In the current study intentions were measured as the extent to which

In the current study intentions were measured as the

This preview shows page 11 - 13 out of 51 pages.

1991; Davis, 1992; Fass, 1986; Mixon, 1996; Simpson, 1989). In the current study,intentions were measured as the extent to which participants considered cheating underdifferent circumstances. For practical purposes, significant intent may be more usefulthan behavior since it generalizes across situations such that cheating will occur whenpressures to do so are high and barriers are low. Reduction of intentions to cheat shouldreduce student engagement in cheating behaviors whereas the opposite is notnecessarily true given that actual engagement in cheating is a function of externalcircumstances (e.g., opportunities, penalties) as well as internal ones. The reasonsstudent justify in cheating are: poverty, lack of time, careless instructors, laziness, peerpressure, poor role model, and fear of failure (Robert, 2002). Also, heavy workloads,and teacher-centered reasons – such as poor instruction, confusing lectures, etc.(Baird, 1980; Generaux, 1995) – ignorance, uncertainty or confusion regarding what thebehavior comprises (Davis et al., 1992) can be added on the list.Attitude towards BehaviorAn indirect indicator of students’ attitudes towards academic misconduct is theirpropensity for reporting academic misconduct by others given that such students arepresumably less likely to engage in academic misconduct themselves. Research hasshown that students with favorable attitudes toward academic integrity policies are morelikely to report cheating than those who regard the policies as unfair (Simon, Carr,McCullough, Morgan, Oleson, & Ressel, 2004). Whitley’s (1998) review found a largeeffect for attitudes toward cheating across 16 studies, such that students who cheat11
Background image
have more favorable attitudes toward cheating that students who do not cheat. Studentshave developed new techniques of cheating (Johnson & Martin, 2005) though oldtechniques were still used in time. Academic dishonesty includes, lying, cheating onexams, copying of test responses from a classmate, taking exams for other people,altering or forging documents, buying papers, plagiarism, altering research results andmaking up sources and failure to cite other people’s work, breaking into the office toaccess test or answer key and a lot more (Arent, 1991; Moore, 1988; Paacker, 1990;Pratt & McLaughlin, 1989; Petress, 2003). Four areas of academic dishonesty: 1)cheating with the use of unauthorized materials, 2) fabrication or making up ofinformation, references or results, 3) plagiarism, and 4) engaging other students inacademic dishonesty (Pavela, 1978). In today’s generation, technology became a portfor student to find new tool for cheating. Students use cellphones to communicate withothers outside the exam room to obtain answers and get information and searching onthe web during examinations became a dispute on the educators of new generation(Johnson & Martin, 2005). On the research conducted by McCabe (2003), internetplagiarism ascends.
Background image
Image of page 13

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture