Understanding the Interplay Among Regulatory Self-Efficacy, Moral Disengagement, and Academic Cheating Behaviour During Vocational Education: A Three-Wave Study

Abstract

The literature has suggested that to understand the diffusion of unethical conduct in the workplace, it is important to investigate the underlying processes sustaining engagement in misbehaviour and to study what occurs during vocational education. Drawing on social-cognitive theory, in this study, we longitudinally examined the role of two opposite dimensions of the self-regulatory moral system, regulatory self-efficacy and moral disengagement, in influencing academic cheating behaviour. In addition, in line with the theories highlighting the bidirectional relationship between cognitive processes and behaviour, we aimed to also examine the reciprocal influence of behaviour on these dimensions over time. Overall, no previous studies have examined the longitudinal interplay between these variables. The sample included 866 (62.8% female) nursing students who were assessed three times annually from the beginning of their vocational education. The findings from a cross-lagged model confirmed that regulatory self-efficacy and moral disengagement have opposite influences on cheating behaviour, that regulatory self-efficacy negatively influences not only the engagement in misconduct but also the justification mechanisms that allow the divorce between moral standards and action, and that moral disengagement and cheating behaviour reciprocally support each other over time. Specifically, not only did moral disengagement influence cheating behaviour even when controlling for its prior levels, but also cheating behaviour affected moral disengagement one year later, controlling for its prior levels. These findings suggest that recourse to wrongdoing could gradually lead to further normalising this kind of behaviour and morally desensitising individuals to misconduct.

Tests and academic cheating: do learning tasks influence cheating by way of negative evaluations?

“…However, people are also motivated to maintain a positive self-concept depicting themselves as moral, trustworthy, and honest (e.g., Abeler et al 2019;Fischbacher and Föllmi-Heusi 2013;Mazar et al 2008;Shalvi et al 2011). Thus, individuals show higher degrees of dishonest behaviour when they feel entitled, deserving, or justified to do so (e.g., Cameron et al 2008;Campbell et al 2004;Fida et al 2018;Mazar et al 2008;Shalvi et al 2011Shalvi et al , 2015. Individuals can feel justified or entitled to behave dishonestly when, for instance, they can excuse deviant behaviour through denying their own responsibility (e.g., by blaming external forces like excessive workload), through criticising those who are at the receiving end of their dishonesty (e.g., by blaming them as unfair or unethical), or through rationalizing/normalizing their cheating behaviour (e.g., by stating that everybody cheats; see e.g., Olafson et al 2013).…”

“…Instead of being contradictory theories, researchers today often propose that both theories together may explain dishonesty, cheating, and deviant behaviour. Negative emotions and strain can influence how rational choices are interpreted, thus influencing individuals' cost-benefit calculations: For instance, negative emotions can reduce individuals' concerns of getting caught, thereby reducing the costs of potential dishonesty; negative emotions can also increase individuals' justifications and rationalizations for their dishonest behaviour (e.g., Carmichael and Piquero 2004;Fida et al 2015Fida et al , 2018. In line with this, negative emotions induced by stressors can also increase individuals' perceptions of the importance of potential benefits or the importance of rewards gained by their deceptive behaviour (e.g., Carmichael and Piquero 2004;Fida et al 2015Fida et al , 2018.…”

“…For instance, due to cheating on a test, teachers cannot accurately grade students and can therefore not appropriately support their learning processes or help them to increase their skills (e.g., Reinhard et al 2011). Students who enhance their performance through cheating can also gain an unfair and undeserved advantage compared to others, distort the performance succession in a class, increase competition, trigger peer cheating, and even normalize dishonest behaviour (e.g., Carrell et al 2008;Fida et al 2018;Gino et al 2009;McCabe et al 2001;Paternoster et al 2013). Dishonesty in an academic setting is also often linked to further dishonesty in later workplaces (e.g., Nonis and Swift 2001).…”

Ethical and legal observations on contract cheating services as an agreement

“…Statistics are eloquent when investigating how many students use the services of such companies, ranging from 5% (Hawley, 1984;McCabe, 2005) to 7.9% (Zafarghandi et al, 2012). Also, some studies show that students, once engaged in contract cheating, are prone to use it again (Clarke and Lancaster, 2006;Fida et al, 2016).…”

“…The approach of enforcement and punishment falls under the deterrence theory. In order to inhibit the misbehaviour this theory suggests that alleged offenders must understand that they will be caught and their misbehaviour will attract penalties (Fida et al, 2016;McCabe and Treviño, 1993). This is to say that in the case of an ethics failure, there should be an appropriate establishment and enforcement of university rules and laws (Jones and McLellan, 2000 as quoted in Regmi, 2011) as it interconnects with professionalism (Bruhn et al, 2002).…”