Are Competition and Extrinsic Motivation Reliable Predictors of Academic Cheating?

Abstract

Previous studies suggest that extrinsic motivation and competition are reliable predictors of academic cheating. The aim of the present questionnaire study was to separate the effects of motivation- and competition-related variables on academic cheating by Hungarian high school students (N = 620, M = 264, F = 356). Structural equation modeling showed that intrinsic motivation has a negative effect, and amotivation has a positive indirect effect on self-reported academic cheating. In contrast, extrinsic motivation had no significant effect. Indirect positive influence on cheating, based on some characteristics of hypercompetition, was also found, whereas attitudes toward self-developmental competition had a mediated negative influence. Neither constructive nor destructive competitive classroom climate had a significant impact on academic dishonesty. Acceptance of cheating and guilt has significant and direct effect on self-reported cheating. In comparison with them, the effects of motivational and competition-related variables are relatively small, even negligible. These results suggest that extrinsic motivation and competition are not amongst the most reliable predictors of academic cheating behavior.

Academic cheating and time perspective: Cheaters live in the present instead of the future

“…Participants answer by using a slightly modified 5-point scale (1 = not even once, 2 = 1-2 times; 3 = 3-5 times; 4 = 6-10 times; 5 = more than 10 times). This five-point scale was different from the original version of McCabe and Trevino (1997) as higher rates of cheating were measured in previous Hungarian and Eastern-European studies (Grimes, 2004;Orosz et al, 2013;. McCabe and Trevino (1997) did not specify the frequency of the cheating (1 = never; 2 = once; 3 = a few times; 4 = several times; 5 = many times) and the academic time span (one semester vs. during all high school years) in their original scale.…”

“…Eastern-European results also demonstrated a negative link between intrinsic motivation and cheating, however the link between extrinsic motivation and cheating was not supported (Orosz et al, 2013). Furthermore, amotivation (i.e., the lack of extrinsic or intrinsic motivation in terms of low inclination in academic activities as a result of the lack of perceived causality between one's action and the results and the lack of feeling competency) was positively related to academic cheating (e.g., Angell, 2006;Harding, Carpenter, Finelli, & Passow, 2004;Park, Park, & Jang, 2013).…”

“…"; αS1 = .58, αS2 = .63), Present Hedonistic (three items; e.g., "I take risks to put excitement in my life. "; αS1 = .78, αS2 = .75), Present Fatalistic (three items; e.g., "My life path is controlled by forces I cannot influence"; αS1 = .50, αS2 = .52), and Future (four items; e.g., "I complete Vallerand et al's (1992) Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) for high school samples was translated and adapted to Hungarian samples by Orosz et al (2013). In this version students respond to the question of "Why do you go to school?".…”

“…In this version students respond to the question of "Why do you go to school?". On the basis of a prior study (Orosz et al, 2013), only three factors were identified reliably (instead of the original seven factors). First, intrinsic motivation to know which refers to pleasure and the satisfaction determined learning/academic behavior (three items; e.g., "Because I experience pleasure and satisfaction while learning new things.…”

“…Moreover, it is also known how these academic motivations can influence academic cheating (Anderman & Murdock, 2007;Angell, 2006;Orosz et al, 2013). However, less is known about the potential direct and indirect effects of TP dimensions on academic cheating when taking academic motivations into account.…”