Origins of Academic Dishonesty

Reitmaier-Koehler

2015

JNEP

The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between academic cheating and a series of academic and demographic characteristics, as well as the relationship between the various characteristics and social desirability bias. The population for the study was comprised of 626 nursing students (pre-nursing, baccalaureate students formally admitted into the program, and graduate students) attending a regional comprehensive university located in the Midwest. The results of the study revealed that 53.8% of undergraduate students and 36.5% of graduate students self-reported having engaged in at least one of the 16 forms of academic cheating during the previous semester, primarily in acts classified as plagiarism. The current study further explored misconduct among students seeking a BSN and found that 35.2% of students participated in at least one act of professional misconduct in the clinical setting. There were statistically significant differences between the characteristics of age and prevalence of plagiarism-related academic cheating, planned cheating, spontaneous cheating, and professional misconduct, implying that older students cheat less frequently. Likewise, the more credits a student completed the less likely they were to plagiarize or engage in spontaneous cheating. Additionally, older students and students having completed higher number of credits received higher scores on the social desirability scale, implying they had a higher tendency to display social desirability bias.

Section: Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social desirability bias in relation to academic cheating behaviors of nursing students

Reitmaier-Koehler

2015

JNEP

“…The rise of the Internet has increased immensely the number of ways students can cheat. It provides access to easily copyable articles, purchasing of coursework essays (through so-called 'essay mills') and the facility to text examination questions and answers in real time (Etter, Cramer, & Finn, 2006;Simkin & McLeod, 2010;Thibodeau, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What motivates academic dishonesty in students? A reinforcement sensitivity theory explanation

Bacon

McDaid

Williams

et al. 2019

Brit J of Edu Psychol

Background Academic dishonesty (AD) is an increasing challenge for universities worldwide. The rise of the Internet has further increased opportunities for students to cheat. Aims In this study, we investigate the role of personality traits defined within Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST) as potential determinants of AD. RST defines behaviour as resulting from approach (Reward Interest/reactivity, goal‐drive, and Impulsivity) and avoidance (behavioural inhibition and Fight–Flight–Freeze) motivations. We further consider the role of deep, surface, or achieving study motivations in mediating/moderating the relationship between personality and AD. Sample A sample of UK undergraduates (N = 240). Method All participants completed the RST Personality Questionnaire, a short‐form version of the study process questionnaire and a measure of engagement in AD, its perceived prevalence, and seriousness. Results Results showed that RST traits account for additional variance in AD. Mediation analysis suggested that GDP predicted dishonesty indirectly via a surface study approach while the indirect effect via deep study processes suggested dishonesty was not likely. Likelihood of engagement in AD was positively associated with personality traits reflecting Impulsivity and Fight–Flight–Freeze behaviours. Surface study motivation moderated the Impulsivity effect and achieving motivation the FFFS effect such that cheating was even more likely when high levels of these processes were used. Conclusions The findings suggest that motivational personality traits defined within RST can explain variance in the likelihood of engaging in dishonest academic behaviours.

Proc. Assoc. Info. Sci. Tech.

“…It has been suggested that a third of researchers engage in plagiarism, but this statistic has not yet appeared in the scientific literature (Crace, 2003). Both plagiarism and self-plagiarism are increasing over time (Larivière & Gingras, 2010;Waldron, 1992), but outside of personality traits (Etter et al, 2006) the causes of plagiarism have not been addressed in the literature.…”

Section: Frequency Of Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One possible influence is enculturation; a study of PhD student attitudes to ethics and academic misconduct demonstrated high correlation with supervisor attitudes (Gray & Jordan, 2012). Further, supported we know that that personality traits affect tolerance for and propensity to plagiarism (Etter, Cramer, & Finn, 2006). A small-sample study of Australian academics' evaluation of varying levels of self-plagiarism revealed a near-dichotomy between those who do and those who don't (Bretag & Carapiet, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leader of the pack: On plagiarism prevention through research group enculturation

Buchanan

McKay

2018

Mispractice by researchers—plagiarism in particular—is, according to the research evidence enculturated within research groups. We interview a small sample of senior academics with a clean record regarding plagiarism, to investigate what has influenced their practice, and how they in turn influence the research groups and research students that they oversee. Our aim is to understand what strategies enculturate good practice. We point to surprisingly complex interactions between technology and culture.