e g e , and GPA, In c o n d itio n s c i t e d when dishonesty
occurred

Conditions

Sum o f
Squares

DF

Mean
Square

F-Ratio

F -P r o b a b ili ty

— - Class®..................
Course i n t e r e s t i n g

B
W

3
373

4.7936
204.2992

1.5979
0.5477

2.9173

.0341*

L i t t l e chance o f discovery

B
W

3
373

6.7214
593.1831

2.2405
1.5903

1.4088

.2398

T est/assig nm ent d i f f i c u l t

B
W

3
373

9.1899
308.9040

3.0633
0.8260

3.7086

Behavior not d i f f e r e n t than
o th ers

B
W

3
373

2.4200
277.4686

0.8067
0.7439

1.0844

.3556

Honesty s t r e s s e d by i n s t r u c t o r

B
VI

3
373

0.3530
45.5674

0.1177
0.1222

0.9631

.4102

Competition keen

B
VI

3
373

0.3562
209.9090

0.1187
0.5628

0.2110

.8888

1 was unprepared

B
VI

3
373

0.1637
254.0698

0.0546
0.6812

0.0801

.9708

T e st/assign m ent meaningless

B
W

3
373

3.2103
254.4820

1.0701
0.6823

1.6685

.1966

I n s t r u c t o r reaso nab le and f a i r

B
W

3
373

0.6571
138.8973

0.2190
0.3724

0.5882

.6231

Needed b e t t e r grade than
could earn

B
W

3
373

4.3282
249.9158

1.4427
0.6700

2.1533

.0931

0118*

■—-C o lleg e15................
Course i n t e r e s t i n g

B
W

2
367

0.1961
207.5364

0.0980
0.5655

0.1734

.8409

L i t t l e chance of d isco very

B
VI

2
367

7.2367
579.5309

3.6183
1.5791

2.2914

.1026

T est/assign m ent d i f f i c u l t

B
W

2
367

10.4414
298.4883

5.2207
0.8133

6.4190

.0018*

Behavior not d i f f e r e n t than
o th e r s

B
VI

2
367

2.4135
275.0162

1.2068
0.7494

1.6104

.2012

Honesty s t r e s s e d by i n s t r u c t o r

B
VI

2
367

0.0627
42.1103

0.0313
0.1147

0.2732

.7611

Competition keen

B
U

2
367

0.5728
208.4542

0.2864
0.5680

0.5042

.6044

I was unprepared

B
VI

2
367

0.0904
248.3420

0.0452
0.6767

0.0668

.9354

T est/assig nm en t meaningless

B
W

2
367

2.7308
251.2394

1.3654
0.6846

1.9946

.1375

I n s t r u c t o r re ason ab le and f a i r

B
W

2
367

0.5472
138.5446

0.2736
0.3775

0.7248

.4851

Needed b e t t e r grade than could
earn

B
W

2
367

0.8528
245.6039

0.4264
0.6692

0.6372

.5294

Note:

B re p r e s e n ts between groups; W. w ith groups.
“Number o f freshmen - 106; sophomores = 96; j u n i o r s * 92; s e n i o r s * 83.
^Number o f s t u d e n ts in B usiness* 141; Natural Science* 117; Social Science* 112.
• S i g n i f i c a n t beyond the .05 l e v e l .

117

Table 4 . 2 9 - -Continued

DF

C o nditions

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F-R atio

F -P robability

Averagec - Course i n t e r e s t i n g

B
M

8
364

1.7650
206.6533

0.2206
0.5677

0.3886

.9265

L i t t l e chance o f d isco v e ry

B
W

8
364

13.1178
584.8500

1.6397
1.6067

1.0205

.4199

T e st/a ss ig n m e n t d i f f i c u l t

B
W

8
364

9.8437
299.7863

1.2305
0.8236

1.4940

.1577

Behavior not d i f f e r e n t than
o th e r s

B
W

8
364

6.5976
271.4989

0.8247
0.7456

1.1057

.3585

Honesty s t r e s s e d by i n s t r u c t o r

B
W

8
364

0.8863
36.4381

0.1108
0.1001

1.1067

.3578

Competition keen

B
W

8
364

4.0314
203.1696

0.5039
0.5582

0.9028

.5141

I was unprepared

B
W

8
364

11.4457
235.7500

1.4307
0.6477

2.2090

.0262*

T e st/a ss ig n m e n t m eaningless

B
W

8
364

2.5200
254.3111

0.3150
0.6987

0.4509

.8898

I n s t r u c t o r re a s o n a b le and f a i r

B
W

8
364

0.5969
138.6954

0.0746
0.3810

0.1958

.9914

Needed b e t t e r grade than could
earn

B
W

8
364

11.3995
233.7962

1.4249
0.6423

2.2185

.0256*

Note:

B r e p r e s e n t s between groups , W, w ith in groups.
cNumbers o f s tu d e n ts by GPA ranges:

^ S i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .05 l e v e l .

1.76-2. 00 = 22
2 .0 1 -2 . 25 = 17
2 .2 6 -2 . 50 = 47

2.5 1-2. 75 = 55
2 .7 6 -3 . 00 = 69
3 .0 1-3. 25 = 58

3.2 6-3. 50 = 55
3.5 1-3. 75 = 37
3.7 6-4. 00 = 13

118

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found on two c o n d i t i o n s by c l a s s ,
one by c o l l e g e , and two by GPA.

Based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s Hypothesis 9

is re je c te d .
Where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found using t h e one-way
a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t , p o s t hoc t e s t s were performed t o determine
where t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s among groups.

The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e p o s t

hoc t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d in Table 4 .3 0 .
Based on t h e p o st hoc t e s t s s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found
between freshmen and s e n i o r s on t h e c o n d i t i o n " t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t d i f f i ­
cu lt."

Freshmen c i t e d t h i s c o n d i t i o n more f r e q u e n t l y than did s e n i o r s .

On t h e c o n d i t i o n " c o u r s e s i n t e r e s t i n g " t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t
showed s i g n i f i c a n c e between c l a s s e s ; however, the Scheffe p o s t hoc
p r o ce d u re d id n o t i d e n t i f y where t h e d i f f e r e n c e s among groups e x i s t e d .
In comparing mean s c o r e s , however, i t can be noted t h a t sophomores and
j u n i o r s c i t e d t h i s c o n d i t i o n more o f t e n than did freshmen o r s e n i o r s .
S t u d e n ts in t h e College o f So cial Science c i t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n
" t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t d i f f i c u l t " s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n than did s t u d e n t s
in e i t h e r t h e C olle ge o f Business o r Natural Scien ce.
S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found on t h e c o n d i t i o n s "unpre­
pared" and "needed b e t t e r grade th an could earn" where GPA groups were
compared.

I t can be noted t h a t t h o s e s t u d e n t s with GPA's o f 3 . 7 6 - 4 . 0 0

c i t e d t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s l e s s f r e q u e n t l y than di d th o se with GPA's between
2.01 and 2 .5 0 ; however, t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e s were not beyond th e c r i t ­
i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s c a l c u l a t e d u sing t h e s e l e c t e d p o st hoc p rocedure.

Table 4.30

Post hoc comparisons fo r differen ces among undergraduates in conditions cite d when
dishonesty occurred
Class

Conditions

Group

Mean

Sophomores

Juniors

Seniors

Course in te re stin g

Freshmen
Sophomores
Juniors
Seniors

.2925
.5313
.5109
.3012

.2388 (.2927)

.2184 (.2960)
.0204 (.3031)

.0087 (.3045)
.2301 (.3114)
.2097 (.3145)

Test assignment
d if f i c u lt

Freshmen
Sophomores
Juniors
Seniors

.9906
.8021
.6957
.5663

.1885 (.3594)

.2949 (.3635)
.1064 (.3722)

.4243 (.3739)®
.2358 (.3824)
.1294 (.3862)

College
Condition

Group

Test/assignment
d if f i c u lt

Business
Natural Science
Social Science

Mean

Natural Science

Social Science

0.6454
0.6838
1.0268

.0384 (.2775)

.3814 (.2809)®
.3430 (.2934)®

Grade Poin t Average
Conditions

GPA Group

Mean

2.26-2.50

2.76-4.00

Unprepared

2.01-2.25
2.26-2.50
3.76-4.00

0.8235
0.7234
0.1538

.1001 (.9036)

.6697 (1.1763)
.5696 (1.0005)

Needed b e tte r grade
than could earn

2.01-2.25
2.26-2.50
3.76-4.00

1.0000
0.7660
0.2308

.234 (.9 )

.7692 (1.1713)
.5352 (.9963)

®Mean d ifference beyond c r it ic a l differen ce.

120

In a d d i t i o n to c a t e g o r i z i n g th e underg rad uates
college,

and GPA, an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t e s t was run

by c l a s s ,
to de termine

i f t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in the c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when
d i s h o n e s t y occurs between s t u d e n t s in p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l programs and
th o se not in such programs.

Table 4.31

rep o rts the r e s u l t s of th is

test.
On none o f t h e 10 c o n d i t i o n s were t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
found between s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d in p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l programs and tho se
who were

not.

"Competition keen among c la ss m a te s" i s one c o n d i t i o n

on which

a d i f f e r e n c e might have been expec ted in view

o f t h e frequency

with which p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s d i s c u s s t h e p r e s s u r e o f co m p e titio n
f o r e n t r y i n t o p r o f e s s i o n a l sc h o o ls.
Hypothesis 10 s t a t e s :

There a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s

among

g r a d u a t e s , when c a t e g o r i z e d by c o l l e g e or GPA, in

cited

when d i s h o n e s t y o c cu rred .

the conditions

One-way a n a l y s i s o f v a ri a n c e t e s t s were performed on a l l
c o n d i t i o n s t o de termine d i f f e r e n c e s among groups w i t h in each c a t e g o r y .
A summary o f t h e s e t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d in Table 4 .3 2 .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s show t h a t t h e r e were two c o n d i t i o n s
where t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e found by c o l l e g e .
t h e s e f i n d i n g s Hypothesis 10 is r e j e c t e d .

Based on

Table 4.31

Summary of one-way analysis of variance t e s t fo r d ifference between preprofessional
students and nonpreprofessional students in conditions c it e d when dishonesty
occurred 3

Conditions
Course i n t e r e s t i n g
L i t t l e chance of discovery
Test/assignment d i f f i c u l t
Behavior not d i f f e r e n t from
others
Honesty stre sse d by i n s t r u c t o r
Competition keen
I was unprepared
Test/assignment meaningless
I n s t r u c t o r reasonable and f a i r
Needed b e t t e r grade than could
earn
Note:

B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
W
B
U
B
U
B
W

DF

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

F-Ratio

1

0 .0 0 0 2

0 .0 0 0 2

0.0003

.9862

367

207.5608
3.7179
584.9704
0.0137
301.9429
0.0318
269.9682
0.0567
45.8187
0.6724
201.2030
0.0512
246.0464
0.7391
252.8598
0.1480
132.9142
0.0028
238.1327

0.5656
3.7179
1.5939
0.0137
0.8227
0.0318
0.7556
0.0567
0.1248
0.6724
0.5482
0.0512
0.6704
0.7391
0.6890
0.1480
0.3622
0.0028
0.6489

2.3326

.1276

0.0167

.8973

0.0432

.8354

0.4539

.5009

1.2265

.2688

0.0763

.7825

1.0727

.3010

0.4088

.5230

0.0044

.9472

1

367
1

367
1

367
1

367
1

367
1

367
1

367
1

367
1

367

F-Probability

B represents between groups; W, within groups.
aNumber of preprofessional students = 142; number of nonpreprofessional s t u d e n t s = 227.

122
Table 4 .3 2

Suemary o f one-way a n a l y s i s of va ria n c e t e s t s f o r d i f f e r e n c e s among g r a d u a t e s , when
ca te g o riz e d by c o lle g e o r GPA, in th e co n d itio n s c i t e d when d ish on esty occurred

DF

Conditions

Sum o f
Squares

Mean
Square

F-Ratio

F -P r o b a b ili ty

r „n ,„ .a
Course i n t e r e s t i n g

B
W

2
38

0.3390
13.7098

0.1695
0.3608

0.4698

.6287

L i t t l e chance o f discov ery

B
U

2
38

11.7837
105.8261

5.8918
2.7849

2.1156

.1345

T est/assign m ent d i f f i c u l t

B
W

2
38

20.3266
97.4783

10.1633
2.5672

3.9620

.0274*

Behavior not d i f f e r e n t than
o th ers

B
W

2
38

6.9356
97.5522

3.4678
2.5672

1.3508

.2712

Honesty s t r e s s e d by i n s t r u c t o r

B
W

2
38

0.3024
3.6000

0.1512
0.0947

1.5962

.2160

Competition keen

B
W

2
38

18.8396
91.4043

9.4198
2.4054

3.9161

.02844

I was unprepared

B
W

2
38

11.2731
94.2391

5.6365
2.4800

2.2728

.1169

T e st/assign m en t meaningless

B
W

2
38

1.1182
11.3696

0.5591
0.2992

1.8687

.1682

I n s t r u c t o r reaso na ble and f a i r

B
W

2
38

0.1363
14.8880

0.0682
0.3918

0.1740

.8410

Needed b e t t e r grade th an could
earn

B
W

2
38

1.6085
23.2696

0.8042
0.6124

1.3134

.2808

Average*5-Course i n t e r e s t i n g

B
W

3
34

1.6578
11.2106

0.5526
0.3297

1.6760

.1905

L i t t l e chance o f d isco very

B
W

3
34

4.4699
100.5038

1.4900
2.9560

0.5040

.6821

T est/assig nm ent d i f f i c u l t

B
W

3
34

6.2411
104.6273

2.0804
3.0773

0.6760

.5727

Behavior not d i f f e r e n t than
o th e r s

B
W

3
34

6.1249
98.0856

2.0416
2.8849

0.7077

.5541

Honesty s t r e s s e d by i n s t r u c t o r

B
W

3
34

0.1614
3.7333

0.0538
0.1098

0.4900

.6916

Competition keen

B
W

3
34

10.9904
96.4833

3.6635
2.8377

1.2910

.2933

1 was unprepared

B
W

3
34

3.3388
99.7402

1.1129
2.9335

0.3794

.7685

T est/assig n m en t meaningless

B
W

3
34

1.1506
10.6652

0.3835
0.3137

1.2227

.3164

I n s t r u c t o r reason able and f a i r

B
U

3
34

0.7340
13.5818

0.2447
0.3995

0.6125

.6116

Needed b e t t e r grade th an could
earn

B
W

3
34

2.9742
21.2364

0.9914
0.6247

1.5872

.2105

Note:

B r e p r e s e n ts between groups; W, w ith in groups.
®Number o f s t u d e n ts in Business ■ 8 ; Natural S c i e n c e ' 10; Social S c i e n c e ' 23.
^Number o f s t u d e n ts by GPA ran ges:
♦ S i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .05 l e v e l .

3 .0 1 -3 .2 5 * 4;
3 .7 6 -4 .0 0 = 11.

3 .2 6 -3 .5 0 = 8 ;

3.5 1-3 .75 = 15;

123

The p o s t hoc t e s t s on th o se c o n d i t i o n s where s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s were found by c o l l e g e r e v e a l e d t h a t gr a d u a te s t u d e n t s in
t h e C olle g e o f Natural Science c i t e d t h e c o n d i t i o n o f " t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t
d i f f i c u l t " more f r e q u e n t l y than g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s in t h e Colle ge o f
Business.

A s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was a l s o found on th e c o n d it i o n

" c o m p e ti t io n keen."

Graduate s t u d e n t s in the College o f Natural

Sc ien c e c i t e d t h i s more f r e q u e n t l y than th o se in t h e College o f
So c i a l S c ie n c e .
The r e s u l t s o f t h e p ost hoc t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d in Table 4 .3 3 .

Table 4 .3 3 Post hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s among g r ad u a te s t u d e n t s
in c o n d i t i o n s c i t e d when d i s h o n e s t y o c curred
College
C on d itio n

Group

Test/
assignm ent
d ifficu lt

Busi ness
Nat. Science
Soc. Science

0.6087

Competition
keen

Business
Nat. Science
Soc. Science

1.7000
0.1739

a

Mean
0
2 .0 0 0 0

0

Natural Science

Social Science

2.000 ( 1 . 9339)a

0.6087 (1.6739)
1.3913 (1.5443)

1.700 (1.8728)

0.1739 (1.6205)
1.5261 (1.4955)

Mean d i f f e r e n c e beyond c r i t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e .

124

Actions Taken by F a c u lty When
Dishonesty Was Discovered
Hypothesis 11 s t a t e s :

There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e among

f a c u l t y in t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f a c t i o n s which they take when a d i s h o n e s t
b e h a v io r i s observed o r d is c o v e r e d .
In o r d e r to t e s t t h i s h y p o th e s is th e averag e o f t h e r a t i n g s
given by each f a c u l t y member f o r a p a r t i c u l a r behavior was d ete rm ined.
The v a r i a n c e in a c t i o n s was computed and a Chi Square t e s t was used t o
dete rm ine s i g n i f i c a n c e .

The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e t e s t s a r e r e p o r t e d in

Table 4.3 4.
On t h r e e b e h a v i o r s , a c t i o n was taken by only one f a c u l t y
member.

These b e hav iors were:

(1) exchanged i n f o r m a tio n d u rin g exam;

( 2 ) allowed a n o t h e r s t u d e n t to submit t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t ; and
(3) had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t tak e exam/course.
Of t h e remaining seven b e h av iors s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e was
found on f i v e .

Based on t h e s e f i n d i n g s Hypothesis 13 i s r e j e c t e d .

The w r i t e r , however, q u e s t i o n s t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e s e f i n d i n g s because
o f t h e l i m i t e d number o f f a c u l t y members who observed b e h av io r s and
r e p o r t e d a c t i o n s tak e n .

I t would ap pea r t h a t t h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l e

v a r i a n c e in t h e a c t i o n s which f a c u l t y t a k e when a p a r t i c u l a r b e h a v io r
i s observed o r d i s c o v e r e d ; however, f u r t h e r study in t h i s a r e a i s
needed t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c o n s i s t e n c y with which a c t i o n s a r e taken
and t o b e t t e r u n de rstand th e n a t u r e o f t h e c irc u m s ta n ce s t h a t guide
a f a c u l t y member in d e c id in g what c o u rs e o f a c t i o n to fo llo w .

125

Table 4.34

Variance in f a c u l t y a c t i o n s , by behav ior

Behavior

Computation

Used " c r i b s h e e t s "
d uring exam

X*

10.4

DF

S i g n i f i c a n c e Level

4

.05

Copied from a n o th e r
d uring exam

x2

. 1 6 1 2 ,6 1 . 83 2

16

.0 0 1

Submitted work w i t h o u t
g iv in g p r o p e r c r e d i t

X2 = 15('595 ) = 28.5

15

.05

Took exam o r c o u rs e
f o r a n o th e r s t u d e n t

X2 - 2 U.-. 3.3). . 5 32
.0

2

Not s i g n i f i c a n t

12

Not s i g n i f i c a n t

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t
copy from exam
Changed answers o r
a lte re d evaluation
Submitted p a p e r /
p r o j e c t , not own
work
Note:

x2 - M

x2

•0

l . 16

. 111^571 .
•D

x 2 = 6 ( - ’52--) = 26.88

11

.0 0 1

6

.0 0 1

Formula used in co m pu tation s:
x2

= (n-l)s2
_2

a 2 = va lu e o f p o p u l a t i o n v a r i a n c e s p e c i f i e d ; and
s 2 = sample v a r i a n c e .

126

Based on t h e d a t a r e p o r t e d in Table 4 . 3 5 , mean sc o r e s were
computed t o show t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e a c t i o n taken f o r each b e havio r.
The mean s c o r e s were based on t h e fo llow in g va lu e s a ssig n e d t o the
actions:
1

= no a c t i o n ,

2

= warning,

3 = r e p e a t a ssign m en t,
4 = p e n a l t y o r f a i l i n g grade on a ssign m en t,
5 = p e n a l t y o r f a i l i n g grade f o r c o u r s e ,
6

= r e f e r r e d f o r U n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n , and

7 = other.
No va lu e was given t o " o t h e r " in computing mean s c o r e s .
The o r d e r i n g o f t h e b e h av io rs by th e s e r i o u s n e s s o f t h e a c t i o n
take n i s r e p o r t e d in Table 4.36 .
An i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e modes s u g g e st t h a t f o r t h e f i r s t t h r e e
b e h a v i o r s s t u d e n t s might most o f t e n ex pec t to r e c e i v e a p e n a l t y grade
on t h e a ssig n m en t.

A "warning" i s t h e s a n c t i o n most g e n e r a l l y given

for four o th er behaviors.

Again, c a u t i o n must be e x e r c i s e d in drawing

g en eral c o n c l u s i o n s from t h e s e o b s e r v a t i o n s because o f l i m i t a t i o n s o f
numbers.

Several f a c u l t y members commented on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t h a t ,

a lt h o u g h they b e l i e v e d d i s h o n e s t b e h av io rs o c c u r r e d , t h e y lacked p r o o f.
I t may be t h a t no a c t i o n was tak e n o r warnings were given based on
o b s e r v a t i o n s which th ey did no t b e l i e v e they could s u p p o r t i f r e q u i r e d
o r r e q u e s t e d t o do so.

The f i n d i n g s may a l s o s u g g e s t , however, t h a t

t h e a c t i o n s which were r e p o r t e d r e f l e c t e d what t h e f a c u l t y b e li e v e d

127

2

1

Copied from a n o th e r
d u r i n g exam

6

12

Submitted work w i t h o u t
giving proper c r e d i t

2

13

Took exam o r c o u rs e f o r
another student

1

1

10

9

L et a n o t h e r s t u d e n t copy
from exam
Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t tak e
exam o r c o u rs e

3
6

29

8

30

9

2

4

2

1

1

1

7

Submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t ,
n o t own work

2

1

3

10

Exchanged i n f o r m a tio n
d u r i n g exam

1

1

2

13

1

17
4

3

_2

24

42

25
1

Changed answers o r
a lte r e d evaluation

T o ta l

7

1

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t
submit t h e i r work
for c re d it

Total

3

Other

Pena lty/Failing
Grade—Assignment

1

Referred fo r
University
Disciplinary
Action

Repeat
Assignment

Used " c r i b s h e e t s " d u rin g
exam

Penalty/Failing
Grade—Course

Behavior

Warning

Fa c u lty a c t i o n s t a k e n , by b ehavior

No Action

T able 4.35

2

13

37

9

3

2

130

128

Table 4.36

Rank o r d e r o f behaviors by t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f a c t i o n taken

Behavior

Mean

Mode

Changed answers o r a l t e r e d
evaluation

3.923

4

Submitted paper o r p r o j e c t ,
n o t own work

3.471

4

Exchanged i n f o r m a tio n during
exam

3.250

4

Had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t ta k e
co u rs e o r exam

3.000a

3

Copied from a n o t h e r dur ing
exam

2.823

2

Submitted work w i th o u t
giving proper c r e d i t

2.733

2

Used " c r i b s h e e t s " during
exam

2.429

2

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t submit
t h e i r work f o r c r e d i t

2 . 000a

2

Let a n o t h e r s t u d e n t copy
d u r i n g exam

1.913

1

Took exam or c o u rs e f o r
another student

1 . 500a

-

a0nly one o r two i n c i d e n t s r e p o r t e d .

129

was an a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n f o r a b ehavio r which was, o r could have been,
substantiated.

I f one assumes t h a t t h e a c t i o n take n r e f l e c t s what t h e

f a c u l t y deemed a p p r o p r i a t e , t h e q u e s t io n could be r a i s e d as to whether
a s t u d e n t might choose to "gamble" i f t h e most se vere s a n c t i o n might be
a p e n a l t y g r a d e , p a r t i c u l a r l y i f t h e r e was l i t t l e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a good
grade being e arned .

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS
AND IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Summary
The pri mary purpose f o r u n d e rt a k in g t h e study was t o gain
an u n d e rs ta n d in g about how s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y a t Michigan S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y d e f i n e d i s h o n e s t y and t o s e c u r e info rm a ti o n r e g a r d i n g the
in c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y among s t u d e n t s .

Ari e f f o r t was a l s o made to

e x p lo r e t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e e x i s t e d when d i s h o n e s t y
o c c u r r e d and t h e a c t i o n s which f a c u l t y took when d i s h o n e s t y was
discovered.
The q u e s t i o n s which were fo rm u la te d to guide t h e w r i t e r in the
development o f t h e study a r e as f o l lo w s :
1.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y
in t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h av io r s which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work?

2.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among s t u d e n t s in t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h av io r s which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d
f o r academic work when c a t e g o r i z e d by c l a s s s t a n d i n g , c o l l e g e ,
grade p o i n t a v e r a g e , o r sex?

130

131

3.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among f a c u l t y in t h e i r
p e r c e p t i o n s o f beh av io rs which v i o l a t e an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d
f o r academic work when c a t e g o r i z e d by c o l l e g e , se x , o r y e a r s
o f c o l l e g e t e a c h i n g e xp e r ie n c e ?

4.

What a r e t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e beh av io rs which a r e
p e r c e i v e d by s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y t o be s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s
o f an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d f o r academic work?

5.

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among s t u d e n t s in the
in c i d e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y when c a t e g o r i z e d by
c l a s s s t a n d i n g , c o l l e g e , grade p o i n t a v e r a g e , s e x , o r plac e
of residence?

6.

Is t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between a s t u d e n t ' s
p e r c e p t i o n o f what c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work and d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d ?

7.

Do t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e e x i s t e d when they
engaged in a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y d i f f e r by t h e s p e c i f i c ty pe o f
b e h a v i o r in which they engaged?

8.

I s t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e s e l f - r e p o r t i n g
o f d i s h o n e s t y by s t u d e n t s and t h e i r r e p o r t i n g of d i s h o n e s t y by
others?

9.

Do f a c u l t y d i f f e r in t h e a c t i o n s which th e y t a k e when a
s p e c i f i c ty pe o f d i s h o n e s t y i s observed o r disc o v e r e d ?
A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was developed by t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o g a t h e r d a ta

f o r the study.

The i n s t r u m e n t c o n s i s t e d o f two p a r t s .

The f i r s t p a r t

132

was de signed to a s s e s s how s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y p e rc e i v e s e l e c t e d
b e h av io r s in terms o f what they p e r s o n a l l y b e l i e v e i s an a p p r o p r i a t e
s t a n d a r d f o r academic work.

The s e l e c t i o n o f beh av io rs t o t e s t p e r ­

c e p t i o n s was based p r i m a r i l y on the r e s e a r c h e r ' s e x p e r i e n c e s in working
w ith s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

An a tt e m p t was

made to in c lu d e behav iors about which s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y had r a i s e d
q u e s t i o n s o r e x p re s s e d concern .

S u b j e c t s were asked t o r a t e the

b e h a v io r s on a s i x - p o i n t s c a l e .

The response o p t io n s provided were:

1 = No v i o l a t i o n
2 = Minor v i o l a t i o n
3 = Somewhat s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n
4 = Se rio us v i o l a t i o n
5 = Very s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n
6 = Undecided
No weight was given t o t h e "undecided" o p t io n and mean s c o r e s
were based on t h e r e sp on se s t o o p t io n s 1 through 5.
A t e s t f o r r e l i a b i l i t y on P a r t I o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e which
sought t o measure p e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h av io rs r e s u l t e d in a lp h a l e v e l s
o f .92766 f o r u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , .93914 f o r g r a d u a t e s , and .90345 f o r
faculty.

Because o f th e high c o r r e l a t i o n s which were found t o be

c o n s i s t e n t among a l l t h r e e groups under s t u d y , th e 33 b e h av io r s which
were used to measure p e r c e p t i o n s were t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e s c a l e .
A n a lysis o f v a r i a n c e t e s t s a l s o were made on i n d i v i d u a l items t o
determine t h e s p e c i f i c b e h av io r s on which t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t
differences.

133

P a r t II o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r s t u d e n t s asked s u b j e c t s to
r e p o r t whether th ey had o bse rv ed , o r p e r s o n a l l y engaged i n , any o f
10 b e havio rs which t h e r e s e a r c h e r c a t e g o r i z e d as d i s h o n e s t , based on
an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f c u r r e n t u n i v e r s i t y s t a n d a r d s r e g a r d i n g hone sty .
The o p t i o n s f o r response f o r s e l f - r e p o r t i n g and r e p o r t i n g o f o t h e r s
were 0 through +5.
t r e a t e d as 6.

In t a b u l a t i o n s o f d i s h o n e s t y t h e o p t io n of +5 was

I f s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t they had p e r s o n a l l y engaged

in a b e h a v i o r , t h e y were then asked t o s e l e c t from a key any o f th e
c o n d i t i o n s l i s t e d which th ey b e lie v e d e x i s t e d a t th e time th e b ehavior
occurred.

The c o n d i t i o n s l i s t e d could be c o n s i d e r e d as n e g a t i v e ,

po sitiv e , or n e u tral.

S tu dents a l s o were i n v i t e d t o comment on the

c o n d i t i o n s o r t o l i s t o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s which th ey b e li e v e d e x i s t e d
a t th e time t h e b e h a v io r oc c u r r e d .
P a r t II o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r f a c u l t y asked s u b j e c t s to
r e p o r t whether th ey had observed o r d i s c o v e r e d any o f the 10 beh av iors
in t h e i r c o n t a c t s w ith s t u d e n t s .

The 10 b e havio rs were t h e same 10

b ehaviors used in P a r t II o f t h e s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
o p t io n s f o r f a c u l t y o b s e r v a t i o n s were 0 through +3.
+3 was t r e a t e d as 4.

The response

In t a b u l a t i o n s

I f f a c u l t y r e p o r t e d t h a t th ey had observed o r

d isc o vere d a b e h a v i o r , they were then asked t o i n d i c a t e what a c t i o n
was taken by s e l e c t i n g from seven o p t i o n s .

The o p t i o n s ranged in

s e r i o u s n e s s from "no a c t i o n " t o " r e f e r r a l f o r U n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y
action."

An o p t i o n o f " o t h e r " was a l s o i nclu d ed but not used in

c a l c u l a t i n g mean s c o r e s .
The time p e r i o d f o r t h e r e p o r t i n g o f d i s h o n e s t y was the
academic y e a r 1977-78 f o r both s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y .

134

The sample s e l e c t e d f o r t h e st udy c o n s i s t e d o f 1,529 s t u d e n t s
and 150 f a c u l t y from t h e c o l l e g e s o f B u sin e ss, Natural S c ie n c e , and
S o c ial Sc ien c e.

S u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from t h e s e c o l l e g e s because

o f t h e d i v e r s i t y in programs o f f e r e d w i t h i n the c o l l e g e s .

These t h r e e

c o l l e g e s a l s o have th e l a r g e s t s t u d e n t e n ro llm e n ts o f a l l c o l l e g e s a t
Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were d i s t r i b u t e d through e i t h e r pe rson al
d e l i v e r y to r e s i d e n c e s and o f f i c e s o r through the U.S. Po s tal S e r v i c e .
All q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were t o be r e t u r n e d through t h e U.S. Postal S e r v i c e .
The r e t u r n o f s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s was a ppro xim ately 49 p e r c e n t o f
which 740 pr ovided d a ta f o r a n a l y s i s .

The r e t u r n o f f a c u l t y qu es­

t i o n n a i r e s was ap p ro x im ate ly 47 p e r c e n t o f which 66 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s
were used in t h e a n a l y s i s .
The da ta were analyzed usi ng t h e SPSS Package and proce ss ed
on t h e Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y CDC 6500 computer.

One-way a n a l y s i s

o f v a ri a n c e programs were used p r i m a r i l y to t e s t th e hypotheses s t a t e d ,
and t h e Scheffe p o s t hoc te c h n iq u e was employed to i n v e s t i g a t e
d i f f e r e n c e s where s i g n i f i c a n c e was found.
Findings and D iscussio n
Find ings o f t h e st udy a r e summarized and d i s c u s s e d w i t h i n t h e
framework o f t h e f o l lo w in g f o u r c a t e g o r i e s :
1.

P e r c e p t i o n s o f b e h av iors a p p r o p r i a t e f o r academic work;

2.

Dishonesty r e p o r t e d ;

3.

C o nd itio n s c i t e d by s t u d e n t s when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r e d ; and

4.

Ac tions tak e n by f a c u l t y when d i s h o n e s t y was d i s c o v e r e d .

135

P e r c e p t i o n s o f Behaviors A ppro p riate
f o r Academic Work
S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between f a c u l t y and
s t u d e n t s , both u n d e rg r a d u a te s and g r a d u a t e s , in t h e s e r i o u s n e s s
w ith which th ey p e r c e i v e d b e havio rs as measured by t h e o v e r a l l s c a l e .
F a c u lt y were found to p e r c e i v e th e b e h av io rs more s e r i o u s l y than
students.

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between und e rg ra d u ate s

and g r a d u a t e s , nor were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s found among f a c u l t y
when c a t e g o r i z e d by y e a r s o f t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e o r c o l l e g e .
In examining d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s on i n d i v i d u a l
b e h a v i o r s , i t was found t h a t on 10 o f t h e 33 items t h e mean s c o r e s
f o r f a c u l t y were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than f o r u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , and
on seven o f 33 items t h e f a c u l t y mean sc o r e s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r
than t h e mean s c o r e s f o r g r a d u a t e s .

Although no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e

was found between un d e rg r a d u a te s and g r a d u a t e s using t h e o v e r a l l s c a l e ,
on ni ne i n d i v i d u a l b e h av io rs t h e mean s c o re f o r g r a d u a t e s was
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than t h e mean sc o r e f o r u n d e rg r a d u a t e s .
On the f o l lo w in g t h r e e b e h av iors t h e mean sc o r e f o r under­
g r a d u a t e s was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than f o r f a c u l t y :

(1) "reviewing

f r a t f i l e p r i o r t o exam," (2) " p u r p o s e f u l l y f a i l i n g t o do p a r t on j o i n t
p r o j e c t " and (3) "having a b e e r with t h e i n s t r u c t o r in hopes o f g e t t i n g
a b e t t e r grade."

These b e h av io r s may have been r a t e d more s e r i o u s l y by

s t u d e n t s because s i t u a t i o n s o f u n f a i r advantage could have r e s u l t e d f o r
o t h e r s t u d e n t s ; f o r th e b e h av io r s r a t e d more s e r i o u s l y by f a c u l t y , th e
i n t e g r i t y o f t h e e v a l u a t i o n p roce ss i t s e l f appeared t o be a t i s s u e .

136

In examining t h e n a t u r e o f t h e b e havio rs which u n d e rg r a d u a te s
viewed most s e r i o u s l y , and t h o s e th ey viewed t h e l e a s t s e r i o u s l y , i t
was noted t h a t b eh av io rs from which an i n d i v i d u a l d e riv e d s e l f - b e n e f i t ,
and which a l s o r e s u l t e d in d i r e c t harm t o a n o t h e r , were r a t e d t h e most
serious.

Furthermore, two o r more i n d i v i d u a l s were u s u a l l y involv ed

in t h e s e b e h a v i o r s , whereas on th o se b e h av iors which were seen as l e a s t
s e r i o u s , i n d i v i d u a l s a c te d in d ep e n d en tly and d i r e c t s e l f - b e n e f i t was
n ot n e c e s s a r i l y d e r i v e d , nor did d i r e c t harm to a n o t h e r r e s u l t .
When th e r e sp o nse s on t h e o v e r a l l s c a l e were examined to
d etermine i f t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among u n d e rg ra d u ate s
when c a t e g o r i z e d by s e x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA, t h e a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d
t h a t women p e rc e iv e d t h e b e h av io r s more s e r i o u s l y than men.
d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o found by c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA.

Significant

Although p o s t

hoc comparisons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s among c l a s s e s f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f ­
i c a n t l e v e l s , th e g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e in mean s c o r e s was observed
t o be between sophomores and s e n i o r s , with t h e mean f o r s e n i o r s
g e n e r a l l y h i g h e r than f o r t h e o t h e r t h r e e c l a s s e s .
S tud e nts in Natural Science were found to r a t e b e havio rs
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s l y than s t u d e n t s in t h e Co llege o f Business.
Although s t u d e n t s in Natural Science a l s o r a t e d b e h av io r s more
s e r i o u s l y than s t u d e n t s in t h e College o f So cial S c i e n c e , th e p o st
hoc comparisons between s t u d e n t s in t h e s e two c o l l e g e s did not show
significance.
Those u n d e rg ra u date s with grade p o i n t s between 3.26 and 3.75
r a t e d t h e b e havio rs as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s than did s t u d e n t s

137

with GPA's between 2.01 and 2.5 0 .

I t was i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t

while s t u d e n t s w ith r e l a t i v e l y low GPA's saw th e b e havio rs as l e s s
s e r i o u s , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f s t u d e n t s with t h e lowest GPA's used in
t h e a n a l y s i s ( 1 . 7 6 - 2 . 0 0 ) , did not d i f f e r g r e a t l y from the p e r c e p t i o n s
o f s t u d e n t s with t h e h i g h e s t GPA's ( 3 . 7 5 - 4 . 0 0 ) .
On t h e o v e r a l l s c a l e , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found
among g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s in p e r c e p t i o n when c a t e g o r i z e d by s e x , but
not when c a t e g o r i z e d by c o l l e g e o r GPA.

Graduate women viewed th e

b e h a v io rs more s e r i o u s l y than g r a d u a t e men.

C o n sid e rab le agreement

was found among u n d e rg ra d uate women and g r a d u a t e women on t h e s p e c i f i c
b e h a v i o r s which t h e y r a t e d t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s than t h e i r
male p e e r s .
In t h e e x am in atio n o f d i f f e r e n c e s among u n d e rg r a d u a te s by
i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r s , i t was found t h a t t h e r a t i n g by und erg radu ate
women was s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r than und e rg ra d uate men on seven o f 33
behaviors.

Se n io rs r a t e d two b e h av io rs as s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s

than o t h e r u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , and on one a d d i t i o n a l b e h a v i o r s e n i o r s
p e r c e i v e d t h e b e h a v i o r t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more s e r i o u s than freshmen
and sophomores.

On t h r e e b e h av io rs t h e r a t i n g s by s t u d e n t s in th e

College o f Natural Scien ce were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r th an t h e r a t i n g s
by s t u d e n t s in t h e Colle ge o f Business.
On i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r s , as well as on t h e o v e r a l l s c a l e ,
i t was found t h a t t h o s e s t u d e n t s with t h e h i g h e r GPA's p e rc e iv e d
t h e b e h av io r s more s e r i o u s l y than th o se w ith lower GPA's.

138

The r e a d e r i s reminded t h a t a l e v e l o f .005 was e s t a b l i s h e d
f o r t e s t i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e on i n d i v i d u a l behaviors and, while s i g n i f ­
i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found on c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r s , no s y s te m a t i c e f f o r t
was made t o examine th e n a t u r e o f t h e behaviors where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­
f e r e n c e s were found.

Such an i n v e s t i g a t i o n was seen t o be beyond th e

scope o f t h i s s t u d y ; however, f u r t h e r examination o f why s i g n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s were found on some behaviors and not o t h e r s might prove
t o be o f i n t e r e s t .
In comparing t h e s e r i o u s n e s s with which behaviors were ranked
by u n d e r g r a d u a t e s , g r a d u a t e s , and f a c u l t y , i t was noted t h a t t h e r e was
c o n s i d e r a b l e agreement among t h e t h r e e groups with r eg a rd to th e
b e h a v io r s which th ey p e rc eiv e d t o be t h e most s e r i o u s and th o se they
p e rc e i v e d to be l e a s t s e r i o u s .

The g r e a t e s t d i s c r e p a n c y in t h e rank

o r d e r appears t o be w i t h i n t h e middle o f t h e ra nge.

The r e l a t i v e

p o s i t i o n s in ranks su g g e sts t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s among t h e groups may
be more in degree than d i r e c t i o n .

The a n a l y s i s o f v a ri a n c e t e s t s

on i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r s , however, r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e r e a r e some
b e h a v io r s where s t u d e n t s , r a t h e r than f a c u l t y , see t h e b eh av io r
t o be more s e r i o u s , thus i n d i c a t i n g some d i f f e r e n c e s in d i r e c t i o n
as w el1.
When t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f th o se s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t e d
d i s h o n e s t y were compared with t h o s e who did n o t , i t was found t h a t
t h e former p e rc e iv e d t h e b ehavio rs l e s s s e r i o u s l y than t h e l a t t e r .
This r e s u l t s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s o f such r e s e a r c h e r s as S h e r r i l l ,
S a l i s b u r y , Horowitz, Friedman, and Know!ton and Hamerlynck who

139

found a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g and
actual behaviors.

This f i n d i n g a l s o su p p o r ts work done by Centra

and o t h e r s who have sought to i n d i r e c t l y study c h e a t i n g behav ior
by stu d y i n g a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g .
As noted p r e v i o u s l y , t h e l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e found on t h i s
t e s t ( . 0 0 0 1 ) , as well as on th ose t e s t s t h a t measured d i f f e r e n c e s in
p e r c e p t i o n s between f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s , were well beyond the .05
le v e l which was e s t a b l i s h e d .
Based on a g eneral review o f t h e f i n d i n g s r e l a t i n g to
d i f f e r e n c e s in p e r c e p t i o n s , i t can be concluded t h a t f a c u l t y g e n e r a l l y
viewed most o f t h e b e h av io rs t o be more s e r i o u s than did s t u d e n t s .
This ge neral c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t with t h e f i n d i n g s o f Frymier
who used the Anderson i n s t r u m e n t t o measure a t t i t u d e s toward c h e a t i n g .
As was found by Anderson th e a t t i t u d e s o f women toward d i s ­
h onesty were found to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y more " s t r i c t " than t h e a t t i t u d e s
o f men.

This f i n d i n g was t r u e f o r both t h e u nderg raduate and g rad ua te

sa m p le s.
S tud en ts in t h e College o f Natural Science r a t e d b e havio rs
most s e r i o u s l y , followed in o r d e r by th o se in Social Science and
B usiness.

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between s t u d e n t s in

Natural Science and Business.
Although i t can be s a i d g e n e r a l l y t h a t s t u d e n t s with lower
GPA's viewed the b e h av io r s l e s s s e r i o u s l y than th o se with t h e h i g h e r
GPA's, t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p was n o t p e r f e c t l y l i n e a r in d i r e c t i o n .

140

No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found in p e r c e p t i o n s between
p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s and t h o s e not e n r o l l e d in p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l
programs.
I t would g e n e r a l l y appear t h a t t h e concern f o r honesty
i n c r e a s e s w ith t h e y e a r s o f e x p e r i e n c e an i n d i v i d u a l has in h i g h e r
education.

The p r o g r e s s i o n in s e r i o u s n e s s o f concern i s from

underclas sm en , t o upperclassmen t o g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , with f a c u l t y
p e r c e i v i n g t h e s e l e c t e d b e havio rs as most s e r i o u s .
Dishonesty Reported
The number o f d i s h o n e s t beh av io rs s e l f - r e p o r t e d by s t u d e n t s
w i t h i n t h e p e ri o d o f one academic y e a r was 2,020.

S ix ty -fo u r percent

o f t h e u n d e rg r a d u a t e s and 27 p e r c e n t o f t h e g r ad u a te s t u d e n t s r e p o r t e d
engaging in one o r more o f th e beh av io rs c a t e g o r i z e d as d i s h o n e s t
d uring t h e y e a r .
I t i s d i f f i c u l t to compare t h e s e pe rc e n ta g e s with tho se
r e p o r t e d in o t h e r s t u d i e s because o f d i f f e r e n c e s in r e p o r t i n g
p e r i o d s and d a ta c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s .

As r e p o r t e d p r e v i o u s l y ,

in t h e comprehensive study done by Bowers in 1964, i t was found t h a t
about h a l f o f t h e s t u d e n t s s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y s i n c e e n r o l l i n g
in c o l l e g e .

Whether t h e i n c i d e n c e r e p o r t e d in t h i s stu d y i s d i f f e r e n t

than what might be found a t o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s , o r whether th e p e r ­
centag e o f t h o s e who engage in d i s h o n e s t y has i n c r e a s e d a c r o s s
i n s t i t u t i o n s s i n c e Bowers conducted h i s s t u d y , i s n o t known.

141

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s stu dy do, however, c l e a r l y su p p o rt the
p o s i t i o n t h a t d i s h o n e s t y i s not an i s o l a t e d phenomenon.

For th e

f a c u l t y members who commented on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t th e time
p e r i o d f o r r e p o r t i n g should not have been l i m i t e d t o one y e a r because
d i s h o n e s t y was so r a r e , t h e f i g u r e s r e p o r t e d in t h i s study may be
s u r p r i s i n g ; however, on t h e b a s i s o f prev io u s s t u d i e s the w r i t e r
does not f i n d the r e s u l t s unexpected.
The w r i t e r f i n d s i t d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t th e i n c id e n c e
o f d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s t u d e n t s .

The r e a d e r i s c au tio n e d

a g a i n s t assuming t h a t t h e r e were 7,432 i n d i v i d u a l a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y
r e p o r t e d by o t h e r s s i n c e a number o f s t u d e n t s undoubtedly had d i r e c t
knowledge o f th e same i n c i d e n t s .

Comments by s t u d e n t s on t h e ques­

t i o n n a i r e s s u g g e st t h a t when d i s h o n e s t y occurs i t i s f a i r l y widely
known among o t h e r s t u d e n t s .

The r e s u l t s o f t h i s study a l s o show t h a t

t h o s e who s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r numbers
o f c a se s o f d i s h o n e s t y among o t h e r s t u d e n t s .

Whether t h i s f i n d i n g

su g g e s t s t h a t t h o s e who engage in d i s h o n e s t y tend to a s s o c i a t e more
with o t h e r s who do the same, o r whether they a r e j u s t more o b s e r v a n t
o f what i s happening around them, i s not known.

Several s t u d e n t s who

did not s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y i n d i c a t e d t h a t they were so busy t r y i n g
to do t h e i r own work t h a t th ey did not have time t o be concerned about
what o t h e r s were doing.
"Copying" and " l e t t i n g o t h e r s copy" were among the most
f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t b e h a v i o r s , r e g a r d l e s s o f whether th e
r e p o r t i n g was done by o t h e r s t u d e n t s , f a c u l t y , o r s e l f - r e p o r t e d .

142

In s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y t h e s e two beh av io rs combined
accounted f o r almost h a l f (895) o f a l l d i s h o n e s t y r e p o r t e d .

Next

in freque ncy was "sub m itted work w i th o u t g iv in g p roper c r e d i t , "
follow ed by "used ' c r i b s h e e t s . " 1 The l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y s e l f - r e p o r t e d
b e h av ior was "took exam/course f o r a n o th e r s t u d e n t " (2 6).

I t was

i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e , however, t h a t 112 i n c i d e n t s o f "having a n o th e r
s t u d e n t t a k e exam/course" were r e p o r t e d .
T h i r t y - s i x o f 66 f a c u l t y members r e p o r t e d having observed
o r d i s c o v e r e d d i s h o n e s t y in t h e i r c l a s s e s during the y e a r .

One

hundred se ven ty-o ne i n c i d e n t s o f d i s h o n e s t y were r e p o r t e d by f a c u l t y .
In a d d i t i o n to o b s e r v a t i o n s o f copying, " su b m i tt i n g work w i th o u t
g i v in g p rop er c r e d i t " was the most f r e q u e n t l y r e p o r t e d b e h a v io r .
The examination o f d i f f e r e n c e s among und e rg ra d uate s in the
in c id e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y s e l f - r e p o r t e d rev e a le d s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
by se x, c l a s s , c o l l e g e , and GPA on a t l e a s t one b e h a v io r c l a s s i f i e d
as d i s h o n e s t .
On a l l ten b e h av io rs t h e mean s c o res were h i g h e r f o r men
than women; however, a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found by sex only
on t h e b e h a v io r "changed answers o r a l t e r e d e v a l u a t i o n . "
Sophomores had t h e h i g h e s t mean s c o res on s i x o f t h e ten
behaviors.

There was a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between sophomores

and freshmen on t h e b e h a v io r " l e t a n o th e r s t u d e n t submit t h e i r work
for c re d it."
S tu d e n ts in t h e College o f Business had a s i g n i f i c a n t l y
h i g h e r mean s c o re on t h e b e h a v io r "used ' c r i b s h e e t s ' d u rin g exam"

143

than d i d s t u d e n t s in Natural Sc ienc e.

On f i v e o t h e r behaviors the

mean s c o r e f o r Business s t u d e n t s was h i g h e r than f o r t h o s e s t u d e n t s
in e i t h e r Natural Science o r Social Sc ience.
Where s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found by GPA t h e groups
with t h e lower GPA's had th e h i g h e s t mean s c o r e s thus i n d i c a t i n g
a h igher incidence of dishonesty.
No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s
and n o n p r e p r o f e s s io n a l s t u d e n t s in

were found between p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l
t h e i n c id e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d

d i s h o n e s t y ; however, on seven o f t h e t e n b e h av iors t h e mean s c o r e s
f o r t h e p r e p r o f e s s i o n a l s t u d e n t s were h ig h e r .
When the i n c i d e n c e o f s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y was examined
f o r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s , no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found by sex
or c o l l e g e .

On one b e h av io r a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found by

GPA; however, t h e S c h e ffe p o st hoc procedure f a i l e d to i d e n t i f y
where t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s among

groups.

C on d itio n s Cited by S tud en ts When
D ish o ne sty Occurred
This a r e a o f s t u d y , a lth o u g h not i n te n d e d to r e c e i v e primary
e mphasis, may se rv e to be t h e most use fu l t o th o se concerned with
promoting and p r o t e c t i n g hon esty in academic work.
S tud e nts who s e l f - r e p o r t e d a c t s o f d i s h o n e s t y were asked t o
i n d i c a t e which o f t h e f o l lo w in g c o n d i t i o n s th ey b e l i e v e d e x i s t e d a t
t h e tim e t h e b eh av io r o c c u r r e d .
1.

Course i n t e r e s t i n g ,

2.

L i t t l e chance o f d i s c o v e r y ,

144

3.

T est/assignm ent d i f f i c u l t ,

4.

Behavior n o t d i f f e r e n t than o t h e r s ' ,

5.

Honesty s t r e s s e d by i n s t r u c t o r ,

6.

Competition keen,

7.

I was u n prep ared ,

8.

T e s t / a s s i g n m e n t m e a n in g le ss,

9.

I n s t r u c t o r r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r , a n d /o r

10.

Needed b e t t e r grade than could e a r n .
S t u d e n ts were a l s o i n v i t e d t o e l a b o r a t e on t h e c o n d i t i o n s

which they s e l e c t e d o r to l i s t o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s which they f e l t were
present.

Although a thorough a n a l y s i s o f s t u d e n t comments was not

made, t h e c o n d i t i o n not c i t e d on t h e key t h a t was most f r e q u e n t l y
mentioned by s t u d e n t s was t h a t "a f r i e n d needed help" (7 9).
Of t h e 10 c o n d i t i o n s l i s t e d , " l i t t l e chance o f d isc o v ery "
was by f a r t h e c o n d i t i o n most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned.

This c o n d i t i o n

was c i t e d by almost h a l f of a l l s t u d e n t s who engaged in any o f the
b e h av io r s c a t e g o r i z e d as d i s h o n e s t .

The c o n d i t i o n l e a s t f r e q u e n t l y

c i t e d was "honesty was s t r e s s e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r . "
As was r e p o r t e d p r e v i o u s l y , "copying" and " l e t t i n g someone
copy during exam" were t h e d i s h o n e s t b e h av io r s most f r e q u e n t l y
reported.

On a b e havio r such as cop yin g, t h e q u e s t i o n can be asked

as t o whether t h e in c i d e n c e could be reduced i f s t u d e n t s did not
b e l i e v e t h e r e was l i t t l e chance o f t h e i r b eh av io r being d i s c o v e r e d .
I t i s r ec o g n ize d by th e w r i t e r t h a t many f a c u l t y might no t c o n s i d e r
i t e i t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e o r n e c e s s a r y t o a tt e m p t to c o n t r o l d i s h o n e s t y

145

through such procedures as random s e a t i n g o r a l t e r n a t e t e s t forms;
however, such c o n t r o l measures might se r v e to minimize the copying
which o c c u r s .

Copying, as r e p o r t e d p r e v i o u s l y , i s a behavior which

i s seen by s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y as moderately s e r i o u s in n a t u r e .
Another b eh av io r f o r which " l i t t l e chance o f d isc ov ery " was
f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d was "sub m itted work w ith ou t g iv in g pro per c r e d i t . "
Comments on t h e s t u d e n t s ' q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e i n f o r c e d th e p o s i t i o n t h a t
many s t u d e n t s do not b e l i e v e t h a t f a c u l t y check to see whether work
has been p r o p e r l y c r e d i t e d .

Based on t h e respo n ses of both s t u d e n t s

and f a c u l t y to items in P a r t I o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e which r e l a t e to
t h e c r e d i t i n g o f s o u r c e s , i t may be t h a t t h i s type o f b e havio r i s not
seen t o be s u f f i c i e n t l y s e r i o u s t o a tt e m p t t o take measures to reduce
i t s occurrence.
The f a c t t h a t so few s t u d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t "honesty was
s t r e s s e d by th e i n s t r u c t o r " r a i s e s some q u e s t io n about t h e e x t e n t
t o which t h e s t a n d a r d s f o r h on esty , as s e t f o r t h by t h e U n i v e r s i t y
in t h e p o l i c y on t h e i n t e g r i t y o f s c h o l a r s h i p and g r a d e s , a re com­
municated, i n t e r p r e t e d , and r e i n f o r c e d by f a c u l t y in t h e i r c o n t a c t s
with s t u d e n t s .

Again, f a c u l t y may assume t h a t t h i s i s n e i t h e r n e c e ssa r y

nor a p p r o p r i a t e , y e t t h e r e i s some i n d i c a t i o n from s t u d e n t s by t h e i r
comments t h a t t h e r e i s co nfu sio n r e g a r d i n g e x p e c t a t i o n s .

The e x t e n t

t o which i t i s a p p r o p r i a t e t o " sh a re" e f f o r t s with o t h e r s t u d e n t s in
t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f work t o be su b m itted i s one a r e a about which t h e r e
seems t o be some c o n fu s io n .

There i s a l s o an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t some

s t u d e n t s do no t c l e a r l y und erstand what c o n s t i t u t e s p l a g i a r i s m .

146

According t o the U n i v e r s i t y s t a te m e n t on the i n t e g r i t y o f
s c h o l a r s h i p and g r a d e s , t h e e x p e c t a t i o n i s s e t f o r t h t h a t both s t u d e n t s
and f a c u l t y w i l l honor t h e p r i n c i p l e s o f t r u t h and honesty.

While

f a c u l t y a r e charged with t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to " e x e r c i s e c a r e in the
p lanning and s u p e r v i s i o n o f academic work so t h a t honest e f f o r t w ill
be p o s i t i v e l y en co urag ed," i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t s t u d e n t s a l s o s h a r e in
this resp o n sib ility .
Based on general comments made by s t u d e n t s , t h e r e may be
g r e a t e r concern f o r behaviors which harm o t h e r s t u d e n t s than t h e r e
i s f o r b e h a v i o r s which v i o l a t e " t h e system ."

I f a b e h a v io r a d v e r s e l y

a f f e c t s t h e i n d i v i d u a l o r h i s peer group, a s t u d e n t may a c t on h is
concern f o r t h e b e h a v i o r , perhaps not because i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t a
p r i n c i p l e has been v i o l a t e d b u t , r a t h e r , because i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t
i n d i v i d u a l s have been v i o l a t e d .

Such a s t a t e m e n t , however, s u r e l y

does not r e f l e c t t h e comments o f a l l s t u d e n t s s i n c e s e v e r a l i n d i c a t e d
t h a t th ey b e l i e v e d t h a t c h e a t i n g was wrong in and o f i t s e l f and t h a t
i t was e a s i e r t o l i v e with a bad grade than o n e ' s c o n s c i e n c e .

While

s t u d e n t s may s t a t e t h i s s t a n d a r d f o r t h e m se lv e s, they o f t e n ex pressed
r e l u c t a n c e to a t t e m p t to impose such a s t a n d a r d on o t h e r s , altho u gh
t h e i r g e n e r a l comments r e f l e c t a concern f o r t h e e x t e n t o f d i s h o n e s t y
which t a k e s p l a c e .
The p rev io us d i s c u s s i o n has focused on t h e c o n d i t i o n s which
were t h e most o f t e n , and l e a s t o f t e n , c i t e d by s t u d e n t s as being
p r e s e n t when d i s h o n e s t y o c c u r r e d .

In examining t h e o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s

i t can be noted t h a t c o n d i t i o n s which might be p e rc e i v e d by s t u d e n t s

147

as a d v erse or n e g a t i v e , such as " t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t meaningless o r
d i f f i c u l t " and " co m p e ti t io n keen," were more f r e q u e n t l y mentioned than
c o n d i t i o n s such as "cours e i n t e r e s t i n g " and " i n s t r u c t o r re a s o n a b l e and
f a i r , " which may be c a t e g o r i z e d more as n o n t h r e a te n i n g or p o s i t i v e in
nature.

These o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e not i n c o n s i s t e n t with f i n d i n g s r e p o r t e d

by such r e s e a r c h e r s as Johnson, K i r t s , Kores, and S t e i n i n g e r who
examined t h e n a t u r e o f s i t u a t i o n s in which

s t u d e n t s s a i d they would

c h e a t o r in which th ey f e l t c h e a t i n g would be j u s t i f i e d .
The two c o n d i t i o n s which r e f l e c t e d

on t h e s t a t u s o f th e

i n d i v i d u a l , "I was unprepared" and "I thought

I needed a b e t t e r grade

th an I could e a r n , " were c o n d i t i o n s f r e q u e n t l y c i t e d .

This su g g e sts

t h a t , a t l e a s t f o r some s t u d e n t s , t h e c o n d i t i o n was a t t r i b u t e d to
s e l f r a t h e r than t o t h e environment.
A c tio n s Taken by F a c u lt y When
Dishonesty Was Observed
T h i r t y - s i x f a c u l t y r e p o r t e d 171 i n c i d e n t s o f d i s h o n e s t y f o r
t h e 1977-78 academic y e a r .

The number o f r es p o n se s from f a c u l t y

r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t i o n s which they took was 130.

A "warning" was

t h e most f r e q u e n t a c t i o n taken ( 4 2 ) , follow ed by a " p e n a l t y / f a i l i n g
grade" on t h e assignment (3 7 ).
took "no a c t i o n . "

In 24 s i t u a t i o n s t h e i n s t r u c t o r s

On only t h r e e o c c a sio n s were s t u d e n t s " r e f e r r e d

f o r U n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n in l i e u o f , o r in a d d i t i o n t o ,
a f a i l i n g g r a d e ."
The t h r e e b e h a v i o r s on which t h e most s e r i o u s a c t i o n s were
tak e n were "changed answers or a l t e r e d e v a l u a t i o n , " "su bm itted

148

p a p e r / p r o j e c t , not own work," and "exchanged in fo rm atio n d uring exam."
As should be n o t e d , on b e h av iors where s t u d e n t s "took exam/course
f o r a no th e r" o r "had a n o th e r take exam/course" t h e r e were so few
o b s e r v a t i o n s r e p o r t e d (3) t h a t i t was d i f f i c u l t t o draw any mean­
ing ful i n f e r e n c e from th e r e p o r t o f a c t i o n s taken on those b e h a v i o r s .
Because o f t h e l i m i t a t i o n in number on a c t i o n s taken f o r a l l b e h a v i o r s ,
the r e a d e r i s c au tio n e d a g a i n s t drawing co n clu sio n s beyond t h e da ta
reported.
As i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y , se v e r a l i n s t r u c t o r s commented t h a t
they b e li e v e d i t was o f t e n d i f f i c u l t and u nproductive to a tt e m p t to
s u b s t a n t i a t e a charge o f d i s h o n e s t y .

The a c t i o n s , o r lac k o f a c t i o n s ,

which i n s t r u c t o r s r e p o r t e d may r e f l e c t a r e l u c t a n c e t o take a c t i o n ,
or more s e r i o u s a c t i o n , because o f what may be r e q u i r e d o f them i f
a student r a is e s a challenge.
An examination o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in a c t i o n s which f a c u l t y
t a k e when a p a r t i c u l a r behavior i s observed o r disc o vere d r e v e a l s
s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a n c e s on f i v e b e h a v i o r s .

On two b e h a v i o r s , "changed

answers or a l t e r e d e v a l u a t i o n " and "subm itted p a p e r / p r o j e c t not own
work," a c t i o n s r e p o r t e d ranged from "no a c t i o n " t o " r e f e r r e d f o r
U n i v e r s i t y d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n " ; however, the o p t io n to r e f e r a
s t u d e n t f o r what might r e s u l t in more than a p e n a l t y grade on
an assignment o r in a c o u rs e was r a r e l y e x e r c i s e d .
I t should be remembered in reviewing t h e a c t i o n taken t h a t
t h e v a r i a n c e noted may, in p a r t , be due t o d i f f e r e n c e s in t h e c i r ­
cumstances su rro u nd in g t h e i n c i d e n t as well as d i f f e r e n c e s among

149

f a c u l t y r e g a r d i n g t h e a c t i o n s which they p e r s o n a l l y may f e e l a r e
a p p r o p r i a t e f o r a given type o f v i o l a t i o n .
Conclusions and I m p l i c a t i o n s
Based on t h e f i n d i n g s which have been r e p o r t e d , t h e r e a r e
a few ge neral c o n c l u s i o n s which a p p r o p r i a t e l y may be drawn.

Some

p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h e s e c o n c lu s io n s a re a l s o s e t f o r t h .
1.

In g e n e r a l , f a c u l t y were found to be more " s t r i c t " in

c a t e g o r i z i n g b e havio rs as d i s h o n e s t than were s t u d e n t s .

They a l s o

viewed behaviors more s e r i o u s l y than did s t u d e n t s , both g r a d u a te s or
u n d e rg r a d u a t e s .

I t was found, however, t h a t unde rgra du ate s t u d e n t s

p e r c e i v e d c e r t a i n b e h a v io r s as more s e r i o u s than f a c u l t y .

The d i f ­

f e r e n c e s between g r ou p s, however, appeared to be g r e a t e r in degree
than in d i r e c t i o n .

The degree o f s e r i o u s n e s s with which t h e b e h av io rs

were viewed g e n e r a l l y appeared t o be r e l a t e d t o y e a r s o f e x p e r ie n c e
in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , with an i n c r e a s e in concern e x p re ss ed from
underclassmen to upperclassmen and from g r a d u a te s t o f a c u l t y .
The d i f f e r e n c e s which were noted in t h e p e r c e i v e d s e r i o u s n e s s
o f b e h a v io r s between s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y su g g e s t s t h a t u n l e s s expec­
t a t i o n s f o r honesty in academic work a r e c l a r i f i e d and communicated,
s t u d e n t s may, r e a l i s t i c a l l y , not u nd e rstan d t h e s t a n d a r d s by which
t h e i r be h a v io r may be e v a l u a t e d .
2.

S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among s t u d e n t s in t h e s e r i o u s n e s s

with which they p e r c e i v e d b e h av io r s was found between t h o s e who
s e l f - r e p o r t e d d i s h o n e s t y and t h o s e who did n o t .

Those who d id not

150

s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y were found to view beh av io rs more s e r i o u s l y
than t h o s e who d i d .

They a l s o r e p o r t e d l e s s d i s h o n e s t y among o t h e r

students.
Because o f th e p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p found between a t t i t u d e s
and b e h a v i o r s , f u r t h e r e f f o r t to dete rm ine i f , and perhaps how, a t t i ­
t u d e s might be i n f l u e n c e d a ppears im p o r t a n t .

The w r i t e r r e c o g n i z e s ,

however, t h a t e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h has a l r e a d y been done in t h i s a r e a .
I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o why s t u d e n t s who s e l f - r e p o r t d i s h o n e s t y a l s o r e p o r t
more d i s h o n e s t y among o t h e r s t u d e n t s i s a n o th e r a r e a which w a rran ts
f u r t h e r stu dy .
3.

Women s t u d e n t s , both u n d e rg ra d u ate s and g r a d u a t e s , viewed

b e h av io r s more s e r i o u s l y than t h e i r male p e e r s .

Although they expre ssed

g r e a t e r concern about b e h a v i o r s , t h e i n c i d e n c e o f d i s h o n e s t y among
women i s not a p p r e c i a b l y d i f f e r e n t than among men.
Based on t h i s f i n d i n g , a q u e s t i o n could be r a i s e d r e g a r d in g
t h e p o s s i b l e perso nal disso n a n c e t h a t t h i s d i s c r e p a n c y between a t t i t u d e
and a c t i o n might evoke.

The e x t e n t to which c o m p e ti t io n among s t u d e n t s

f u r t h e r s a c t i o n s which do n o t appear t o be c o n s i s t e n t w ith a t t i t u d e s
e x p r e s s e d , i s a l s o an a r e a which may w a r r a n t f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
4.

D ishonesty i s not an i s o l a t e d phenomenon nor i s i t

c o nfine d t o any p a r t i c u l a r group o f s t u d e n t s .

Although d i s h o n e s t y

was found t o be more p r e v a l e n t among un d e rg r a d u a te s than g r a d u a t e s ,
o t h e r d i f f e r e n c e s as found by such v a r i a b l e s as s e x , c l a s s , c o l l e g e ,
o r GPA, w hile in some i n s t a n c e s were found t o be s i g n i f i c a n t , may
la c k meaning in any o v e r a l l p r a c t i c a l se n se .

151

To assume t h a t d i s h o n e s t y w i l l n o t , o r does n o t , occur because
o f t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n involved may be e r r o n e o u s.
Those who make such an assumption may well f i n d them selves with
b e h av io r s unexpected.
5.

S tu de n ts who engage in d i s h o n e s t y most o f t e n b e l i e v e t h a t

t h e r e i s l i t t l e chance t h e i r behavior w i l l be d i s c o v e r e d .
In view o f th e r e l a t i v e l y few c ase s o f d i s h o n e s t y
by th e f a c u l t y , s t u d e n t s may be a c c u r a t e in t h i s p o s i t i o n .

reported
I t would

appear t h a t t h e r e i s a g r e a t deal o f d i s h o n e s t y which occurs about
which o t h e r s t u d e n t s a r e aware but which does no t come to th e a t t e n t i o n
of in stru cto rs.

Because o f th e high p e rc en ta g e o f s t u d e n t s who i n d i ­

cated

t h a t they b e l i e v e d t h e r e was l i t t l e chance o f t h e i r behavior

being

d i s c o v e r e d , t h e q u e s t i o n can be r a i s e d as t o whether f u r t h e r

c o n s i d e r a t i o n should no t be given to developing pro cedures which might
se rv e t o d i s c o u r a g e d i s h o n e s t y and t o a s s i s t in th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f
t h o s e who become involv ed in d i s h o n e s t b e h a v i o r s .
6.

F a c u lt y do not p l a c e a g r e a t deal o f emphasis on honesty

in t h e i r c o n t a c t s with s t u d e n t s .

This c o n c lu sio n i s based only on

t h e f a c t t h a t very few s t u d e n t s who engaged in d i s h o n e s t y i n d i c a t e d
t h a t "hones ty was s t r e s s e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r . "
A p o s s i b l e i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h i s co n clu sio n i s t h a t i f f a c u l t y
do n o t communicate, i n t e r p r e t , and r e i n f o r c e t h e s t a n d a r d s s e t f o r t h
f o r ho nest y by t h e U n i v e r s i t y community, th o se s t a n d a r d s may have
l i t t l e meaning f o r , o r i n f l u e n c e w i t h , members o f t h e s t u d e n t
population.

152

7.

The a c t i o n s which f a c u l t y tak e vary c o n s i d e r a b l y f o r the

same type o f d i s h o n e s t b eh av io r.
While t h i s v a r i a t i o n in s a n c t i o n s may be a p p r o p r i a t e , given
the c ir c u m s ta n c e o f a s i t u a t i o n , t h e range in s a n c t i o n s taken could
s e r v e t o confuse s t u d e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e p o t e n t i a l consequence o f a
violation.

Questions a l s o might be r a i s e d r e g a r d i n g th e e x t e n t to

which t h e r e i s an equal a p p l i c a t i o n o f s t a n d a r d s .
Recommendations f o r F u r t h e r Research
1.

A more e x t e n s i v e survey o f f a c u l t y t o determine t h e i r

exposure t o , and e x p e r i e n c e i n , working with s t u d e n t d i s h o n e s t y i s
recommended.

The f a c u l t y sample in t h i s study was r e l a t i v e l y small

and t h e i n fo r m a ti o n r e q u e ste d was not e x t e n s i v e enough t o gain adequate
u n d e rs ta n d in g o f t h e n a t u r e of conce rns which f a c u l t y may have.
2.

Why c e r t a i n b e h av iors a r e p e rc e i v e d by s t u d e n t s and

f a c u l t y t o be more s e r i o u s than o t h e r s needs f u r t h e r exam ination.
3.

Based on t h e r e l a t i v e s e r i o u s n e s s with which b e h av iors

were p e r c e i v e d , i t might be p ro d u c t i v e t o surve y both s t u d e n t s and
f a c u l t y to d ete rm in e what type o f s a n c t i o n s , i f any, they b e l i e v e
a r e a p p r o p r i a t e f o r d i f f e r e n t ty pes o f b e h a v i o r s .
4.

The c o n d i t i o n s which s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e e x i s t when d i s h o n e s t y

o ccurs should be examined f u r t h e r in o r d e r t o see i f t h e r e a r e f a c t o r s
w i t h i n the environment o f classrooms which might be a l t e r e d t o promote
and p r o t e c t h o ne sty.

Based on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h i s s t u d y i t i s a l s o

recommended t h a t t h e r e be a f u r t h e r s tu d y i n t o t h e p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p

between d i s h o n e s t behaviors and t h e s t u d e n t s ' b e l i e f t h a t t h e r e i s
l i t t l e chance t h e i r d i s h o n e s t y would be d i s c o v e r e d .

I t would a l s o

be i n t e r e s t i n g t o examine whether d i s h o n e s t y would be minimized i f
t h e r e were a g r e a t e r emphasis on honesty by i n s t r u c t o r s than was
i n d i c a t e d by the r e s u l t s o f t h i s st udy.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1978
BACKGROUND INFORMATION - P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number f o l l o w i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e :
1.

Class Standing:
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior Senior G ra du a t e

2.

-

-

-

4.
I
2
3
4
5

Yes - - - I
5.

Col le ge :

6.
Grade P o i n t A v e r ag e:
( Ov e ra l l

for undergraduate

L ess t ha n 1 . 7 5 --------1
1 . 7 6 - 2 . 0 0 ---------------2
2 . 0 1 - 2 . 2 5 ------------ 3
2 . 2 6 - 2 . 5 0 -------------4
2 . 5 1 - 2 . 7 5 --------------- 5

0

-

-

- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-10

1 0 - 1 2 --------------------- 4
1 3 - 1 5 ----------------------5
More t ha n 1 5 ----------- 6

Place of Residence:
On-campus r e s i d e n c e h a l l - On-campus a p a r t m e n t u n i t - F r a t e r n i t y o r s o r o r i t y house
Off-campus a p a r t m e n t , room o r

£ g r a d u a t e work!

2.76-3.00
3.01-3.25
3.26-3.50
3.51-3.75
3.76-4.00

No - - - 2

Tot al number o f c l a s s e s ( n o t c r e d i t s )
in which you have been e n r o l l e d t h i s
academic y e a r ( F a l l , Wi n t er , S p ri n g )
1-3
I
4 - 6 --------2
7 - 9 --------3

Business - - - - - |
N a t ur a l S c i e n c e - - 2
Soc i a I Sc i e nc e - - - 3
3.

If u n d e r g r a d u a t e , a r e you e n r o l l e d In a
p r e - p r o f e s s i o n a l program?

7.

- - - |
- - - - 2
- - - - 3
house - 4

Sex:
Female - - - I

Male - - - 2

PART I - For each of t h e f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n s p l e a s e i n d i c a t e how you p e r c e i v e t h e b e h a v i or
of t h e s t u d e n t i d e n t i f i e d a s X^. Your r e s p o n s e shoul d be based on what you pe r so n a I I y
bel ieve i s an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d of b e h a v i o r In r e l a t i o n s h i p t o academic work.
B e fo r e you r e s p o n d , r e a d t h r o u g h t h e f i r s t few items t o g e t a s e n s e of t h e d i f f e r e n t
situations.
S e l e c t your r e s p o n s e from t h e f o l l o w i n g key and c i r c l e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
number:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
.6.

-Key.
No v ioI a t ion
'
Minor v i o l a t i o n
Somewhat s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n
Serious v io la tio n
Very s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n
Undecided
j

C i r c l e a p p r o p r i a t e number— remember you a r e r e s p o n d i n g t o t h e b e h a v i o r o f X;.
N M
8. Duri ng a p r o c t o r e d exam X l e t a f r i e n d copy from h e r answer s h e e t
when s he r e a l i z e d t h e f r i e n d was h avi ng d i f f i c u l t y wi t h t h e t e s t
1 2
9.
10.
It.

SS

S

VS U

3

4

5 6

X ' s t w i n s i s t e r o f f e r e d t o t a k e an e n t i r e c o u r s e f o r h e r .
X^ a g r e ed
and r e c e i v e d c r e d i t f o r t h e c o u r s e which s h e n ev er a t t e n d e d ........................ 1 2

3

4

5 6

X s u b m i t t e d a p ap e r f o r which s h e had r e c e i v e d c r e d i t In one c o u r s e
f o r e v a l u a t i o n in a n o t h e r , c h a n g i n g o n l y t h e t i t l e p a g e .................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

£ r evi e wed t h e f r a t e r n i t y t e s t f i l e t h e n i g h t b e f o r e t h e f i n a l exam.
He knew t h e f i l e I n cl ud e d exams which were n o t a v a i l a b l e t o c l a s s ­
ma te s f o r s t u d y .............................................................................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

154

155

Page 2
N

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.

17.
18.
19.

20.
21.

22.

23.
24.
25.

SS

S

VS U

1 2

3

4

5 6

1 2

3

4

5 6

a f am i l y f r i e n d , w r i t e a s t a t e m e n t t h a t he had
mi s sed a m i d - t e r m bec au s e o f i l l n e s s when in f a c t he was u np r e ­
p a r e d . He was g i v e n a make-up exam.......................................................................... 1 2

3

4

5 6

The i n s t r u c t o r was g i v i n g t h e same exam t o two s e c t i o n s of h i s c l a s s .
><' s roommate was e n r o l l e d in t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n , X in t h e second.
F ol l owi ng t h e f i r s t exam X met h e r roommate who gave her i n f o r m at i o n
regarding the t e s t q u e s tio n s
1 2

3

4

5 6

3

4

5 6

In a p r o c t o r e d exam, >< was havi ng d i f f i c u l t y with f or mul as and
looked a t t h e exams o f s t u d e n t s n e x t t o him f o r h e l p ...................................... 1 2

3

4

5 6

A t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t o f f e r e d X a B on a t e r m p ap e r in exchange f o r
two s e as on f o o t b a l l t i c k e t s .
X accepted

1 2

3

4

5 6

On an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d m i s s i o n , c a n d i d a t e s were r e q u i r e d t o l i s t
a l l p r e v i o u s c o l l e g e work. )< di d n ot do so bec au s e h er p r i o r
r e c o r d was poor and she was a f r a i d of b ei n g deni ed a d m i s s i o n

1 2

3

4

5 6

2

3

4

5 6

The c l a s s had been encour aged t o s tud y t o g e t h e r t h r o u g h o u t t h e term;
however, t h e y were i n s t r u c t e d t o do t h e i r own work on t h e t ake-home
f i n a l . X was a s ke d by a c l a s s m a t e t o c r i t i q u e h i s f i n a l b e f o r e
handi ng i t in. X a g r ee d and o f f e r e d s e v e r a l s u g g e s t i o n s

1 2

3

4

5 6

X worked f o r a commercial t e r m pape r company and o f f e r e d t o pay
T50 t o c l a s s m a t e s f o r A p a p e r s t o be i nc l uded In t h e company' s
files.
S e v e r al s t u d e n t s a c c e p t e d t h e o f f e r

1 2

3

4

5 6

In a lab X gave a c l a s s m a t e t h e wrong f ormul a wi t h t h e i n t e n t of
keeping h e r from s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t i n g h er e x p e r i m e n t

1 2

3

4

5 6

In c l a s s when s t u d e n t s were t o l d t h e y c o u l d c o r r e c t t h e i r own exams,
X changed t h r e e a n s we rs t o Improve h i s s c o r e .....................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

1 2

3

4

5 6

1 2

3

4

5 6

X ' s g i r l f r i e n d was s e c r e t a r y f o r h i s i n s t r u c t o r . X p er s ua de d h i s
g i r l f r i e n d t o change 2 g r a d e e n t r i e s in t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s gr ade
book— r a i s i n g h i s and lower ing one f o r a c l a s s m a t e he d i d n ' t l i k e . . .
During an exam X was nudged by a n e i gh bo r f o r
al ly gave him t h e wrong a n s w e r s

h e l p . Xi n t e n t i o n ­
7

X had h i s d o c t o r ,

>< found t h e b r i e f c a s e of one of her i n s t r u c t o r s on a campus bus.
B e fo r e r e t u r n i n g i t she c o p i e d t h e d r a f t of her upcoming mi d- te r m
exam.................................................................................................................................................

When >< saw t h e i n s t r u c t o r was busy with a n o t h e r s t u d e n t a f t e r t h e
exam, she t o o k t h e t e s t b o o k l e t t o i n c l u d e
in h e r " hous e f i l e . "

I

I

2

X d i d n o t p u t q u o t a t i o n marks a r ound s e n t e n c e s which s he co p i e d

v e r b a t i m from a r e s e a r c h a r t i c l e a l t h o u g h s he gave r e c o g n i t i o n t o
t h e a u t h o r In a f o o t n o t e ...................................................................................................
26.

M

X and a f r i e n d worked o u t a code whereby X^ c o u l d s i g n a l

tr u e /fa ls e questions.

a ns we r s t o
The f r i e n d r e c e i v e d t h e needed h e l p .....................

156

Pag© 3
N

27.

28.

29.
30.

31.

32.
33.
34.
35.

36.
37.

38.
39.
40.

M SS

S

3

4

5 6

3

4

5 6

In t h e f o o t n o t e s t o a pape r s i n c e he coul d
n o t l o c a t e h i s n o t e c a r d s ................................................................................................. 1 2

3

4

5 6

Although s t u d e n t s were i n s t r u c t e d no t t o u s e c a l c u l a t o r s f o r t h e i r
comp u ta t i on d u r i n g an exam, X t o o k a c a l c u l a t o r from h i s p oc k e t and
computed 2 pr oblems when t h e i n s t r u c t o r was c a l l e d o u t of t h e room.. 1 2

3

4

5 6

X. t oo k a mi d - te r m exam f o r which she knew s h e was n o t we I I - p r e p a r e d .
A f t e r t h e exam, s h e f a l s e l y a d v i s e d t h e I n s t r u c t o r t h a t t h e exam
had been " o u t " in hopes t h a t a n o t h e r exam would be g i v e n . The
i n s t r u c t o r gave t h e e n t i r e c l a s s a new exam

1 2

3

4

5 6

X_ p r e p a r e d a bl uebook p r i o r t o an exam and s u b s t i t u t e d I t f o r t h e
one which was t o have been comp l et ed d u r i n g t h e exam p e r i o d ................... 1 2

3

4

5 6

A f r a t e r n i t y o f f i c e r a d v i s e d £ t h a t he was e xp e c t e d t o t a k e an exam
for a b rother. X did s o
T .....................................................................................

3

4

5 6

3

4

5 6

A f r i e n d of X i s a s t u d e n t c u s t o d i a n in t h e computer l a b . He
found a " u s e r s c a r d " (PNC) in t h e w a s t e b a s k e t and gave I t t o X.
The c a r d e n a b l e d X t o c o m p le t e a r e q u i r e d p r o j e c t b e f o r e h i s
c l a s s m a t e s b e c au s e t h e c a r d had a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y t h a n t h o s e
I ssued t o t h e c l a s s ..............................................................................................................

1 2

X and a c l a s s m a t e were a s s i g n e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r t o work t p g e t h e r
on a d e s i g n p r o j e c t wi t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e y would bot h
receive the grade assigned to the p r o je c t.
X purposefully failed
t o do h i s p a r t b u t r e c e i v e d an A........................................... ................ .................... I

2

VS

U

X f ake d t h e page numbers

1 2

X^ v o l u n t e e r e d t o t u r n In a c l a s s m a t e ' s p a p e r , bu t b e f o r e doi ng so
she exchanged t i t l e pages and s u b m i t t e d i t a s h er own work..................... I

2

>< " l i f t e d " from t h e l i b r a r y t h e o n l y two c o p i e s o f a r e s e r v e book
which was r e q u i r e d r e a d i n g f o r a l a r g e c l a s s and p u t them In t h e
house l i b r a r y f o r h e r s o r o r i t y s i s t e r s ...................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

S t u d e n t s were l e f t on t h e i r honor t o t a k e an exam w i t h o u t r e c e i v i n g
a s s i s t a n c e . X r e f e r r e d t o t h e t e x t whenever she needed h e l p ................

I

3

4

5 6

In t h e mail X r e c e i v e d a t e r m p ap e r from a commercial company which
he had n o t o r d e r e d . He gave I t t o a f r i e n d t o u s e In one of h i s
c l a s s e s ..........................................................................................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

X made a p r a c t i c e o f havi ng a b ee r wi t h t h e i n s t r u c t o r a f t e r c l a s s
In hopes of g e t t i n g a b e t t e r g r a d e ............................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

On a lab r e p o r t X d i d n o t a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t h i s f i n d i n g s bec au se he
d i d n o t o b t a i n t h e r e s u l t s he knew were e x p e c t e d ............................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

3

4

5 6

>< as ked f o r , and r e c e i v e d , s p e c i a l t u t o r i n g from one o f h e r i n s t r u c ­
t o r s In exchange f o r b a b y s i t t i n g t h e I n s t r u c t o r ' s two c h i l d r e n
1 2

2

157

Page 4

PART II - Based on yo ur e x p e r i e n c e s t h i s p a s t academic y e a r you may have o b s e r v e d , o r
o t h e r w i s e have f i r s t - h a n d knowledge, o f some of t h e f o l l o w i n g b e h a v i o r s havi ng
t a k e n p l a c e . Under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s you may, y o u r s e l f , have become in­
volved.
In o r d e r t o u n d e r s ta nd t h e f re qu en cy o f such b e h a v i o r s and t h e c o n d i ­
t i o n s u nde r which t h e y o c c u r , you a r e as ked t o c o n s i d e r ea ch of t h e 3 items
under t h e b e h a v i o r s l i s t e d and r es p ond , where a p p r o p r i a t e . Remember your
r e s p o n s e s a r e b e i ng made anonymously.
In a d d i t i o n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g key, spa ce
i s p r o v i d e d f o r you t o r espond by comment on o t h e r c o n d i t i o n s and s p e c i a l
c i r c u m s t a n c e s which you b e l i e v e a p p l i e d .
.Key t o C o n d i t i o n s .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

The c o u r s e was i n t e r e s t i n g
Ther e was l i t t l e ch a nc e o f my b e h a v i o r b e i n g d i s c o v e r e d
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t was d i f f i c u l t
My b e h a v i o r was n o t d i f f e r e n t from t h a t of o t h e r s t u d e n t s
Honest y was s t r e s s e d by t h e I n s t r u c t o r
Co m p e t i t i o n among c l a s s m a t e s was keen
I was unp r epa r e d
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t seemed m e a n i n g l e s s
The i n s t r u c t o r was r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r
I t h o u g h t I needed a b e t t e r g r a d e t ha n I c ou l d ea r n

EXAMPLE-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------S i t u a t i o n : On t h r e e o c c a s i o n s I saw
o u t wi t h t h e f l u , I d i d n ' t have t i m e
g e t a C In t h e c o u r s e .
I liked the
p r o c t o r s , so I gambled and t o o k In a

o t h e r s t u d e n t s u s i n g " c r i b s h e e t s . " Once, a f t e r bei ng
t o p r e p a r e f o r an upcoming exam In which I needed a B t o
c l a s s , b u t knew t h e t e s t s e c t i o n would be l a r g e w i t h few
"cheat sh e e t."

Response Sample:
A.

S t u d e n t used " c r i b s h e e t " o r o t h e r u n a u t h o r i z e d s e l f - a i d d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
41.
42.
43.

Number of t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s eng a gi ng in
th is behavior
0 I 2
4 5+ 5
Number of t i m e s I engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r
0 Q
2 3 4 5
+5
If you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t hr oug h
t h e c o n d i t i o n s in t h e key and c i r c l e t h o s e t h a t you beI I eve e x i s t e d ............................................................................... © C l ) 3 4 5 6 Q ) 8 9
Comment: Had th e , j l u - - d o i n ' t t h i n k I h a d c .h o ic .z __________________________________

C i r c l e a p p r o p r i a t e number— remember you a r e r e p o r t i n g on you r o b s e r v a t i o n s and e x p e r i e n c e s
t h i s p a s t academic year s
A.

S t u d e n t used " c r i b s h e e t s " o r o t h e r u n a u t h o r i z e d s e l f - a i d d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
41.
42.
43.

Number o f t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s e n g a g i n g in
t h i s b e h a v i o r .................................................................................................................. 0 1 2
3 4
5 +5
Number o f t i m e s I engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r ................................................ 0 1 2
3 4
5 +5
I f you p e r s o n a l l y engaged In t h i s b e h a v i o r , r e a d t h r o u g h t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d . . . . I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Comment:

158

Page 5

Key t o C o n d i t i o n s .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
JO.
B.

The c o u r s e was i n t e r e s t i n g
Ther e was l i t t l e chance of my b e h a v i o r b ei ng d i s c o v e r e d
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t was d i f f i c u l t
My b e h a v i o r was n o t d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s
Honest y was s t r e s s e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r
Co m p e t i t i o n arrong c l a s s m a t e s was keen
I was u n p re p ar ed
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t seemed me a n i ng l e s s
The i n s t r u c t o r was r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r
I t h o u g h t I needed a b e t t e r g r a d e t h a n I c ou l d e a rn

S t u d e n t c o p i e d from a n o t h e r s t u d e n t d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
44 .
4 5.
46.

Number o f t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s engaging In
t h i s b e h a v i o r ................................................................................................................ 0
Number of t i m e s I engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r ............................................... 0
I f you p e r s o n a l l y engaged In t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t h r o u gh t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d
1 2 3 4

+5
+5
5

6

7

8

9

10

Comment:
C.

S t u d e n t s u b m i t t e d p a p e r / p r o j e c t w i t h o u t g i v i n g a p p r o p r i a t e c r e d i t t o s o u r c e s.
47.
48.
49.

Number o f t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s en ga g i n g in
th i s behavior
01 2
Number of t i m e s ...I engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r .................................................. 0 1 2
i f you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t h r o u g h t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d
I 2 3 4 5 6
Comment:______________________________________________ ____________

D.

3 4
3 4
7

8

5 +5
5 +5

9

10

_________________

S t u d e n t t o o k an exam o r e n t i r e c o u r s e f o r a n o t h e r s t u d e n t .
50.
51.
52.

Number o f t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s enga gi ng in
3 4 5 +5
t h i s b e h a v i o r ................................................................................................................. 0 1 2
Number of t i m e s I engaged In t h i s b e h a v i o r . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......... 0 1 2 3 4 5 + 5
If you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t hr o u gh t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
Comment:

E.

S t u d e n t al lo w e d a n o t h e r s t u d e n t t o copy from h i s / h e r work d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
53.
54.
55.

Number of t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s engaging In
t h i s b e h a v i o r ............................
Number o f t i m e s 1 engaged in t h i s behav i o r ................................
If you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t hr ough t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you bel l ev e e x i s t e d ......... 1 2 3

0
0

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

+5
+5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Comment:
F.

S t u d e n t had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t t a k e an e x a m i n a t io n
56.
57.
58.

ore n t ir e course for him/her.

Number o f t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s eng a gi n g in
t h i s b e h a v i o r ................................................................................................................. 0 1 2
3 4 5
Number o f t i m e s I engaged In t h i s b e h a v i o r .............................................. 0 1 2
3 4 5
i f you p e r s o n a l l y engaged In t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t h r o u g h t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Com m ent:____________________________________ _________________________________________

+5
+5
10

159

P ag e 6

Key t o C o n d i t i o n s
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
l
9.
\j0 .

/

G.

The c o u r s e was i n t e r e s t i n g
^
Ther e was l i t t l e cha nce o f my b e h a v i o r b ei n g d i s c o v e r e d
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t was d i f f i c u l t
My b e h a v i o r was n o t d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s
Honesty was s t r e s s e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r
Co m p e t i t i o n among c l a s s m a t e s was keen
I was unpr ep a r e d
The t e s t / a s s i g n m e n t seemed m e an i ng l e s s
The I n s t r u c t o r was r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r
I t h o u g h t I needed a b e t t e r g r a d e t h a n I c o u l d e a r n

S t u d e n t changed a ns we r s o r a l t e r e d t h e I n s t r u c t o r ' s e v a l u a t i o n f o l l o w i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
59.
60.
61 .

Number o f t i m e s I know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s e nga gi ng in
t h i s b e h a v i o r ...................................................................................................
Number of t i m e s 1 engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r .............................. .
If you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t hr oug h t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d ............ 1 2

3

0
0

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

+5
+5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0
0

1
1

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

+5
+5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Comment:
S t u d e n t s u b m i t t e d a p a p e r / p r o j e c t which was n ot h i s / h e r own work.
62.
63.
64.

Number o f t i m e s 1 know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s e nga gi n g In
t h i s b e h a v i o r ...............................................................................................................
Number o f t i m e s 1 engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r ............................................
If you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t hr o u g h t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d ............ 1 2 3
Comment:

S t u d e n t , t h r o u g h a s ys t em worked o u t in a dva nc e , exchanged I n fo r m a t io n durl ng an exami n a t i o n wi t h a n o t h e r s t u d e n t .
65.
66.
67.

Number of t i m e s 1 know of o t h e r s t u d e n t s enga gi ng in
t h i s b e h a v i o r ...............................................................................................................
Number o f t i m e s 1 engaged In t h i s b e h a v i o r ............................................
If you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r e a d t h r o u g h t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d i t i o n s you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d ............ 1 2 3

0
0

1
1

2
2

3
3

4

4

5
5

+5
+5

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1
I

2
2

3
3

4
4

5
5

+5
+5

5

6

7

8

9

10

Comment:
J.

S t u d e n t l e t h i s / h e r work be s u b m i t t e d by a n o t h e r s t u d e n t f o r c r e d i t .
68.
69.
70.

Number of t i m e s 1 know o f o t h e r s t u d e n t s e ng a gi ng In
t h i s b e h a v i o r ............................
Number o f t i m e s 1 engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r ................................
i f you p e r s o n a l l y engaged in t h i s b e h a v i o r , r ea d t h r o u g h t h e
key and c i r c l e t h e c o n d l t l Ions you b e l i e v e e x i s t e d ............ 11 2
Comment:

THANK Y O U - - P L E A S E RETURN BY MAY 2H

3

4

APPENDIX B
FACULTY QUESTIONNAIRE

160

QUESTIONNAIRE REGARDING ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 1978
BACKGROUND INFORMATION - P l e a s e c i r c l e t h e number f o l l o w i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o n s e :
1.

Col l e g e :

2.

C l a s s e s t a u g h t t h i s academic y e a r :
Any s e p a r a t e e n t r y in t h e S ch ed ul e of Co ur se s i s c o n s i d e r e d a c l a s s ( s e c t i o n o r c o u r s e ) .
P l e a s e i n c l u d e a l l c l a s s e s f o r which you w e r e / a r e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e g r a d i n g o f t h e
s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d . By c l a s s s i z e , i n d i c a t e t h e number o f c l a s s e s t a u g h t ea ch t e r m.

Business - - - I

N a t ur a l S c i e n c e - - - 2

FALL
Class size:

3.

0 1 2 3 + 3
0 1 2 3 +3
0 1 2 3 + 3
0 1 2 3 + 3
0 1 23+3

Class s iz e :

No.of c l a s s e s

Less t h a n 40 - 0
4 1 - 8 0 --------------- 0
8 1 - 1 2 0 ------------ 0
1 21- 1 6 0 ------------ 0 1
More t h a n 1 6 0 - 0

Class siz e :

No.of c l a s s e s

Less t h a n 40 - 0 1 2 3 + 3
4 1 - 8 0 ----------------0 1 2 3 +3
8 1 - 1 2 0 ------------ 0 1 2 3 + 3
121- 1 6 0 ------------ 0 1 2 3 +3
More t ha n 1 6 0 - 0 1 2 3 + 3

1 2 3 +3
1 2 3 +3
1 2 3 +3
2 3 +3
1 23+3

Number of y e a r s o f c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e :
L ess t h a n 4 - - - I
14—18 — — — — — — 4

4.

SPRING

WINTER
No.of c l a s s e s

Less Than 40 4 1 - 8 0 ---------------8 1 - 1 2 0 -----------1 2 1- 16 0 -----------More t h a n 1 6 0 -

So c i a l S c i e n c e - - - 3

4- 8 - - - - - - - 2
More t h a n 18 - - - 5

9 - I 3 - - - 3

Sex:
Female - - - I

Male - - - 2

PART I - Fo r e a c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g s i t u a t i o n s p l e a s e I n d i c a t e how you p e r c e i v e t h e b e h a v i o r
o f t h e s t u d e n t i d e n t i f i e d a s >(. Your r e s p o n s e s h o u l d be b as e d o n what you p e r s o n a 11y
be I I e v e i s an a p p r o p r i a t e s t a n d a r d o f b e h a v i o r In r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a c ad e mi c work.
B e f o r e you r e s p o n d , r e a d t h r o u g h t h e f i r s t few It ems t o g e t a s e n s e o f t h e d i f f e r e n t
situations.
S e l e c t y ou r r e s p o n s e from t h e f o l l o w i n g key and c i r c l e t h e a p p r o p r i a t e
number:
_________ K a y

^T.
2.
3.
4.
5.
c6.
C i r c l e

a p p r o p r l r f

n u m b er— rem em b er

No v i o l a t i o n
Minor v i o l a t i o n
Somewhat s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n
Serious v io la tio n
Very s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n
Und ec i d ed
/
you

a r e

r e s p o n d in g

to

th e

b e h a v io r

o f

3<:

N
5.

6.

7.

8 .

D u rin g a
w hen s h e
X 's
a n d

p r o c to r e d exam X le t a f r ie n d co p y fro m h e r a n sw e r s h e e t
r e a l i z e d th e f r ie n d w as h a v in g d i f f i c u l t y w ith
t h e t e s t

tw in s i s t e r o f f e r e d
r e c e iv e d c r e d i t f o r

to ta k e an
th e c o u r s e

1

M
2

SS

S

VS U

3

4

5

6

e n t i r e c o u r s e f o r h e r .
X a g re e d
w h ich
s h e n e v e r a t t e n d e d T .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1

2

3

4

5

5

X s u b m it te d a p a p e r f o r w h ic h s h e h ad r e c e iv e d c r e d i t In o n e c o u r s e
f o r e v a lu a t io n
in a n o th e r , c h a n g in g o n ly
t h e t i t l e p a g e .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1

2

3

4

5

5

r e v ie w e d th e f r a t e r n i t y t e s t f i l e th e n ig h t b e f o r e t h e f ln a t exam .
H e knew t h e f i l e In c lu d e d ex am s w h ich w ere n o t a v a i l a b l e t o c l a s s ­
m a t e s f o r s t u d y .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

1

2

3

4

5

6

161

Page 2

N
9.

SS

S

VS U

3

4

5 6

1 2

3

4

5 6

1 2

3

4

5 6

The i n s t r u c t o r was g i v i n g t h e same exam t o two s e c t i o n s o f h i s c l a s s .
X ' s roommate was e n r o l l e d In t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n , X In t h e s e c o n d .
F o l l o w i n g t h e f i r s t exam X met h e r roommate who g ave h e r I n f o r m a t i o n
r e g a r d i n g t h e t e s t q u e s t i o n s .......................................................................................... 1 2

3

4

5 6

2

3

4

5 6

2

3

4

5 6

X’ s g i r l f r i e n d was s e c r e t a r y f o r h i s I n s t r u c t o r . X p e r s u a d e d h i s
g i r l f r i e n d t o c h a n g e 2 g r a d e e n t r i e s in t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s g r a d e
book— r a i s i n g h i s and l owe r ing on e f o r a c l a s s m a t e he d i d n ' t l i k e . . .

10.

O u ri n g an exam X was nudged by a n e i g h b o r f o r h e l p .
a l l y g ave him t h e wrong a n s w e r s

11.

13.

1 2

Xi n t e n t i o n ­

X had h i s d o c t o r , a f a m i l y f r i e n d , w r i t e a s t a t e m e n t t h a t he had
m i s s e d a m i d - t e r m b e c au s e o f i l l n e s s when In f a c t he was u n p r e ­
pared.
He was g i v e n a make-up exam

12.

x found t h e b r i e f c a s e o f one o f h e r I n s t r u c t o r s on a campus b u s .
B e f o r e r e t u r n i n g I t s h e c o p i e d t h e d r a f t o f h er upcoming m i d - t e r m
exam.................................................................................................................................................... I

14.

M

In a p r o c t o r e d exam, X was ha v i n g d i f f i c u l t y w i t h f o r m u l a s and
l ooked a t t h e exams oT s t u d e n t s n e x t t o him f o r h e l p ..................................

I

A t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t o f f e r e d X a B on a t e r m p ap e r In e x c ha n g e f o r
two s e a s o n f o o t b a l l t i c k e t s .
X accepted

1 2

3

4

5 6

On an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a d m i s s i o n , c a n d i d a t e s were r e q u i r e d t o l i s t
a l l p r e v i o u s c o l l e g e work. X d i d n o t do so b e c au s e h e r p r i o r
r e c o r d was p oo r and s h e was a f r a i d o f b e i n g d en i e d a d m i s s i o n

1 2

3

4

5 6

When X saw t h e I n s t r u c t o r was busy w i t h a n o t h e r s t u d e n t a f t e r t h e
exam, s h e t o o k t h e t e s t b o o k l e t t o i n c l u d e in h e r " h o u s e f i l e . "

1 2

3

4

5 6

The c l a s s had been e n c o u r ag e d t o s t u d y t o g e t h e r t h r o u g h o u t t h e t e r m;
however, t h e y wer e i n s t r u c t e d t o do t h e i r own work on t h e t a ke - ho me
fjnal.
X was a s k e d by a c l a s s m a t e t o c r i t i q u e h i s f i n a l b e f o r e
h a n d i n g T t i n . )( a g r e e d and o f f e r e d s e v e r a l s u g g e s t i o n s

1 2

3

4

5 6

X worked f o r a commerci al t e r m p a p e r company and o f f e r e d t o pay
T50 t o c l a s s m a t e s f o r A p a p e r s t o be I n cl ud e d In t h e comp an y ' s
files.
Several s tu d e n ts accepted th e o f f e r

1 2

3

4

5 6

In a l a b
g av e a c l a s s m a t e t h e wrong f o r m u l a w i t h t h e i n t e n t of
k ee pi ng h e r from s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t i n g h e r e x p e r i m e n t

1 2

3

4

5 6

In c l a s s when s t u d e n t s were t o l d t h e y c o u l d c o r r e c t t h e i r own exams,
>( c h a ng ed t h r e e a n s w e r s t o Improve h i s s c o r e ......................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

X d i d n o t p u t q u o t a t i o n marks a r o u n d s e n t e n c e s which s h e c o p i e d
v e r b a t i m from a r e s e a r c h a r t i c l e a l t h o u g h s h e g ave r e c o g n i t i o n t o
t h e a u t h o r In a f o o t n o t e .....................................................................................................

1 2

3

4

5

6

answers to
The f r i e n d r e c e i v e d t h e needed h e l p ...................... 1 2

3

4

5

6

J

15.
16.

17.
18.

19.

20.
2 1.
22.

23.

X and a f r i e n d worked o u t a code whereby >< c o u l d s i g n a l

tr u e /fa ls e questions.

162

P ag e 3
N M
24.

25.

2 6.
27 .

2 8.

29.
30.
31.
32 .

33 .
34.

35.
36 .
37.

SS

J5

VS U

A f r i e n d o f X I s « s t u d e n t c u s t o d i a n in t h e co mp ut e r l a b . He
f ound a " u s e r s c a r d " (PNC) In t h e w a s t e b a s k e t and gave i t t o X.
The c a r d e n a b l e d X. t o c o m p l e t e a r e q u i r e d p r o j e c t b e f o r e h i s
c l a s s m a t e s b e c a u s e t h e c a r d had a h i g h e r p r i o r i t y t h a n t h o s e
I s s u e d t o t h e c l a s s ................................................................................................................

1 2

3

4

5

X and a c l a s s m a t e wer e a s s i g n e d by t h e I n s t r u c t o r t o work t o g e t h e r
on a d e s i g n p r o j e c t w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t t h e y would b o t h
r e c e iv e th e grade assigned to the p r o j e c t . X p u rpo sefully f a i l e d
t o do h i s p a r t b u t r e c e i v e d a n A..................................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

)< f a k e d t h e page numbers In t h e f o o t n o t e s t o a p a p e r s i n c e he c o u l d
n o t l o c a t e h i s n o t e c a r d s ..................................................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

A lt ho ug h s t u d e n t s wer e I n s t r u c t e d n o t t o u s e c a l c u l a t o r s f o r t h e i r
c o m p u t a t i o n d u r i n g an exam, X t o o k a c a l c u l a t o r from h i s p o c k e t and
computed 2 p r o b l e m s when t h e ~ l n s t r u c t o r was c a l l e d o u t o f t h e r oom. .

1 2

3

4

5 6

X t o o k a m i d - t e r m exam f o r which s h e knew s h e was n o t we 1 1 - p r e p a r e d .
A f t e r t h e exam, s h e f a l s e l y a d v i s e d t h e I n s t r u c t o r t h a t t h e exam
had been " o u t " In hop es t h a t a n o t h e r exam would be g i v e n . The
I n s t r u c t o r gave t h e e n t i r e c l a s s a new exam......................................................... 1 2

3

4

5 6

X p r e p a r e d a b lu e b o o k p r i o r t o an exam and s u b s t i t u t e d I t f o r t h e
o n e which was t o have been c o m p le t e d d u r i n g t h e exam p e r i o d ...................

3

4

5 6

1 2

A f r a t e r n i t y o f f i c e r a d v i s e d X t h a t he was e x p e c t e d t o t a k e an exam
for a brother. X did so
7 ....................................................................................... 1 2

3

4

5

6

6

X v o l u n t e e r e d t o t u r n In a c l a s s m a t e ' s p a p e r , b u t b e f o r e d o i ng so
s h e exchanged t i t l e p a g e s and s u b m i t t e d i t a s h e r own wor k .....................

1 2

3

4

5 6

>< " l i f t e d " from t h e l i b r a r y t h e o n l y two c o p i e s o f a r e s e r v e book
which was r e q u i r e d r e a d i n g f o r a l a r g e c l a s s and p u t them In t h e
ho us e l i b r a r y f o r h e r s o r o r i t y s i s t e r s ....................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

S t u d e n t s were l e f t on t h e i r honor t o t a k e an exam w i t h o u t r e c e i v i n g
assistance.
X. r e f e r r e d t o t h e t e x t whenever s h e needed h e l p ................. 1 2

3

4

5 6

In t h e mall X r e c e i v e d a t e r m p ap e r from a commercial company which
he had n o t o r d e r e d .
He gave I t t o a f r i e n d t o u s e In on e o f h i s
c l a s s e s .............................................................................................................................................

1 2

3

4

5 6

X made a p r a c t i c e o f h a v i n g a b e e r w i t h t h e I n s t r u c t o r a f t e r c l a s s
Tn hopes of g e t t i n g a b e t t e r g r a d e .............................................................................. 1 2

3

4

5 6

On a lab r e p o r t X d i d n o t a c c u r a t e l y r e p o r t h i s f i n d i n g s b e c a u s e he
d i d n o t o b t a i n t h e r e s u l t s he knew were e x p e c t e d .............................................

1 2

3

4

5

6

1 2

3

4

5

6

X a s k e d f o r , and r e c e i v e d , s p e c i a l t u t o r i n g from o ne o f h e r I n s t r u c ­
t o r s In e x c ha n ge f o r b a b y s i t t i n g t h e i n s t r u c t o r ' s two c h i l d r e n

163

Page 4

PART II - L i s t e d below a r e 10 b e h a v i o r s which you may have o b s e r v e d / d i s c o v e r e d , o r had r e ­
p o r t e d t o you by o t h e r s .
In o r d e r t o g a i n i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e f re quenc y
wi t h which f a c u l t y e n c o u n t e r t h e s e b e h a v i o r s and t h e c o u r s e of a c t i o n which t h e y
p ur s u e when such b e h a v i o r s come t o t h e i r a t t e n t i o n , you a r e as ked t o I n d i c a t e t h e
number o f t i m e s , i f an y , you e n c o u n t e r e d t h e s e b e h a v i o r s in your c l a s s e s d u r i n g
t h i s academic y e a r . If t h e b e h a v i o r was e n c o u n t e r e d , p l e a s e s e l e c t from t h e
f o l l o w i n g key t h e a c t i o n t a k e n in r e l a t i o n s h i p t o t h e s t u d e n t involved in each
i n c i d e n t . Should your r e s p o n s e be " o t h e r , ” s p e c i f y in t h e comment s e c t i o n what
t h e " o t h e r " a c t i o n I nc l ude d. Your comments a b o u t why c e r t a i n a c t i o n s were, o r
were n o t , t a k e n a r e i n v i t e d .
.Key t o A c t i o n s .

J:

3.
4.
5.

6.

No a c t i o n t a k e n
>
Warning o n l y ( v e r b a l o r w r i t t e n )
Requ i r ed t o r e p e a t a s s i gn me nt
P e n a l t y g r a d e o r f a i l i n g g r a d e on a s s i g n m e n t
P e n a l t y g r a de o r f a i l i n g g r a d e f o r c o u r s e
R e f e r r e d f o r U n i v e r s i t y dI sc ip I I nar y a c t i o n
in l i e u o f o r in add 11 i on t o a f a 11 Ing g r ade
Ot he r
y

P l e a s e c i r c l e a p p r o p r i a t e number:
A.

S t u d e n t used " c r i b s h e e t s 11 o r o t h e r u n a u t h o r i z e d s e l f - a i d d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t io n .
44.

Number o f t i m e s I
45. Act i on t a k e n
46. Ac t i on t a k e n
47. Act i on t a k e n

encountered t h i s b e h a v i o r
In I s t ...I n c i d e n t ...................................................................
In 2nd...i n c i d e n t ...................................................................
in 3r d...I n c i d e n t ...................................................................

I
I
I

2
2
2

0
3
3
3

1 2
4 5
4 5
4 5

3+3
6 7
6 7
6 7

Comment:
B.

Si u de n t c o p i e d from a n o t h e r s t u d e n t d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
48.

Number o f t i m e s I
49 . Act i on t a k e n
50. A ct i on t a k e n
51. Act i on t a k e n

encountered t h i s behavior
In 1 s t I n c i d e n t ......................
i n 2nd i n c i d e n t ......................
in 3rd I n c i d e n t ......................

0
23
23
23

I
I
I

1 2
4
4
4

3+ 3
5 6 7
5 6 7
5 6 7

Comment:________________________________________
C.

Student submitted p a p e r / p r o j e c t w ith out g iv in g a p p r o p r i a t e c r e d i t to so ur ce s.
52.

Number o f t i m e s I
53. Ac t i on t a k e n
54. A ct i on t a k e n
55. Ac t i on t a k e n

encountered t h i s b eh a v io r
in I s t I n c i d e n t ...................................................................
in 2nd I n c i d e n t ...................................................................
in 3r d I n c i d e n t ...................................................................

0
3
3
3

I
I
I

2
2
2

I
I
I

0
2 3
2 3
2 3

1 2
4 5
4 5
4 5

3+ 3
6 7
6 7
6 7

Comme n t :_____________________________________________________
D.

S t u d e n t t o o k an exam o r e n t i r e c o u r s e f o r a n o t h e r s t u d e n t .
56.

Number of t i m e s I
57. Act i on t a k e n
58. A ct i o n t a k e n
59. Ac t i on t a k e n
Comment:

enc ountered t h i s behavior
in I s t i n c i d e n t .....................
In 2nd i n c i d e n t .....................
in 3rd i n c i d e n t .....................

.
1 2
3+ 3
4
5 6
7
4
5 6
7
4
5 6
7

164
Page 5

.Key t o A c t i o n s .
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
E.

No a c t i o n t a k e n
Warning o n l y ( ve r b a l o r w r i t t e n )
Re qu ir ed t o r e p e a t a s s i g n m e n t
P e n a l t y g r a d e o r f a i l i n g g r a d e on a s s i g n m e n t
Penalty grade o r f a l l i n g grad e f o r course
Referred for University d i s c i pl i na r y action
In l i e u o f o r in a d d i t i o n t o a f a i l i n g g r a d e
Other

S t u d e n t a l l o w ed a n o t h e r s t u d e n t t o copy from h i s / h e r work d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
60.

Number of t i m e s I
61.
Ac t i on t a k e n
62.
A ct i o n t a k e n
63.
A ct i o n t a k e n

encountered t h i s b eh a v io r
in I s t I n c i d e n t
in 2nd I n c i d e n t
in 3r d I n c i d e n t

I
I
I

2
2
2

0
1 2 3+3
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7

Comment:
F.

S t u d e n t had a n o t h e r s t u d e n t t a k e an e x a mi na t i on o r e n t i r e c o u r s e f o r h i m / h e r .
64.

Number of t i m e s I
65.
A ct i o n t a k e n
66.
A ct i o n t a k e n
67.
Act i on t a k e n

encountered t h i s behavior
in I s t I n c i d e n t
I
in 2nd I n c i d e n t
I
in 3rd i n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I

2
2
2

0
1 2 3+3
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7

Comment:
G.

S t u d e n t changed a ns we r s o r a l t e r e d t h e I n s t r u c t o r ' s e v a l u a t i o n f o l l o wi ng an e x a m i n a t i o n .
68.

Number o f t i m e s I e n c o u n t e r e d t h i s b e h a v i o r
0
1 2
3+ 3
69.
A ct i o n t a k e n in I s t I n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I 2 3 4
5 6
7
70.
A c t i o n t a k e n In 2nd I n c i d e n t . . . . . . .
I 2 3 4
5 6
7
71. A ct i o n t a k e n In 3rd I n c i d e n t
1 2
3 4 5 6 7
Comment:

H.

S t u d e n t s u b m i t t e d a p a p e r / p r o j e c t which was not h i s / h e r own work.
72.

Number of t i m e s I e n c o u n t e r e d t h i s b e h a v i o r
73.
Ac t i on t a k e n In 1 st i n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I
74.
A ct i o n t a k e n In 2nd I n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I
75.
Ac t i on t a k e n In 3rd I n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I

2
2
2

0
1 2
3+ 3
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7

Commen t :
I.

S t u d e n t , t h r o u g h a s ys t e m worked o u t In advance w i t h a n o t h e r s t u d e n t , exchanged I n fo r m a t io n
d u r i n g an e x a m i n a t i o n .
76.

Number o f t i m e s I e n c o u n t e r e d t h i s b e h a v i o r
77.
A ct i o n t a k e n In I s t I n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I
78.
A ct i o n t a k e n In 2nd i n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I
79.
A c t i o n t a k e n In 3r d i n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I

2
2
2

0
1 2
3+ 3
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7

Comment:
J.

S t u d e n t a l l o w ed a n o t h e r s t u d e n t t o su bmi t h i s / h e r work f o r e v a l u a t i o n and c r e d i t .
80.

Number o f t i m e s I e n c o u n t e r e d t h i s b e h a v i o r
81.
A c t i o n t a k e n in 1 s t i n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I
82.
A c t i o n t a k e n In 2nd I n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I
83.
A c t i o n t a k e n In 3r d I n c i d e n t ..................................................................... I
Comment:

THANK YOU - -

2
2
2

0
1 2
3+ 3
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7
3 4
5 6
7
______

P L E A S E RETURN BY MAY 2 4

APPENDIX C
FIRST LETTER TO STUDENT SAMPLE

165

SURVEY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

May

Dear

16,

1978

MSU

Student

Bo t h s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y have e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n a b o u t a c a d e m i c
d i s h o n e s t y on c a m p u s .
I n an e f f o r t t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d how
d i s h o n e s t y i s d e f i n e d , how p r e v a l e n t i t i s , a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n s
u n d e r w h i c h s t u d e n t s be I i e v e i t o c c u r s ,
I am c o n d u c t i n g a s t u d y
in w h i c h b o t h s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y a r e b e i n g a s k e d t o t a k e a
b r i e f t i m e , 15 o r 2 0 m i n u t e s , t o p r o v i d e some much n e e d e d
information.
B e f o r e e n d - o f - t h e - t e r m a c t i v i t i e s a d d t o an a l r e a d y
ule,
I w o u l d v e r y much a p p r e c i a t e y o u r t a k i n g t i m e
complete the enclosed q u e s tio n n a ir e .
Please don't
because i t looks l i k e i t wi l l
take too long.
Some
n o t a p p l y t o y o u a n d a f e w mi n u t e s may be a l I t h a t
f o r you t o ma k e an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n .

busy s c h e d ­
t h i s week t o
put i t asid e
o f i t may
is r e q u i r e d

AlI
r e s p o n s e s a r e t o be made a n o n y m o u s l y .
Do n o t i n c l u d e y o u r
name o r s t u d e n t n u m b e r .
T h e r e i s no way i n d i v i d u a l s c a n be p e r ­
s o n a I I y i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y s u p p l y , so p l e a s e
be c a n d i d a n d c o m p l e t e i n r e s p o n d i n g ! ! !
F o r t h e s t u d y t o be
p e r c e n t a g e of those
Your c o o p e r a t i o n is
ated! !

o f any v a l u e ,
i t is necessary t h a t a high
who h a v e b e e n s e l e c t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e do s o .
v e r y much n e e d e d a n d w i l l
be g r e a t l y a p p r e c i ­

T h a n k you i n a d v a n c e f o r y o u r t i m e and a t t e n t i o n t o w h a t I b e ­
l i e v e i s an a r e a o f i n t e r e s t a n d i m p o r t a n c e t o s t u d e n t s a n d
f a c u l t y al i k e .
With your h elp ,
I h o p e t h e s t u d y c a n be c o m­
p l e t e d and t h a t i t w i l l
p r o v e t o be o f some v a l u e t o m e m b e r s o f
the U n i v e r s i t y community.
Sincerely,

Ru t h E . Renaud
Graduate Student
Michigan State U n iv e rs ity

\X

A

APPENDIX D
SECOND LETTER TO STUDENT SAMPLE

166

SURVEY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

May 2 2 ,

1978

D e ar MSU S t u d e n t :
I f you have r e t u r n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e on aca de m ic d i s h o n e s t y , my t h a n k s !
I f n o t , would you do so as soon as p o s s i b l e ?
Because a l l responses a r e
anonymous, I do n o t know who has responded and who has n o t , so t h i s f o l l o w up l e t t e r is b e i n g s e n t t o a I I who were asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e .
I r e c o g n i z e t h a t f i l l i n g o u t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e on a t o p i c t h a t is n o t neces­
s a r i l y " p o p u l a r " may seem l i k e an u nn ece ss ary t a s k a t t h i s t i m e o f y e a r ;
h ow eve r, i n f o r m a t i o n from t h e s t u d e n t p o p u l a t i o n is v e r y much nee ded .
By
t a k i n g 15 o r 20 m i n u t e s o f yo u r t i m e , you can h e l p d e f i n e , from a s t u d e n t ' s
p e r s p e c t i v e , what c o n s t i t u t e s d i s h o n e s t y , how s e r i o u s l y c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r s
a r e v i ew ed by s t u d e n t s , and what s i t u a t i o n s s t u d e n t s have en c o u n t e r e d t h i s
p a s t y e a r where d i s h o n e s t y may have o c c u r r e d .
I f , f o r some r e a s o n , you choose n o t t o c o m p l e t e t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , would
you p l e a s e t a k e j u s t a m i n u t e t o f i I I in t h e background i n f o r m a t i o n r e ­
q u e s t e d , t e l l me why you a r e not r e s p o n d i n g , and ma i l t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e
ba c k .
A l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s should be co m p l e t e d b e f o r e f i n a l s b eg in on June 5 .
S i ncerely.

Ruth E. Renaud
Graduate Student
Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s it y

P.S.

Sh ou ld t h e rumored p o s t a l h i k e t a k e e f f e c t , and t h e s e l f - a d d r e s s e d
stamped e n v e l o p e be s h o r t on p o s t a g e , I w i l l pay any p os tag e due
when i t i.s r e c e i v e d .

APPENDIX E
FIRST LETTER TO FACULTY SAMPLE

SURVEY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

May 16, 1978

Dear MSU F a c u l t y Member:
Both s t u d e n ts and f a c u l t y have expressed concern about academic d i s ho ne st y
on campus.
In an e f f o r t t o address t h a t concern, I am u n d e r ta k in g a study
designed t o e x p l o r e f o u r q u e st io ns :
1)
2)
3)
4)

What b eh av io rs do st ude nt s and f a c u l t y b e l i e v e c o n s t i t u t e d i s ho ne st y
and how s e r i o u s l y a r e th ese be h avi or s viewed?
How p r e v a l e n t is dis ho ne st y among students?
What c o n d i t i o n s do st ude nt s p e r c e i v e t o e x i s t whendi s h o n e s t y
occurs?
What course o f a c t i o n do f a c u l t y f o l l o w whendis ho ne st y
is discovered?

A random sample o f st u d e n ts and f a c u l t y from t h r e e c o l l e g e s here a t MSU has
been s e l e c t e d f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e s tu dy .
As a p a r t o f t h a t sample, you
a r e being asked t o t a k e 15 o r 20 minutes t o p r o v i d e some much needed in fo rm a­
t i o n by responding t o t h e enclosed q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
A l l responses a r e t o be
made anonymous I y . The re is no way t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p li e d by s t u d e n ts o r
f a c u l t y can be i d e n t i f i e d wi t h t h e i n d i v i d u a l s responding!
My own p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t in t h i s ar ea is based on my e x p e r i e n c e as a s t a f f
member here working wi t h s tu de n ts and f a c u l t y whom I b e l i e v e a r e s i n c e r e l y
i n t e r e s t e d and concerned wi t h t h i s iss ue.
My m o t i v a t i o n t o conduct t h e study
a t t h i s t i m e is a d e s i r e t o complete my own g r a d u a te program.
Although I am
co n du ct in g t h e study as a g r a d u a te s t u d e n t , I s i n c e r e l y hope t h a t i n t e r e s t s
o t h e r than mine can be served by i t s c o m p l e t io n .
A high r a t e o f r e t u r n o f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s is necessary f o r t h e study t o be o f
any v a l u e .
Your c o o p e r a t i o n in t a k i n g a few minutes t h i s week t o complete
t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , b e f o r e t h e e n d - o f - t e r m a c t i v i t i e s add t o an a l r e a d y busy
sc h ed u le , w i l l be g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e d ! I wi l l
be gl a d t o sh a re any r e s u l t s
o f t h e study w it h you and I i n v i t e your comments about t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e
s p e c i f i c a l l y , o r t h e t o p i c in g e n e r a l . P l e a s e
use t h e back o f t h e q u e s t i o n ­
n a i r e f o r any comments you may have.
My tha nk s in advance f o r your t im e and a t t e n t i o n t o what I b e l i e v e
o f i n t e r e s t and importance t o members o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y community.
Si n c e r e l y .

Ruth E. Renaud

i s an ar ea

APPENDIX F
SECOND LETTER TO FACULTY SAMPLE

SURVEY ON ACADEMIC DISHONESTY

May 22,

1978

Dear MSU F a c u l t y Member:
I f you have r e t u r n e d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e on academic d i s h o n e s t y , my t h a n k s .
I f no t , would you do so as soon as p o s si b le ?
Because a l l responses a r e
anonymous, I do not know
who has responded and who has n o t , so a f o l l o w up i s being sen t t o a I I who were asked t o p a r t i c i p a t e .
I r e c o g n i z e t h a t I am as k in g f a c u l t y t o t a k e v a l u a b l e t im e t o f i l l o u t a
q u e s t i o n n a i r e on a t o p i c which is not n e c e s s a r i l y " p o p u l a r " ; however, i t
is one which I b e l i e v e i s o f importance t o t h e academic community.
A l­
though t h e study is o n l y e x p l o r a t o r y in n a t u r e , I am hopeful t h a t
i n fo rm a­
t i o n can be secured t h a t
wi l l be o f v a l u e in beg inning t o examine a complex
concern.
Your p e r s p e c t i v e is needed! P l ea s e t a k e a few m in u te s , i f you have not
a l r e a d y done so, t o compl ete and r e t u r n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
Because t h e
r e p o r t i n g pe r io d f o r t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s and e x p e r ie n c e s o f both s t u d e n ts
and f a c u l t y extends to, but does not incIude, f i n a I e x a m in at io n week s p r i n g
te r m , you a r e asked t o complete t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e p r i o r t o June 5.
Thank you f o r your c o o p e r a t i o n !
Si ncereIy,

Ruth E.

P. S.

Renaud

Should t h e rumored p os ta l h i k e t a k e e f f e c t , and t h e s e l f - a d d r e s s e d
stamped envelope be s h o r t on pos tag e, I w iI I pay any postage due
when i t is r e c e i v e d .

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, Paul D. "The E f f e c t s o f Honor Grading on S t u d e n t s ' T e s t
S c o r e s . " American Educational Research J o urn a l 8 (March 1971):
321-333.
A l l p o r t , F. H. "The J-Curve Hypothesis o f Conforming B eh av io r."
J o u r n a l o f Social Psychology 5 (1934): 141-183.
Anderson, William F . , J r .
" A t t i t u d e s o f U n i v e r s i t y Stu d e n ts Toward
C h e a t in g ." The Journal o f Educational Research 50 (April 1957):
581-588.
Aronson, E . , and M ettee, D. "Dishonest Behavior as a Function o f
D i f f e r e n t i a l Levels o f Induced S e l f - E s te e m . " Jo u rn al o f
P e r s o n a l i t y and Social Psychology 9 (1968): 121-127.
Blommers, P a u l, and L i n q u i s t , E. F. Elementary S t a t i s t i c a l Methods
in Psychology and E d u c a ti o n . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co.,
1960.
Bonjean, C. M., and McGee, R. " S c h o l a s t i c Dishonesty Among Under­
g r a d u a t e s in D i f f e r i n g Systems o f Social C o n t r o l . " Sociology
o f Education 38 (1965): 127-137.
Bowers, William J . S tu d e n t Dishone sty and I t s Control in C o l l e g e .
New York: Bureau o f Applied Social S c i e n c e , Columbia U n i v e r s i t y ,
1964.
Bu rt on, R. V. " G e n e r a l i t y o f Honesty R e co nsid e red ."
Review 70 (1963): 481-499.

P s y chological

Canning, Ray R. "Does an Honor System Reduce Classroom Cheating?
An Experimental Answer." J o urn a l o f Experimental Education
24 (June 1956): 291-296.
C e n tr a , John A. "College Freshman A t t i t u d e s Toward C h e a t in g ."
Personnel and Guidance J o urn a l 48 (January 1970): 366-373.
Cronbach, L. " C o e f f i c i e n t Alpha and t h e I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e o f T e s t s . "
Ps.ychometrika 16 (1951): 25-32.

169

170

DeVries, David L . , and Ajen, Icek. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f A t t i t u d e s and
Normative B e l i e f s to Cheating in C o l l e g e . " The Jo u rnal o f Social
Psychology 83 (April 1971): 199-207.
Drake, C. A. "Why Stu d e n ts C he at."
(1941): 418-420.

J o u r n a l o f Higher Education 12

F i s h b e i n , M. " A t t i t u d e and P r e d i c t i o n o f B eh av io r." In Readings in
A t t i t u d e Theory and Measurement.
Edited by M. F i s h b e i n .
New York: Wiley, 1967.
F i s h e r , Constance T. "Levels o f Cheating Under Conditions o f
In f o r m a tiv e Appeal t o Honesty, P ub lic A f f i r m a t io n o f Value
and T h r e a ts o f Punishment." The J o u rna l o f Educational Research
64 (September 1970): 12-16.
Freeman, Linton C., and Ataov, Turkoz. " I n v a l i d i t y o f I n d i r e c t and
D i r e c t Measures o f A t t i t u d e Toward C h e a t in g ." Journ al o f
P e r s o n a l i t y 28 (1960): 443-447.
Frymier, Ja ck R. " F a c u l t y and S tu d en t P e r c e p t i o n s o f C h e atin g ."
The Jo urn al o f Educationa l Research 54 (November 1960): 118-120.
G a r f i e l d , S. J e f f r e y ; Cohen, H., and Roth, R. M. "A C o r r e l a t i v e Study
o f Cheating in Co llege S t u d e n t s . " The Jo u rn al o f Educational
Research 61 (December 1967): 172-173.
Harp, John, and T a i e t z , P h i l i p . "Academic I n t e g r i t y and Social
S t r u c t u r e : A Study o f Cheating Among Colle ge S t u d e n t s . "
Social Problems 13 (1966): 365-373.
H a r ts h o r n e , H., and May, M. A.
MacMillan, 1928.

S t u d i e s in D e c e i t .

New York:

H e t h e r i n g to n , E. Mavis, and Feldman, Solomon E. "Colle ge Cheating
as a Functio n o f S u b j e c t and S i t u a t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s . " Journ al
o f Educationa l Psychology 55 (1964): 212-218.
Howells, T. H. "A Method o f S e c r e t l y O btain ing D u p l i c a t i o n o f
W r i t i n g . " Jo urn a l o f Abnormal and So cial Psychology 27
(1932): 334-335.
Jaco bson, Leonard; B e rg er, Stephen, and Milliham, Jim. " I n d i v id u a l
D i f f e r e n c e s in Cheating During a Temptation P e rio d When Con­
f r o n t i n g F a i l u r e . " Jo urn al o f P e r s o n a l i t y and S o cial Psychology
15 (1970): 48-56.
James, H. W. "Honesty as a C h a r a c te r T r a i t Among Young P e o p le ."
J o u rn a l o f Educational Research 26 (April 1933): 572-578.

The

171

Johnson, Charles D . , and Gormly, John. "Academic Cheating: The
C o n t r i b u t i o n o f Sex, P e r s o n a l i t y , and S i t u a t i o n a l V a r i a b l e s . "
Developmental Psychology 6 (March 1972): 320-325.
Johnson, Richmond E ., and Kores, Malcolm S. " A t t i t u d e s Toward
Cheating as a Function of Classroom D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and Peer
Norms." The Journal o f Educational Research 62 (October 1968):
60-64.
“
K e r l i n g e r , Fred N. Foundations o f Behavioral Research and Educational
and P s ychological I n q u i r y ! New York: H o lt, R in eh a rt and
Winston, 1964.
Knowlton, James Q., and Hamerlynck, Leo A. " P e r c e p tio n o f Deviant
Behavior: A Study o f C h e atin g ." Journal o f Educational
Psychology 58 (1967): 379-385.
MacKinnon, D. W. " V i o l a t i o n o f P r o h i b i t i o n . " In E x p lo r a ti o n s in
P e r s o n a l i t . y , pp. 491-501. E dited by H. A. Murray. New York:
Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1938.
M a i le r , J . B. "General and S p e c i f i c
o f Social Psychology 5 (1934):

F a c to r s in C h a r a c t e r . "
97-102.

Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y .

Programsj 1977-78.

Academic

F a c u lt y Handbook 1971-72 (with supplements No. 1 , 1972,
and No. 2, 1976).

.

S tu de n t Handbook 1977-79.

_

_

.

Journal

Nie, Norman H.; H u l l , C. H ad lai; J e n k i n s , Jean G.; S t e i n b r e n n e r ,
Karin; Bent, Dale H. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r Social S c ie n c e s .
2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
P a r r , F. W. "The Problem o f Stu dent Honesty."
Education 12 (1941): 318-326. .

Journal o f Higher

P a r r o t t , Fred. "How t o Cheat t h e C h e a t e r s . " Improving College
and U n i v e r s i t y Teaching 20 (Summer 1972): 128-130.
Rokeach, Milton. The Nature o f Human V a lu e s.
P r e s s , 1973.

New York:

The Free

Roskens, R. W., and Dizney, H. F. "A Study o f Unethical Academic
Behavior in High School and C o l l e g e . " The Journal o f Educational
Research 59 (1966): 231-234.
S anford, N e v i t t .
1969.

Where Colleges F a i l .

San F r a n c i s c o :

Jossev-Bass,

172

Shink , Evelyn, and Hoffman, R. W. "Academic S e t t i n g o f t h e Dishonest
S t u d e n t . " Improving College and U n i v e r s i t y Teaching 9 (1961):
130-134.
S h e r r i l l , David; S a l i s b u r y , J . L .; Horowitz, Bernard; and Friedman,
S. Thomas. "Classroom Cheating: C o n s i s t e n t A t t i t u d e s ,
P e r c e p t i o n s and B ehavior." American Educational Research
Jo urn al 8 (May 1971): 503-510:
S h u r t l e f f , R. F. Academic D ishonesty, A B i b l i o g r a p h y .
N o r t h e a s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y , 1966.

Boston:

S t e i n i n g e r , M. " A t t i t u d e s Toward Cheating: General and S p e c i f i c . "
Psy ch olo gica l Reports 22 (June 1968): 1101-1107.
S t e i n i n g e r , Marion; Johnson, Richard E ., and K i r t s , Donald K.
"Cheating on College Examinations as a Function o f
S i t u a t i o n a l l y Aroused Anxiety and H o s t i l i t y . " Journal
o f Edu cational Psychology 55 (1964): 317-324.
S t r a n g , Ruth. Behavior and Background of S tu d e n ts in Colle ge and
Secondary S c h o o l s . New York: Harper, 1937.
S t r a v i s k y , Leonard P. "Term Paper ' M i l l s , ' Academic P l a g i a r i s m ,
and S t a t e R e g u l a t i o n . " P o l i t i c a l Science Q u a r t e r l y 88
(September 1973): 445-461.
Trabue, A. "Classroom Che atin g—An I s o l a t e d Phenomenon?"
E ducationa l Record 43 (1962): 309-316.

The

U h l i g , George E . , and Howes, Barry. " A t t i t u d e s Toward Cheating
and O p p o r t u n i s t i c B eh av io r." The Jo urn al o f Educational
Research 60 (May-June 1967): 411-412.
V i t r o , Frank. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Classroom Dishone sty t o P a ren ta l
D i s c i p l i n e . " Jo u rnal o f College Student Personnel 12 (November
1971): 427-429.
V i t r o , Frank T . , and Schoer, Lowell A. "The E f f e c t s o f P r o b a b i l i t y
o f T est Su c c ess, T e s t Importance, and Risk o f D e te c tio n on th e
In cide nce o f C h e a tin g ." Journal o f School Psychology 10 (1972):
269-277.
Weldon, L. L. "Cheating in School: Teachers as P a r t n e r s in Crime."
C l e a r in g House 40 (1966): 462-463.
White, W.; Z ie lo n k a , A.; and G re er, E. " P e r s o n a l i t y C o r r e l a t e s o f
Cheating Among Co llege Women Under S t r e s s o f Independ entO p p o r t u n i s t i c B eh av io r." The Journal o f E ducationa l Research
61 (October 1967): 68-70.

173

W illia m s, Neil F. "Cheating in t h e Classroom." Improving College
and U n i v e r s i t y Teaching 17 (Summer 1969): 183-184.
Zastrow, Cha rles H. "Cheating Among College Graduate S t u d e n t s . "
The Jo urn al o f Educationa l Research 64 (December 1970): 157-160.
General References
American P s ychological A s s o c i a t i o n . P u b l i c a t i o n Manual. 2nd ed.
Washington, D.C.: American Psych ologica l A s s o c i a t i o n , 1974.
Backstrom, Charle s H., and Hursh, Gerald D. Survey R e se arch .
Evanston, 111.: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963.
Borg, Walter R ., and G a l l , Meredith D. Educational Rese arch, An
I n t r o d u c t i o n . 2nd ed. New York: David McKay Co., 1971.
E b e l , Robert L. E s s e n t i a l s o f Educational Measurement.
C l i f f s , N.JT1 P r e n t i c e - H a l 1 , 1 9 7 2 .
Hays, William L.
1963.

S tatistics.

New York:

Englewood

H o lt, R i n e h a r t and Winston,

Sax, G i l b e r t . Empirical Foundations o f Educational R e se arch .
Englewood C l i f f s , N . J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l 1, 1968.
T u r a b i a n , Kate L. A Manual f o r W rite r s o f Term Papers , T heses, and
D i s s e r t a t i o n s . 4th ed. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s ,
1973.