To Cheat or not to Cheat? Sex Differences and Academic Performance as Factors of Cheating Behavior

Abstract

Cheating behavior at higher education is a global phenomenon since it is found at any university in any country. This study is to examine whether sex differences and academic performance reflect the different likelihood of doing cheating among students. Using a questionnaire, data were collected from 436 students selected from different semesters and study programs in all faculties at a State Islamic University. Data were analyzed by using logistic regression, both separately and simultaneously. The results of data analysis revealed that male students tend to be more likely to do cheating categories than that of their female counterparts. It also found that academic performance affects negatively the likelihood of students to cheat in three categories of cheating behavior, but not in the other three. There is no stimulant effect of sex and academic performance on the likelihood of all categories of cheating behaviors. In other words, the effect of sex differences is not depended on academic performance and vice versa.

Justifying academic dishonesty: A survey of Canadian university students

“…This finding corroborates earlier studies showing the strong effects of witnessing others' cheating on engagement in academically dishonest behaviour (Bernardi et al, 2012;Carrell et al, 2008;O'Rourke et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2017). Consistent with findings from past research (Hadjar, 2019;Kristin & Frone, 2004;Hensley et al, 2013;Ma et al, 2013;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;Teodorescu & Andrei, 2009), this study has demonstrated an inverse relationship between school performance and endorsement of academically dishonest behaviour.…”

“…It should, however, be noted that conflicting results have been reported in the literature. Specifically, studies have also shown that either males (Eriksson & McGee, 2015;Hadjar, 2019;Hensley et al, 2013;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;Yang et al, 2017) or females (DePalma et al, 1995;Graham et al, 1994) could be more likely to engage in academically dishonest behaviour, depending on the specific circumstances and forms of cheating. Regarding family income, respondents who reported a higher family income were found to have a greater likelihood of endorsing academically dishonest behaviour.…”

Psychometric Properties of Academic Dishonesty Tendency Scale for Graduate Students and Investigating Academic Dishonesty Tendency Levels with CHAID Analysis

“…Taşgın et al (2019) also found that the mean scores taken from the subscale of Dishonesty Tendency at Studies as Homework, Project, etc.-common and from the whole scale by the male students are higher than those of the female students. Similar studies have also revealed that male students have a higher tendency to cheat than female students (Adıbatmaz & Kurnaz, 2017;Akbaşlı et al, 2019;Akdağ & Güneş, 2002;Bateman & Valentine, 2010;Burns, et al, 1998;Chow et al, 2021;Coate & Frey, 2000;Dağaşan et al, 2017;Demir & Arcagök, 2013;Eminoğlu-Küçüktepe & Küçüktepe, 2012;Eriksson & McGee, 2015;Ersoy & Özden, 2011;Hadjar, 2019;Hensley et al, 2013;Kadı et al, 2016;Kaymakcan, 2002;Kocaman-Karoğlu & Bakar-Çörez, 2020;Koç, 2018;Lin & Wen, 2007;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;Nonis & Swift, 1998;Ömür et al, 2014;Öztürk-Başpınar & Çakıroğlu, 2019;Özyurt & Eren, 2014;Pino & Smith, 2003;Roig & Caso, 2005;Şenel et al, 2020;Uçak & Ünal, 2015;Underwood & Szabo, 2003;Whitley, 1998;Whitley et al, 1999;Yang et al, 2017;Yangın & Kahyaoğlu, 2009;Yeşilyaprak & Öztürk, 1996). The findings reported in some other studies in the literature are different from this finding of the current study.…”

“…The second is to investigate the variables that best explain the academic dishonesty tendency levels of the students who continue their graduate education by using the CHAID (Chi-squared Automatic Interaction Detection) analysis method. When the literature is examined (Adıbatmaz & Kurnaz, 2017;Akbaşlı et al, 2019;Akdağ & Güneş, 2002;Ayoub/Al-Salim & Aladwan, 2021;Barın et al, 2018;Bateman & Valentine, 2010;Belet-Boyacı et al, 2017;Brown, Bourke-Taylor et al, 2019;Brown, Isbel et al, 2020;Burns, et al, 1998;Chow et al, 2021;Coate & Frey, 2000;Çenberci, 2018;Çetin, 2007;Dağaşan et al, 2017;Dam, 2013;Demir & Arcagök, 2013;Duran, 2020;Eminoğlu-Küçüktepe & Küçüktepe, 2012;Eriksson & McGee, 2015;Ersoy & Özden, 2011;Gümüşgül et al, 2013;Hadjar, 2019;Hensley et al, 2013;Kadı et al, 2016;Kaymakcan, 2002;Keçeci et al, 2011;Kıral & Saracaloğlu, 2018;Kocaman-Karoğlu & Bakar-Çörez, 2020;Koç, 2018;Korn & Davidovitch, 2016;Lin & Wen, 2007;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;Nonis & Swift, 1998;Novianti, 2022;Ömür et al, 2014;Öztürk-Başpınar & Çakıroğlu, 2019;Özyurt & Eren, 2014;…”

Perilaku Menyontek di Purwokerto: Studi Kuantitatif Perbandingan Perilaku Menyontek pada Siswa SMA Berbasis Umum dan Agama

“…Stigma yang terbangun dibuktikan dari hasil penelitian Davis et al (1992); Hidayat & Rozali (2015); Setiawan (2016); Belinda & Hidayat (2018) yang menemukan bahwa perilaku menyontek lebih sering dilakukan laki-laki saat ujian. Siswa laki-laki lebih sering melakukan perilaku menyontek karena keterbukaan sikap mereka untuk membenarkan segala cara (Hadjar, 2019).…”