Social influences on cheating in collectivistic culture: Collaboration but not competition.

Abstract

Cheating has become a global problem that is ubiquitous in various facets of human life. While previous literature has suggested a link between cheating and competition, another type of social relation, that is, collaboration, could arguably promote cheating behavior, particularly with a sample of participants who held collectivistic values. To examine whether competition, collaboration, or a combination of both caused participants to overreport the dice score, we designed a novel experimental dice-rolling paradigm in a lab setting. Across 4 studies, we found that collaboration but not competition triggered potential cheating behavior. Participants were inclined to overreport their scores when they were paired with cheating partners; this pattern was not evident when they did it individually or when they were paired with honest partners. This behavioral change was also accompanied by a change in participants’ perception of the experimental conditions. Furthermore, we found that the dice score overreporting behavior was exclusively contingent upon their partner’s influence. In a collectivistic society, potential cheating seems to be triggered by collaboration as opposed to competition, as previous literature has suggested. Our findings suggest that the determinant of potential cheating behavior is rather culturally specific.

Exploring Muslim Pre-Service Teachers’ Honesty on Cheating and Plagiarism: A Survey in Indonesian Islamic University

“…Analysing the prevalent of academic dishonesty among students, there are several contributing factors to this, as it is supported by Balbuena & Lamela (2015), who argue that the reasons lie in the burden of curriculum policy, student and teacher incompetence, and study environment. Further, the phenomena are confirmed by the study done by Jamaluddin et al (2021), revealing that in a collectivistic society, cheating practice is triggered by collaboration rather than competition. The finding further suggests that cheating practice is potentially driven by culture.…”

Collaborative dishonesty: A meta-analytic review.

“…Based on these inclusion criteria, we excluded reports in which participants interacted with a simulated, preprogrammed “partner” instead of an actual participant (Jamaluddin et al, 2020; Schabram et al, 2018; Ścigała et al, 2019). Further, similar to a previous meta-analysis on dishonesty (Gerlach et al, 2019), we focus on settings where groups had a financial incentive (or equivalent, e.g., gifts, sweets) to lie, and lying was not sanctioned.…”

Kecurangan Pembelajaran Daring Pada Awal Pandemi: Dimensi Fraud Pentagon

“…Mayoritas responden pada penelitian ini menganggap bekerja sama dengan teman saat ujian daring merupakan bentuk solidaritas. Persepsi mahasiswa sekarang ini menganggap bahwa kecurangan sebagai bentuk kerja sama bukan lagi sebagai kompetisi (Jamaluddin, Adi, & Lutfityanto, 2020) Solidaritas pertemanan berarti mengangaap berbagi jawaban satu sama lain sebagai hal yang wajar dilakukan. Adanya pembenaran seperti banyaknya teman yang juga melakukan kecurangan selama pembelajaran daring dapat mendorong siswa untuk melakukan kecurangan.…”