An Examination of Academic Dishonesty Among Sorority and Nonsorority Women

Williams, Anna E.; Janosik, Steven M.

doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0066

Cited by 18 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, fourth-year students reported being more likely to cheat on exams in college than first-year students after adding pre-college cheating to the model. Students who participated in Greek life were more likely to cheat on an exam, findings later corroborated by Williams and Janosik (2007). Students who believed cheating to be morally wrong were less likely to cheat on an exam.…”

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 73%

“…Data analysis by ANOVA revealed women with an interest in Greek life and Greek women were more likely to participate in cheating behaviors than non-Greek and non-interested women (Williams & Janosik, 2007). Analysis also revealed that incoming women with no interest and upper-class unaffiliated women were less likely to cheat.…”

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Analysis of the responses about attitudes toward academic dishonesty revealed that the lower the mean score reported, the lower the group's perception of the severity of the cheating behavior (Williams & Janosik, 2007). The scores of Greek women and women interested in affiliating suggested these groups were less likely to believe the items on the scale were not cheating or were minor forms of academic dishonesty.…”

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Leming (1980) suggested that academic dishonesty is situation-specific and that its likelihood decreased in high risk situations. McCabe and Trevino (1997) discussed multiple personal and contextual variables that may contribute to whether or not a student will engage in such behavior, as did Chapman, Davis, Toy, and Wright (2004);DeBruin and Rudnick (2007); and Williams and Janosik (2007). Sometimes motivations, peer perception, and policy can influence students, as Jordan (2001) found, and at other times, the type of work assigned can elicit a desire to cheat (Passow, Mayew, Finelli, Harding, & Carpenter, 2006).…”

Section: Literature Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Williams and Janosik (2007) used a survey to examine attitudes and behaviors toward academic dishonesty among four groups of undergraduate women who were involved in or interested in being involved in Greek life.…”

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Academic dishonesty in online education.

Mills¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

for their constant encouragement to work hard and finish. To Dr. Sally Kuhlenschmidt, for her very, very early guidance and continued support, and to Dr. John Bruni, who was always happy to answer questions and offer advice, I also give thanks. Both of you did much to support and encourage me without even being on my committee, and I will always remember you both for that. A unique study design enabled examination of these ideas. In this deception study, a convenience sample of participants in face-to-face and online general education courses consented to a study on testing formats in online learning. They answered 18 items querying background information, took a 10-question reading quiz over an original topic, and answered 49 items about attitudes toward cheating and cheating behaviors. To mimic the drive for a good grade and encourage participants to do their best, the researcher offered a chance at a $400 incentive to those who scored high on the quiz. On the quiz, participants could answer only 7 of the 10 open-ended questions using the vi materials provided: to answer the others, participants had to cheat by looking up the remaining 3 on the Internet. The questionnaire's final item asked them to report if they had used outside sources on the quiz to check the accuracy of self-reported cheating.While analysis via t-tests revealed no significant differences between face-to-face and online students in their attitudes toward learning, nor did Pearson's r reveal any significant associations between online students' background variables and cheating, the study did provide a rate of accuracy of self-reported cheating. Analysis of qualitative data gave insight into undergraduates' ideas on what cheating is, how students might cheat, what causes cheating, and how educators and administrators might work to prevent academic dishonesty.

show abstract

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Literature Summarymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: General Predictorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations