Effects of personality and situational variation in locus of control on cheating: Determinants of the "congruence effect"1

Abstract

Thirty-two male and 32 female introductory psychology students were given the opportunity to falsely report success (i.e., to cheat) on a series of objectively unsolvable achievement tasks. Consistent with previous evidence, a Personality X Situational Locus of Control interaction effect, accounting for 24% of the variance, was found whereby persons classified as having generalized internal locus of control beliefs (internals) cheated more when the task was described as requiring skill while those with external control beliefs (externals) cheated more when chance presumably determined performance outcomes. Differing rates of task persistence, postperformance belief and affect ratings. and stated reasons for cheating (or not) were consistent with both affective and cognitive theories in explaining the cheating to conform to their status on the internal stable dimension of ability, externals were concerned with maintaining a belief in their status as fortunate individuals, also conceived as an internal stable attributional determinant. No sex differences in cheating or persistence behavior were found.

Personality Characteristics, Sensation-Seeking, Locus of Control and Exam Anxiety as the Predictors of Exam Cheating Among the High School Students in Ahvaz City

“…Put it differently, no significant relationship was observed between the cheating and non-cheating students in terms of internal and external locus of control. This finding was in harmony with the results of the research carried out by Houston (1977) and Leming (1980), and not in line with the results of the studies by Karabenick and Srull (1978), Crown and Spiller (1998), Alarape and Onakoya (2003) and Boshoff and Van Zyl (2011). Based on the findings of Karabenick and Srull (1978), when the subjects with internal self-control were told that the assignment needs skill, they were more probable to cheat.…”

“…In another research by Karabenick and Srull (1978), the interactive effect between personality and locus of control was evaluated. In this research, when the subjects with internal self-control were told that the assignment needs skill, they were more probable to cheat.…”

It's Wrong, But Everybody Does It: Academic Dishonesty among High School and College Students

“…Also, research in other countries, such as South Africa, has shown a similar sex difference, with male students cheating more than female students (Burns, Davis, Hoshino, & Miller, 1998). From a cultural point of view, however, it is noteworthy that the results pertaining to sex differences on academic dishonesty have not been consistent in research with American students in that some studies have found that American female students cheat as much as or more so than American male students (Graham et al, 1994;Jacobson et al, 1970;Karabenick & Srull, 1978). Also, cross-cultural research has indicated that Japanese female students report engaging in more cheating than Japanese male students (Burns et al, 1998).…”

“…With respect to comparisons of male and female students, some researchers have found no sex differences (e.g., Karabenick & Srull, 1978). Others have found that female students engage in more academic dishonesty than male students (e.g., Graham et al, 1994;Jacobson, Berger, & Millham, 1970).…”

Psychological and moral determinants in accepting cheating and plagiarism among university students in Poland

“…Among factors related to situational and social contexts, it would be advisable to include in the model the probability of being caught cheating or plagiarising, the actual degree of consent to cheating or plagiarism on the lecturer's part as perceived by students, and the type of examination when cheating may occur most frequently. Research shows, in fact, that the type of task to be performed, and whether it depends on one's skill or just chance, influences the persons' cheating inclinations differently depending upon their internal or external locus of control (Karabenick & Srull, 1978). In order to consider such factors, a different methodology and experimental research would have to be applied.…”