Emily E. LaBeff

College cheating: Immaturity, lack of commitment, and the neutralizing attitude

Through the use of a 49-item questionnaire administered to 380 university students, we investigated student cheating on exams, quizzes, and homework assignments. More than half the students reported cheating during the academic year on at least one of the above. The purpose of this paper was to uncover fundamental factors underlying cheating behavior. Through the use of correlational and factor analysis, three primary factors were identified: student immaturity, lack of commitment to academics, and neutralization. We offer interpretations of these factors and suggestions for testing these and other factors in future research.

College Cheating: Ten Years Later.

In this 10-year follow-up study of student cheating, we surveyed 474 university students to (1) evaluate the extent of cheating; (2) assess attitudes toward cheating; (3) identify variables that discriminate between cheaters and noncheaters; (4) assess the relative effectiveness of various deterrents to cheating; and (5) examine changes in cheating attitudes and behaviors from 1984 to 1994. Most students (61.2%) reported cheating in 1994, up significantly from 54.1% in 1984 (Haines et al., 1986). Despite this increased cheating, students in 1994 were significantly less likely than in 1984 to neutralize (rationalize) their cheating. Ten variables that discriminated between cheaters and noncheaters in 1984 did so again in 1994, and 12 additional discriminating variables were identified. A principal components analysis of these 22 variables indicated that, compared to noncheaters, cheaters are (1) less mature; (2) less reactive to observed cheating; (3) less deterred by social stigma and guilt and more likely to neutralize cheating; (4) less personally invested in their education; and (5) more likely to be receiving scholarships, but doing less well in school. Both cheaters and noncheaters rated embarrassment and fear of punishment as the strongest deterrents to cheating; disapproval of ones friends was ranked as the least effective deterrent by both groups.

COLLEGE CHEATING IN JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES

This paper reports the results of a survey onacademic dishonesty given to samples of 392 American and276 Japanese college students in 1994 and 1995. Our datarevealed both cross-cultural differences and similarities in cheating behavior andattitudes. Compared to American students, Japanesestudents reported a higher incidence rate of cheating onexams, a greater tendency to neutralize (i.e., justify) cheating, and a greater passivity in theirreactions to the observed cheating of others. Amongcheaters of both nationalities, Japanese students ratedsocial stigma and fear of punishment as less effective in deterring cheating than did Americanstudents. Our data also revealed cross-culturalsimilarities. Among noncheaters of both nationalities,guilt was the most effective deterrent. Among cheatersof both nationalities, fear of punishment was the mosteffective deterrent. And students of both cultures,cheaters and noncheaters alike, viewed social stigma asthe least effective deterrent to cheating. In both cultures, most students react to cheating byignoring it, about one-third react by resenting it, andactive reactions (i.e., reporting the cheating orconfronting the cheater) were seldom reported.Explanations for cross-cultural differences are suggested,and implications of these findings for efforts to reducecheating are discussed.

College Cheating: A Twenty-Year Follow-Up and the Addition of an Honor Code.

This study examines university students’ behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs related to academic dishonesty using data collected in 1984, 1994, and 2004. We are unaware of any other research program that has used the same instrument to monitor academic dishonesty at the same institution over such a long period of time. Several authors have critiqued the academic dishonesty literature, questioning the validity of comparing historical and recent studies (Brown & Emmett, 2001; Graham, Monday, O’Brien, & Steffen, 1994; Whitley, 1998; Whitley, Nelson, & Jones, 1999) since different studies have measured academic dishonesty in many different ways (Vowell and Chen, 2004). Whitley et al. (1999) stated, “Some of this variance [in reported cheating incidence rates], perhaps a substantial degree, could be due to the wide range of measures used to assess both cheating behavior and attitudes...In the case of both attitudes and behavior the studies used too many different operational definitions to allow assessment of the relationship between operational definition and effect size” (pg. 667). Brown and Emmett (2001) have also questioned studies that report high levels of college cheating, suggesting that these studies might simply be defining cheating in broader terms. In the current study, students were defined as “cheaters” if they reported cheating at some time in their college career on quizzes, exams, or assignments, however they defined those terms. All others were defined as “noncheaters.” This same rule was also followed in 1984 and 1994. In 1984, we found that 54% of students admitted to cheating and we characterized these cheaters as immature, lacking educational commitment, and likely to use neutralizing attitudes to lessen guilt associated with cheating (Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, & Clark, 1986). Cheating increased in 1994 to 61%. This increase was significant and suggested that academic dishonesty was on the rise. Cheaters continued to neutralize more than noncheaters; however, both cheaters and noncheaters evidenced less neutralizing than the 1984 cohort. Even as cheating increased, neutralizing decreased, indicating to us that academic dishonesty had become so normative that it was no longer viewed by students as a deviant behavior that needed to be justified (Diekhoff et al., 1996). The recent literature has reported similarly high rates of overall academic dishonesty, with reports ranging from 52-90% (Genereux & McLeod, 1995; Graham et al., 1994; Lester & Diekhoff, 2002; McCabe & Bowers, 1994; Vowell and Chen, 2004). Academic dishonesty percentages are lower if one looks at behavior within a specific semester. For example, Jordan (2001) found that only 31% of students cheated on an exam or paper during one semester. In addition, 9% of the students in

Death Telling: Managing the Delivery of Bad News

This research focuses on the strategies used by various professionals in delivering news of death. The lack of well defined, normative guidelines for such deliveries adds to the problematic nature of the interaction. From in-depth interviews with physicians, nurses, law enforcement officers, and clergy, a loose framework based on common themes was generated providing a processual view of death telling. Five distinct strategies of delivery developed within the framework. Discussion of each strategy indicates the significance of situational and occupational factors in delivering news of death. This study, though exploratory in nature, clarifies some of the processes involved in the delivery of bad news, and identifies several important problems surrounding death telling, such as lack of training and preparation among professionals for this role and their dislike for this aspect of their work.

Ending intimate relationships: Strategies of breaking off

This research represents a continuation of efforts to examine the area of bad news delivery and focuses on the messages and subsequent strategies used by people in delivering news of a desire to terminate an intimate relationship. The lack of well‐defined, normative guidelines for such deliveries adds to the problematic nature of the interaction. Based on indepth, unstructured interviews, a framework based on common themes providing a procedural view of the delivery process was constructed. Discussion of various strategies indicated the significance of situational factors in delivering this type of bad news. The study, although exploratory in nature, will hopefully clarify some of the processes involved in the delivery of news of a desire to terminate a relationship and identify several important problems surrounding this complex and serious form of interaction.

College Cheating Thirty Years Later: The Role of Academic Entitlement

ABSTRACT This research reports on a thirty-year follow-up study of academic dishonesty, often referred to as college cheating. The present study examines the role of academic entitlement as a predictor of college cheating. A sense of entitlement is regarded as a primary characteristic of today’s millennial students, those born between 1980 and 2000. However, previous research has never investigated the role of academic entitlement on college cheating. Instead, previous research has mostly favored neutralization as a theoretical explanation for academic dishonesty. The results indicate that, even though reports of college cheating have decreased over time, academic entitlement is a significant predictor of cheating in college.