Bernardi 2008 Methods of Cheating

BERNARDI, BACA, LANDERS, WITEKMETHODS OF AND DETERRENTS TO CHEATING

Methods of Cheating and Deterrentsto Classroom Cheating:An International Study

Richard A. Bernardi, Ania V. Baca, Kristen S. Landers,and Michael B. WitekRoger Williams University

This study examines the methods students use to cheat on class examinations andsuggests ways of deterring using an international sample from Australia, China, Ire-land, and the United States. We also examine the level of cheating and reasons forcheating that prior research has highlighted as a method of demonstrating that oursample is equivalent to those in prior studies. Our results confirm the results of priorresearch that primarily employs students from the United States. The data indicatethat actions such as having multiple versions of the examination and scrambling thequestions on these versions would deter cheating. In addition, given the increasedlevel of cheating and students’ increased perception of the social acceptability ofcheating in college, the data provided by our international sample also suggest thatsome relatively simple precautions by instructors could dramatically reduce the levelof cheating on in-class examinations.

Keywords: cheating, deterrents, ethics

Although some may view cheating as a trivial matter, academic dishonesty associ-ates with employee dishonesty (Lucas & Friedrich, 2005; Sims, 1993). Cheatersmay find the course material difficult because they do not attend class and are toobusy to study; however, cheaters still want high grades (Faulkender et al., 1994).Andersen’s audit of Enron, which was done “as quickly as possible and making themost money” (Alexander, Burns, Manor, McRoberts, & Torriero, 2003, p. 1), pro-

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 18(4), 373–391Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10508420701713030

Correspondence should be addressed to Richard A. Bernardi, Gabelli School of Business, RogerWilliams University, Bristol, RI 02809. E-mail: [email protected]

vides an example of devoting the minimum time to a task but still wanting to becompensated. A consequence of this ethical failure was a loss of $60 billion, whichexceeds the gross domestic product of 72.9% of the 181 countries providing data tothe Energy Information Administration (2002).

Some suggest that “better monitoring and enforcement could possibly reducethe propensity to cheat”; however, “most professors do not want the aggravation ofenforcing rules against cheating” (Ameen, Guffey, & McMillan, 1996, p. 202).More important, 91% of the students sampled believed that ignoring cheating waseither “unethical under most circumstances” or “unethical under virtually all cir-cumstances” (Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley, & Washburn, 1998, p. 225).Furthermore, ignoring cheating can lead to a reduction in public trust and supportfor higher education (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1998).

Unfortunately, our understanding of cheating on college examinations is lim-ited, as the majority of studies use samples from the North America and Europe(Lim & See, 2001). This research extends Salter, Guffey, and McMillan (2001) andAmeen et al.’s (1996) research about cheating on examinations, which is perceivedas the most serious cheating behavior (Sims, 1995). We use the same questions asSalter et al. and Ameen et al. on a sample of 417 students from Australia, China,Ireland, and the United States.1

LITERATURE REVIEW

International Differences

Culture represents a “set of likely reactions of citizens with a common mentalprogramming … reactions need not be found within the same persons, but only sta-tistically more often in the same society” (Hofstede, 1991, p. 112). Hofstede’s cul-tural constructs have an “impact on the ethical decision-making process across dif-ferent societies” (Vitell, Mwachukwu, & Barnes, 1993, p. 759). The four countriesselected for this study (see Figure 1) provide a considerable contrast in their Indi-vidualism construct (Hofstede, 1980) and a minor contrast in their UncertaintyAvoidance construct (i.e., those most noted in ethics research).2 In addition, Trans-parency International’s (2002) corruption indices associate with Hofstede’s cul-tural constructs of Uncertainty Avoidance and Individualism (Husted, 1999).

In strong Uncertainty Avoidance countries there is more tolerance of unfairness(Hofstede, 1980). For example, as Uncertainty Avoidance increases, individuals

374 BERNARDI, BACA, LANDERS, WITEK

1We include students from the United States for comparison purposes with prior research.2The Individualism construct has a range of 71 points with China at 20, Ireland at 70, Australia at

90, and the United States at 91. The Uncertainty Avoidance construct has a range of 16 points betweenChina and Ireland at 35, the United States at 46, and Australia at 51.

are more likely to believe that the ethical standards are determined by the least ethi-cal competitor (Bernardi & Long, 2004). Uncertainty Avoidance explained aboutone third of the variation of the ethical business conduct for nine European coun-tries (Jeurissen & van Luijk, 1998). Finally, as Uncertainty Avoidance increased,senior auditors from west Europe were more likely to use less precise auditing pro-cedures (Arnold, Bernardi, & Neidermeyer, 2001).

As the Individualism of a society increases, a society’s concern for others’needs decreases because individuals “take care of themselves and their immediatefamilies” (Hofstede, 1984, pp. 83–84). Consequently, individualists perceive “eth-ical obligations as a constraint while collectivists are more concerned with main-taining their moral ideals” (Thorne & Saunders (2002, p. 2). For example, as thelevel of Individualism for a country increased, students perceived unethical actionsas being more acceptable (Bernardi, Delorey, LaCross, & Waite, 2003). Similarly,as Individualism increased, senior auditors from west Europe were less likely to dothe additional audit work indicated and more likely to make decisions basedon personal relationships rather than the facts presented (Arnold, Bernardi, &Neidermeyer, 1999).

Level of Cheating in College

Cheating also associates with parental pressure for higher grades, the need to get ajob, and the desire to excel (McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 1999). Not surpris-ingly, grade orientation strongly associates with self-reported cheating (Rettinger& Jordan, 2005). Alarmingly, 54% of the sampled students thought that cheatingwas socially acceptable, so that the majority of students perceive cheating as a le-gitimate form of academic behavior (Smyth & Davis, 2003). Consequently, cheat-ing will probably increase in the future because students’ level of academic in-

METHODS OF AND DETERRENTS TO CHEATING 375

FIGURE 1 Hofstede’s cultural constructs by country.

tegrity is low (Haswell, Jubb, & Wearing, 1999; Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, &Cauffman, 2002). Sims (1993) provided evidence of the striking increase in theproportion of students engaging in cheating over a 50-year period (Figure 2). Al-though Figure 2 does not provide a complete list of cheating research, the datamake the point that college cheating is indeed on the rise to a pandemic level.

One could argue that there are many forms of cheating; however, between 1963and 1993, serious test cheating increased from 39% to 64% (McCabe, Trevino, &Butterfield, 2001). Although McCabe et al.’s data are below those shown in Figure2, the order of magnitude and trend are similar. More alarming is the fact that busi-ness students report higher levels of cheating than liberal arts students and are lesscritical toward cheating (Rettinger & Jordan, 2005). Although “nearly all respon-dents believe that cheating is ethically wrong (92 percent), a surprising 45 percentfind cheating to be socially acceptable” (Smyth & Davis, 2003, p. 5). These statis-tics confirm the fears people may have in that today’s students may have becomedesensitized to cheating and that may carryover into the workplace (Baack,Fogliasso, & Harris, 2000). Consequently, the dramatic increase in college cheat-ing does not bode well for the future, given research indicating that unethical be-havior in the workplace associates with college cheating (Lawson, 2004; Sims,1993; Whitley, 1998). The rate of cheating varied among the United States, Japan,and South Africa (Burns, Davis, Hoshino, & Miller, 1998); given the differences inculture and levels of cheating previously cited, our first research question is thefollowing:


FIGURE 2 Increase in college cheating: 1942–1991

RQ1: Do the rates of cheating on examinations given during class time varyamong countries?

Students who report cheating typically rationalize their dishonest behavior(Smith, Davy, & Easterling, 2004; Lord & Melvin, 1997). Cheaters also justifiedtheir behavior, noting that the material was too difficult, they did not attend class,others were cheating, and they were busy (Faulkender et al., 1994). Cheaters be-lieve that everybody steals, cheats, or lies at least once in his or her life morestrongly than those who did not report having cheated (Ameen et al., 1996); Salteret al., 2001). Similarly, cheaters estimated the rate of cheating at a significantlyhigher rate than noncheaters (Jordan, 2001, p. 241). Attitudes concerning cheatingvaried among students from Europe and America (Waugh, Godfrey, Evans, &Craig, 1995), which suggests our second research question:

RQ2: Do students’ attitudes about cheating on examinations given during classtime vary among countries?

Ways of cheating during an in-class examination include exchanging pa-pers/answers, looking at another student’s test, allowing a student to look at theirpaper, and giving answers to someone (Smith, Davy, Rosenberg, & Haight, 2002).Other forms of cheating include obtaining a copy of the test prior to taking it inclass, taking a test for another student, and giving false reasons for missing exams(Smith et al., 2004). Cheating can also occur after a test when students changeexam answers and then ask for their grade to be adjusted (Smith et al., 2004) or byfailing to report grading errors (Ameen et al., 1996). These lead to our third re-search question.

RQ3: Do the ways of cheating on examinations given during class time varyamong countries?

Deterring Cheating

College students view the competition for grades in college as the need to succeedat all costs (Ameen et al., 1996). Not surprisingly, “students appear to be more tol-erant of cheating than their future employers or their faculty” (Lord & Melvin,1997, p. 71). One reason for being concerned with college cheating is that itstrongly associates with employee dishonesty (Lucas & Friedrich, 2005). Conse-quently, it is not surprising that, in an era of increased corporate ethical lapses, theEthics Task Force called for “member schools and their faculties to renew and revi-talize their commitment to ethical responsibility at both the individual and organi-zational levels. Schools should be encouraged to demonstrate this commitment


throughout their academic programs” (italics added; Association to Advance Col-legiate Schools of Business, 2004, p. 14).

If professors ignore cheating, honest students are effectively disadvantaged be-cause dishonest students receive grades that are higher than they deserve (Keith-Spiegel, Wittig, Perkins, Balogh, & Whitley, 1993). Consequently, it is not surprisingthat honest students are upset when they observe their contemporaries cheating(Jendrek, 1992). More important, if cheating goes unpunished, honest students mightconclude that cheating is socially acceptable (Smyth & Davis, 2003) and surmise thatthey can cheat (Ameen et al., 1996; Salter et al. 2001). Similarly, McCabe and Trevino(1993) believe that “the fact that others are cheating may also suggest that … cheatingmay come to be viewed as an acceptable way of getting and staying ahead” (p. 533).

Surprisingly, students’ fear of being punished is not influenced by seeing otherstudents caught cheating (Payne & Nantz, 1994; Smyth & Davis, 2003); this couldbe the result of the low probability of being caught and an environment of “ourword against theirs” when it comes to catching a student cheating (Lord & Melvin,1997, p. 15). Given the increase in cheating, Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) ques-tioned the deterrent effectiveness of threatening to fail a student who is caughtcheating for students who are already failing a course.

Professors report overlooking cheating because of insufficient evidence, stressand lack of courage on the professor’s part, extensive time and effort involved, andprobability of catching the worst offenders (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1998, p. 215).Some professors fear retaliation (McCabe, 1993) because they accused a studentof cheating; for example, retaliation results in their teaching evaluations suffering(Keith-Spiegel et al., 1998). Seventy-one percent of the professors sampled believethat “confronting cheating students is one of the most negative aspects of the teach-ing profession” (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1998, p. 224).

Possible impediments to cheating include pretest measures such as having anempty seat between students during an exam, assigning seats, distributing differentforms of the same test, having students to put all books and personal belongingsaway, and giving an essay-type exam (Smith et al., 2004, p. 71). Prior to startingthe examination, Faulkender et al. (1994, p. 216) suggested that instructors ran-domize seating on test days, use alternate test forms, and employ identificationchecks. During the examination, Smith et al. (2004) believed that instructorsshould circulate around the room, constantly watch students, and have someoneother than the instructor proctor the exam.

Research indicates that cheating could be reduced by 36.6% by frequentlychanging tests, 49.4% by using assigned seating, and 65.0% by monitoring stu-dents during tests (Wajda-Johnston, Handal, Brawer, & Fabricatore, 2001, p. 298).However, participants in this research were graduate students at a religiously affili-ated Midwestern university (p. 290). Given the differences noted earlier, our finalresearch question examines whether these relatively straightforward methods ofreducing cheating are true for an international sample.


RQ4: Do the suggested methods of reducing cheating on examinations givenduring class time vary among countries?

METHODOLOGY

Our sample includes the responses of 417 college business students (Table 1) fromAustralia (54), China (88), Ireland (101), and the United States (174). The samplewas chosen for the cultural contrasts (Hofstede, 1980) from among the countriesthat our study-abroad students selected (i.e., our sample was a convenience sampleand thus not random). Our research instrument consisted of seven questions deal-ing with cheating and a brief background questionnaire. The background question-naire asked students for their home country; we did this so that study-abroad stu-dents could be removed from that country’s data.3

Questionnaire

The international surveys were delivered to professors in a country by study-abroad students and were completed during class in the study-abroad students’business classes.4 Each of the study-abroad students was thoroughly instructed bythe lead author and given a package containing an introductory letter that ex-


3The average ages of students in Table 1 suggest a similarity in the courses taken by the studentsfrom the four countries.

4Although the surveys were distributed in different business courses, we would argue that it is notthe course or the method of instruction that matters; rather, the method of testing is what matters. Forexample the lead author does not use multiple-choice questions in his introductory accounting (101)classes; however, two of his colleagues use multiple-choice questions extensively in their introductoryaccounting (101) classes.

TABLE 1Age and Gender Data by Country

Country Gender Sample Age

Australia Men 28 20.9Women 26 20.6

China Men 26 21.5Women 62 20.5

Ireland Men 40 20.9Women 61 20.6

United States Men 101 21.2Women 73 20.9Overall 417 20.9

plained the research project and request that the instructor allow the students tocomplete the questionnaire in class. Attached to the introductory letter was a copyof the permission letter from the authors’ human-subjects-research board. In theintroductory letter, the lead author suggested that the first class period might be agood time to distribute and complete the surveys, as this particular class is typi-cally a short introduction to the course. The suggested timing ensured that the stu-dents focused their responses on their overall college experience as opposed totheir experience in one course. The suggested timing also provided the participat-ing students with an additional assurance that the study-abroad students would notbe able to identify their classmates’ survey responses. Finally, as the surveys werecompleted in the first 2 weeks of classes (i.e., before any examinations weregiven), the method of instruction in the host class should not influence the stu-dents’ responses.

All of the students were business majors; all of the classes in which the surveyswere distributed were business classes. Given the nature of the questionnaire, weasked the professors to provide time at the end of class for the survey and that,given the nature of the survey, that they leave the room.5 Whereas the study-abroadstudents distributed the questionnaires, the participating students put their com-pleted questionnaires into an envelope, which was addressed to the lead author, atthe front of the room. In addition, no indication of the student’s name was includedon the survey instrument, and the participants were assured that faculty involved inthe research would only be provided with a file that contained the survey data (i.e.,not see the actual questionnaires).

As the research extends the work of Salter et al. (2001) and Ameen et al. (1996),we believe that pretesting the questions was not necessary. However, we did takethe precaution of having exchange students at our university review the question-naire for clarity and content. English is a common language in all countries in thestudy except China. However, we did not have to translate our questionnaire intoChinese because the Chinese students in our sample were enrolled in an Eng-lish-speaking university. The seven questions used in this research on cheating be-havior were the following:

1. Have you ever cheated on a major exam (20% or more of the final grade)?2. Have you ever cheated on a minor exam (less than 20% of the final grade)?3. Do you believe cheating is a direct result of the competition for grades?4. Do you believe cheating is wrong, dishonest, or unethical?5. Have you ever been caught cheating?6. Describe the most common method of cheating you have observed in college.7. What do you feel would be an effective way to deter cheating?


5Having one’s professor in the room while students provide responses to questions on cheatingwould undoubtedly bias the data provided.

Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 called for yes/no responses, and Questions 6 and 7were open ended, asking students to describe the ways that students cheated andpossible deterrents to cheating (i.e., student-generated responses). The alpha forthe first five questions of our survey was .46. Nunnally (1978, p. 245) suggestedthat alpha should be at least .70; however, alpha is also a function of the number ofquestions in the survey (Bernardi, 1994; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1984). For exam-ple, had our survey contained 15 questions with correlations similar those of the 5questions in the current survey, the resulting alpha would have been .72.

Social Desirability Response Bias

When individuals overreport (underreport) activities that are deemed to be sociallydesirable (undesirable), social desirability response bias occurs (Zerbe & Paulhus,1987). Nyaw and Ng (1994) indicated that survey results in ethics research mightnot be valid if researchers do not control for socially desirable response bias. Con-sequently, we controlled for social desirable responding using Impression Man-agement subscale of Paulhus’s (1986) Balanced Inventory of Desirable Respond-ing (Appendix A). This subscale consists of 20 items that ask individuals torespond on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglyagree). Every other statement is reverse coded on the Impression Managementsubscale; for example, the first two statements on this subscale are (a) Sometimes Itell lies if I have to, and (b) I never cover up my mistakes.

Individuals responding to the first statement in a socially desirable mannerwould be more likely to reply not true because telling a lie is not a socially desir-able behavior. Similarly, individuals responding to the second statement in a so-cially desirable manner would be more likely to reply very true as covering upone’s mistakes is not a socially desirable behavior. An individual’s score on thismeasure is the sum of the one or two (six or seven) responses they provide for theodd (even) number questions (i.e., number of socially desirable responses).

RESULTS

Overview

Table 2 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients for the students’ responsesto the five of the seven questions in our survey along with the participants’ scoreson Paulhus’s (1986) Impression Management subscale. As anticipated, self-re-ported cheating and admitting to being caught cheating decreased as scores onPaulhus’s measure of social desirability response bias increased (i.e., under-reporting nonacceptable behavior). Conversely, self-reported beliefs about cheat-ing increased as scores on Paulhus’s measure of social desirability response bias


increased (i.e., overreporting acceptable behavior). Not surprisingly, cheating on amajor examination correlated with cheating on a minor examination, and these ac-tions correlated with being caught cheating. Being caught cheating and cheatingon a major or minor examination also associate with the knowledge that cheating iswrong, dishonest, and unethical. Surprisingly, cheating on either a major or minorexamination did not correlate with students’ perceptions of the increased level ofcompetition for grades. Perhaps Lord and Melvin’s (1997) observation that there isa group of hard-core cheaters for whom cheating is the preferred method for takingexaminations is correct.

Level and Perceptions of Cheating (RQ1 and RQ2)

The survey data indicate that 51.0% of the students admitted to having cheated:14.6% on both major and minor examinations, 2.8% on just major examinationsand 33.6% just minor examinations. In the analysis, we use the responses of thestudents from the United States as our control group and use indicator variables forthe responses for the students from the other three countries. Table 3 presents thedata for the five questions relating to the level of cheating on major and minor ex-aminations; whether cheating was the result of competition for grades; whethercheating is wrong, dishonest, or unethical; and whether the student had ever beencaught cheating. The data on the level of cheating indicate that, although studentsfrom China reported a higher level of cheating, χ2(1) = 3.84, p = .050, on major ex-aminations, students from Ireland reported a lower level of cheating on major ex-aminations, χ 2(1) = 7.03, p = .008, than students from the United States. Althoughstudents from Ireland also reported a lower level of cheating on minor examina-


TABLE 2Pearson Correlation Coefficients

Variables SDRB Caught Dishonest Competition Cheat–Minor

Cheat–major –0.210 0.155 –0.221 0.001 0.3380.000 0.003 0.000 0.647 0.000

Cheat–minor –0.270 0.233 –0.238 –0.0030.000 0.000 0.000 0.948

Competition –0.021 –0.099 –0.0580.677 0.057 0.258

Dishonest 0.228 –0.1450.000 0.004

Caught –0.1190.018

Note. SDRB = Score on Paulhus’s (1986) measure of social desirability response bias.

tions, χ 2(1) = 25.21, p < .000, students from Australia reported a higher level ofcheating on minor examinations, χ 2(1) = 4.97, p < .026.

The second group of questions dealt with whether cheating was the result ofcompetition for grades and whether cheating was wrong, dishonest, or unethical.Although students from Ireland reported a higher belief that cheating was the re-sult of competition for grades, χ2(1) = 5.87, p = .015, they also had a marginallyhigher reported belief that cheating was wrong, dishonest, or unethical, χ2(1) =3.60, p = .057. Although students from Australia reported the lowest belief thatcheating was the result of competition for grades, this difference was not statisti-cally significant.

The final question dealt with whether the participant had ever been caughtcheating. The students from Ireland reported a significantly lower rate of beingcaught cheating, χ2(1) = 5.28, p = .022. However, the students from Australia re-ported a higher rate of being caught cheating, χ2(1) = 5.46, p = .019. Of the stu-dents from the United States, 9.8% reported having been caught cheating, which isclose to the 6.0% that Ameen et al. (1996) reported. Consequently, Australia, withthe highest rate of cheating also had the highest rate of being caught; Ireland, withthe lowest rate of cheating had the lowest rate of being caught. The United Statesand China had similar cheating and being caught rates.

Ways of Cheating (RQ3)

Surprisingly, the students from all countries used nearly identical wordings fortheir responses to the areas in Table 4. The headings in Table 4 include all the re-sponses we combined into one category. For example, we coded responses as cribnotes when the students used the wording crib notes, cheat sheets, or note cards,which indicate the use of some form of illegal notes during examinations; thiscould occur in an accounting problems test as well as a management essay exami-nation. Copying or exchanging examinations could happen regardless of the field;


TABLE 3Levels and Reasons for Cheating

Australia China Ireland United States

Cheated onMajor exam (< 20%) 26.1 28.4 6.0 17.8Minor exam (≥ 20%) 73.7 52.3 25.0 56.9

Cheating isResult of competition for grades 47.8 65.9 73.7 58.6Wrong, dishonest, or unethical 87.0 87.5 91.9 83.9Have you ever been caught cheating 21.7 10.2 0.0 9.8

Note. All data are in percentages.

we suggest that this form of cheating is made easier if multiple-choice and/ortrue–false questions are used. Although programmable calculators would probablyapply to only quantitative courses, tapping codes and bathroom notes apply to allexaminations.

The data in this part of the analysis examine the way that students cheat on inclass examinations: written notes, copying from other students, and other ways ofcheating (Table 4). Although students from Australia and the United States werenot statistically different for any behavior in the writing group, students fromChina consistently reported substantially lower percentages for crib notes, χ2(1) =4.52, p = .033; body notes, χ2(1) = 2.98, p = .084; and notes on clothing, χ2(1) =5.81, p = .016. The only other difference in this group was that the students fromIreland reported writing notes on their bodies at a significantly higher rate, χ2(1) =21.17, p < .000.

The next area for analysis is using oral or visual communications to cheat onin-class examinations (Table 4); included in this group is having another studenttake the examination for you. The data indicate that visual and oral communicationwas the highest reported area, accounting for 48.6% of the reported ways to cheaton in-class examinations. Students from Australia reported substantially lowerpercentages for looking on and copying another student’s examination, χ2(1) =12.96, p < .000. The only other statistically significant behavior in this group wasfor the students from China who reported a significantly higher rate, χ 2(1) = 11.26,p = .001, of asking for answers and/or exchanging examinations.

The final group of behaviors (i.e., miscellaneous) included programming calcu-lators, the use of cell phones and/or tapping codes, and bathroom notes. The data


TABLE 4Ways That Students Cheat on In-Class Examinations


WritingCheat sheets/Note cards/Crib notes 25.9 11.4 17.8 22.4Writing notes on body 1.9 2.3 30.7 8.0Writing on clothing/other things 11.1 3.4 13.9 13.8

Visual/Oral communicationLooking at/copying another’s exam 22.2 55.7 49.5 51.2Asking for answers/exchanging exams — 18.2 — 4.6Having another student take exam — 6.8 — —

MiscellaneousProgramming calculators 3.7 3.4 4.0 8.0Cell phone or tapping codes — 25.0 1.0 3.4Notes/books hidden in bathroom — — 18.8 1.2Total response rate 64.8 126.2 135.7 112.6


indicate that this group accounted for only 14.3% of the reported ways to cheat onin-class examinations. The only significant differences were that students fromChina reported substantially higher percentage of using cell phones and/or tappingcodes, χ2(1) = 21.39, p < .000, and Ireland reported a higher percentage of hidingnotes in bathrooms, χ2(1) = 11.73, p = .001, as ways to cheat on in-class examina-tions. Finally, the response rates at the bottom of Table 4 indicate that, except forthe students from Australia, χ2(1) = 18.98, p < .000, some of the students from thethree other countries provided two ways of cheating. Although some students pro-vided two responses, all students provided at least one way of cheating.

Methods to Discourage Cheating (RQ4)

The data in this part of the analysis examine the ways to discourage cheating: vary-ing examinations, the professors’ role during examinations, and punishments forcheating (Table 5). The most frequently reported ways to deter cheating throughthe use of examinations were using different tests each time the course is taught,scrambling the questions on the same test, and using essay examinations whenpossible. Except for the students from Australia, whose response was significantlylower, χ2(1) = 4.85, p = .028, the remaining students recommended that instructorsuse different examinations for each section and/or each semester. The last twomethods of deterring cheating (i.e., scrambling test questions and essay exams)were suggested only by students from the United States.

Except for the students from Australia, who reported the highest incidence useof crib cards (Table 4), students suggested an increased level of instructor supervi-


TABLE 5Suggested Deterrents to Cheating on Examinations


TestsDifferent tests each time 3.7 13.6 11.9 16.7Scrambling questions on test — — — 5.2Essay exams — — — 0.6

Professor’s roleIncreased supervision — 5.7 14.9 8.0Spread students out 1.9 — 2.0 4.0Check calculators — — 2.0 0.6

PunishmentsHarsher punishments 7.4 13.6 18.8 9.2Automatic F in course 1.9 — 3.0 2.9Automatic expulsion from school 3.7 — 4.0 0.6

Total response rate 18.6 32.9 56.6 47.8


sion during in-class examinations. The students from Ireland suggest this methodat a marginally higher rate, χ2(1) = 3.05, p = .081. There were no significant differ-ences among the students’ responses for spreading students out in the classroomwhenever possible or examining calculators for notes.

Students from Ireland had a higher level of suggesting harsher punishment forbeing caught cheating, χ 2(1) = 5.13, p = .024. However, although students feltharsher punishments were required, only a small percentage made suggestionsranging from students receiving an automatic F for the course when caught cheat-ing to automatic expulsion from school for cheating. The students from China didnot suggest any specific punishments. Finally, the response rates at the bottom ofTable 5 indicate that, except for the students from Ireland, the students from Aus-tralia, χ2(1) = 13.25, p < .000, and China, χ2(1) = 5.95, p = .015, had a lower re-sponse rates to this area of questions. No student provided multiple responses toany questions in Table 5.

Comparing Respondents to Nonrespondents

To determine whether there were any differences between those who responded tothe survey questions regarding ways of cheating (Table 4) and deterrents to cheat-ing (Table 5) and those who did not respond, we analyzed our data using logisticregression (Table 6). During this analysis, the participants from the United Stateswere always coded as zero and the participants from the other three countries werecoded with a series of three indicator variables. We also examined whether a par-ticipant’s score on Paulhus’s Impression Management subscale, which measuresan individual’s propensity to respond in a socially desirable manner, was related toresponding or not responding to these open-ended questions.

The data indicate that the nonresponse rates varied among countries for thequestion on ways of cheating (Table 4): 7.4% for Australia, 7.9% for Ireland, 8.0%for China, and 8.6% for the United States. The data also indicate that the non-response rates varied among countries for the question on deterrents to cheating(Table 5): 30.6% for Ireland, 31.5% for Australia, 36.4% for China, and 40.2% forthe United States. Although the rates for both questions varied, the data in panels Aand B of Table 6 indicate that none of these variables was associated with respond-ing or not responding at traditional levels of significance.

DISCUSSION

There has been a dramatic increase in the level of cheating over the past 50 years(Sims, 1993); however, our understanding of college cheating is limited, as the ma-jority of studies use samples from the United States. The current data suggest, asother research has reported, that cheating on an examination is a relatively low-risk


tactic (Table 2). Our data support research that also indicates the current level ofcheating might be the result of instructors not wanting to confront the situation ornot taking relatively simple precautions to prevent it from happening. Our researchconfirms most of the suggestions provided by Smith et al. (2004) as ways to reducecheating on in class examinations. Similar to Smith et al.’s suggestion to distributedifferent forms of the same test, the students in this study recommend scramblingtest items. Our data also replicate Smith et al.’s finding that instructors should pro-vide increased supervision and spreading students out. Although not specificallygiven as a method to deter cheating, our participants also indicated that lookingat/or copying another’s examination and asking for answers or exchanging exami-nations were mentioned as common ways of cheating on in-class examinations.All of these methods can be deterred by increased instructor supervision. Conse-quently, we suggest that, taken with prior research, our research provides a signifi-cant contribution to the existent literature in which international replication studiesare seldom done.

Professors maintain that confronting a student(s) who have cheated is per-ceived as “one of the most negative aspects of the teaching profession” (Keith-Spiegel et al., 1998, p. 224). Our data suggest that professorate should take astronger stand on cheating given the enormous consequences of Enron and simi-lar financial disasters. This is especially true, as more than 90% of the universitystudents believed that ignoring cheating was either “unethical under most cir-


TABLE 6Comparing Respondents to Nonrespondents

Coefficient 2 Statistic Prob. 2

Panel A: Ways of cheating on in-class examinationsModel

Regression 0.008 1.91 0.753Term

Intercept –2.63 24.70 0.000SDRB 0.06 1.39 0.238Australia –0.19 0.42 0.519China 0.05 0.05 0.821Ireland 0.07 0.09 0.764

Panel B: Deterrents to cheating on examinationsModel

Regression 0.010 5.45 0.244Term

Intercept –2.63 1.27 0.259SDRB –0.02 0.23 0.632Australia –0.23 1.43 0.232China 0.59 0.19 0.667Ireland 0.20 2.36 0.125

cumstances” or “unethical under virtually all circumstances” (Keith-Spiegel etal., 1998).

Wajda-Johnston et al.’s (2001, p. 298) findings, which this research supports,indicate that instructors can significantly reduce cheating by taking relatively sim-ple precautions such as frequently changing tests (36.6%), assigning seating dur-ing tests (49.4%), and carefully monitoring of students during tests (65.0%). Thisresearch supports Wajda-Johnston et al.’s suggestions for reducing cheating. Moreimportant, Wajda-Johnston et al.’s data suggest that the probability of cheatingcould be reduced by approximately 67% by frequently changing tests and assign-ing seating during tests. Consequently, in addition to reducing the probability ofcheating, these precautions also reduce the probability of having to confront a stu-dent who one believes has cheated.

Finally, some of the students from all of the countries in our sample called forharsher penalties for those found cheating; however, only 11.2% of the samplesuggested harsher punishments. Whereas the students from Australia, Ireland, andthe United States suggested penalties such as receiving an automatic F in thecourse and/or being automatically expelled from school, the students from Chinawere silent in this area; however, it should be noted that the response rates for thesewere very low. As suggested by prior literature, these penalties imply that studentsare aware of the penalties for cheating prior to taking an in-class examination.

English was the common language for all countries in our sample except China;thus a limitation exists with respect to our Chinese sample. One could argue thatnonnative speakers, however familiar with English, do not necessarily translatequestions in a straightforward fashion. As a result, it is open to question whetherthe obtained findings might be influenced by translation problems. The number ofcultures being compared to American culture is selective but relatively small; thusthe generalizability of our results can be questioned. However, the generalizabilityof any study is questionable unless all countries are included. For example, al-though most studies on cheating examine just the United States, our U.S. data arenot really comparable to the data from Ireland. The cheating rate for the UnitedStates is 74.7% (i.e., combining major and minor categories), whereas it is only31% for Ireland.

Given the use of a broader sample in this research, our results are moregeneralizable than prior research; however, considerable research is still needed inthis area. One suggestion for future studies in this line of research is to select coun-tries that have different cultural constructs to the ones in this study. Another sug-gestion is to examine why cheating on either a major or minor examination did notcorrelate with students’perceptions of the competition for grades. The informationon instructor involvement indicates the potential for future research. Such a studycould contrast the perceptions of students and faculty members concerning thelevel of classroom cheating as well as strategies to discourage classroom cheating.Another potential area for future research is to examine whether setting a course


policy and specifying disciplinary procedures against cheating effect the percep-tions of cheating on examinations.

REFERENCES

Alexander, D., Burns, G., Manor, R., McRoberts, F., & Torriero, E. A. (2003, September 1). The fall ofAndersen. Chicago Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/showcase/chi-0209010315sep01

Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (1996). Accounting students’ perceptions of question-able academic practices and factors affecting their propensity to cheat. Accounting Education, 5(3),191–205.

Arnold, D. F., Bernardi, R. A., & Neidermeyer, P. (1999). The effect of independence on decisions con-cerning additional audit work: A European perspective. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,18(2), 45–67.

Arnold, D. F., Bernardi, R. A., & Neidermeyer, P. (2001). The effect of client integrity, litigation, andculture on European materiality estimates. The International Journal of Accounting, 36(4), 459–483.

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. (2004). Ethics education in business schools.St. Louis, MO: AACSB International.

Baack, D., Fogliasso, C., & Harris, J. (2000). The personal impact of ethical decisions: A social pene-tration theory. Journal of Business Ethics, 24(1), 39–49.

Bernardi, R. A. (1994). Validating research results when cronbach’s alpha is below .70: A methodologi-cal procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54(3), 766–775.

Bernardi, R. A., & Adamaitis, K. L. (2006). Data contamination by social desirability response bias: Aninternational study of students’ cheating behavior. Research on Professional Responsibility and Eth-ics in Accounting, 11, 157–184.

Bernardi, R. A., Delorey, E. L., LaCross, C. C., & Waite, R. A. (2003). Evidence of social desirabilityresponse bias in ethics research: An international study. The Journal of Applied Business Research,19(3), 41–51.

Bernardi, R. A., & Long, S. (2004). Family values, competition and the environment: An internationalstudy. International Business and Economics Research Journal, 3(1), 1–11.

Burns, S. R., Davis, S. F., Hoshino, J., & Miller, R. L. (1998). Academic dishonesty: A delineation ofcross-cultural patterns. College Student Journal, 32(4), 590–596.

Energy Information Administration. (2002). Gross domestic product. International Energy Annual.Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/populationandgdp.html

Faulkender, P. J., Range, L. M., Hamilton, M., Strehlow, M., Jackson, S. B., Blanchard, E., et al. (1994).The case of the stolen psychology test: An analysis of an actual cheating incident. Ethics & Behavior,4(3), 209–217.

Haswell, S., Jubb, P., & Wearing, B. (1999). Accounting students and cheating: A comparative studyfor Australia, South Africa and the UK. Teaching Business Ethics, 3(3), 211–239.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organi-zations across nations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1984, January). Culture dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal ofManagement, pp. 81–99.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill.Husted, B. W. (1999). Wealth, culture and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2),

339–360.


ITIM International. (2006). Geert Hofstede cultural dimensions. Stockholm, Sweden: Author. Re-trieved from http://www.geert-hofstede .com/hofstede_china.shtml

Jendrek, M. P. (1992). Students’ reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Develop-ment, 33(3), 260–273.

Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (2002). It’s wrong but everybody does it: Ac-ademic dishonesty among high school and college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,27(2), 209–228.

Jeurissen, R., & van Luijk, H. (1998). The ethical reputations of managers in nine EU countries: Across-referential survey. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(9/10), 995–1005.

Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes andknowledge of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 233–247.

Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Washburn, J. (1998). Why professors ignorecheating: Opinions of a national sample of psychology instructors. Ethics & Behavior, 8(3),215–227.

Keith-Spiegel, P., Wittig, A. F., Perkins, D. V., Balogh, D. W., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1993). The ethics ofteaching: A casebook. Muncie, IN: Ball State University Press.

Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the“real world”? Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), 189–199.

Lim, V. K. G., & See, S. K. B. (2001). Attitudes toward, and intentions to report, academic cheatingamong students in Singapore. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 261–274.

Lord, A. T., & Melvin, K. B. (1997). The attitudes of accounting students, faculty and employers to-wards cheating. Research on Accounting Ethics, 3, 1–20.

Lucas, G. M., & Friedrich, J. (2005). Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as pre-dictors of academic dishonesty. Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 15–35.

McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The influence of student honorcodes. Research in Higher Education, 34(5), 647–658.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual in-fluences. Journal of Higher Education, 64(5), 522–538.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor-code andnon honor-code environments: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Higher Education, 70(2),211–234.

McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions: A de-cade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 219–232.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Nyaw, M., &Ng, I. (1994). A comparative analysis of ethical beliefs: A four country study. Journal of

Business Ethics, 13(7), 543–555.Paulhus, D. L. (1986). Self-deception and impression management in test responses. In A. Angleiter &

J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personality assessment via questionnaire: Current issues in theory and mea-surement (pp. 17–41). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Payne, S. L., & Nantz, K. S. (1994). Social accounts and metaphors about cheating. College Teaching,42(3), 90–97.

Rettinger, D. A., & Jordan, A. E. (2005). The relations among religion, motivation, and college cheat-ing: A natural experiment. Ethics & Behavior, 15(2), 107–129.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Salter, S. B., Guffey, D. M., & McMillan, J. J. (2001). Truth, consequences and culture: A comparativeexamination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. and U.K. students. Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, 31(1), 37–50.

Sims, R. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Jour-nal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207–211.


Sims, R. (1995). The severity of academic dishonesty: A comparison of faculty and student views. Psy-chology in the Schools, 32(3), 233–238.

Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., & Easterling, D. (2004). An examination of cheating and its antecedentsamong marketing and management majors. Journal of Business Ethics, 50(1), 63–80.

Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., Rosenberg, D. L., & Haight, G. T. (2002). A structural modeling investigationof the influence of demographic and attitudinal factors and in-class deterrents on cheating behavioramong accounting majors. Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), 45–65.

Smyth, M. L., & Davis, J. R. (2003). An examination of student cheating in the two-year college. Com-munity College Review, 31(1), 17–33.

Thorne, L., & Saunders, S. B. (2002). The socio-cultural embeddedness of individuals’ ethical reason-ing in organizations (cross-cultural ethics). Journal of Business Ethics, 35(1), 1–14.

Transparency International. (2002). Corruption perceptions index: An index of perceptions of busi-ness people of corruption around the world. Berlin, Germany: Author. Retrieved from cpi2002/cpi2002en.htm

Vitell, S., Mwachukwu, S. & Barnes, J. (1993). The effects of culture on ethical decision-making: Anapplication of Hofstede’s typology. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(10), 753–760.

Wajda-Johnston, V. A., Handal, P. J., Brawer, P. A., & Fabricatore, A. N. (2001). Academic dishonestyat the graduate level. Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), 287–305.

Waugh, R. F., Godfrey, J. R., Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1995). Measuring students’ perceptions aboutcheating in six countries. Australian Journal of Psychology, 47(2), 73–80.

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Researchin Higher Education, 39(3), 235–274.

Zerbe, W. J., & Paulhus, D. L. (1987). Socially desirable responding in organizational behavior: Areconception. Academy of Management Journal, 12(2), 250–264.


Bernardi 2008 Methods of Cheating

Documents

Transcript of Bernardi 2008 Methods of Cheating