Students' reactions after cheating: An attributional analysis

Evaluating the Motivation of Other Students to Cheat: A Vignette Experiment

“…Further research can continue to demonstrate the value of the method by allowing participants to evaluate a broader range of variables that may affect cheating. There are a number of other aspects of students that have been linked to cheating that should be explored in vignettes, including attitudes toward cheating, locus of control (Forsyth, Pope, and McMillan, 1985), moral issues (May and Loyd, 1993) and religion (Rettinger and Jordan, under review). While a meta-analysis conducted by Crown and Spiller (1998) indicates that students with external loci of control, those lacking a personal moral code and those with negative attitudes toward cheating are less likely to cheat, there is some dissent on these issues.…”

Academic Integrity: The Relationship between Individual and Situational Factors on Misconduct Contemplations

“…Crown and SpillerÕs (1998) review of 25 years of academic integrity research found only one personality variable with consistently significant results. Their review identified four studies, one survey (Houston, 1983) and three experiments (Forsyth et al, 1985;Karabenick and Srull, 1978;Leming, 1980) in which externals on RotterÕs (1966) locus of control measure, were more likely to cheat than internals. Kelly and Worrell (1978) investigated various demographic and personality factors associated with cheating on a self-scored, extra-credit task.…”

“…variables, such as age and gender, were examined (e.g., McCabe and Trevino, 1997). Studies that examined the influence of personality factors, such as locus of control (Forsyth et al, 1985;Karabenick and Srull, 1978;Leming, 1980), harm avoidance (Kelly and Worrell, 1978), achievement (Hetherington and Feldman, 1964), and self-control (Bolin, 2004) on academic dishonesty did not use personality factors corresponding to the Five-Factor Personality Model nor considered the impact of situational factors in their investigations.…”

Organizational Theory and Student Cheating: Explanation, Responses, and Strategies

“…For example, some researchers found that cheaters have external attributional biases that enable them to justify their student cheating, and non-cheaters have an internal attributional bias (Davis et al, 1992;Forsyth, Pope, & McMillan, 1985;Payne & Nantz, 1994) that is, "cheaters excuse their cheating" (Davis et al, 1992, p. 19). Other researchers have found that students also have difficulty reporting on friends who cheat because they cannot reconcile friendship and loyalty with integrity (Drinan, 1999) and because they do not want to risk getting involved (Jendrek, 1992).…”