Attitude Toward Cheating and Opportunistic Behavior

Uhlig, George E.; Howes, Barry D.

doi:10.1080/00220671.1967.10883533

Cited by 14 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hardy (1982) also reported that students more likely chose to engage in academic dishonesty when the situation was "low-risk" and when the opportunity was presented as teachers carelessly left exams out unsupervised or when students were allowed to self grade their tests. Michaels & Maithe (1989) found that 60 percent of the students surveyed indicated that the gains of cheating outweighed the risks.The study conducted by Uhlig & Howes (1967) which involved graduate and undergraduate students validated the studies by Hardy (1982) and Michaels & Maithe (1989).…”

Section: The Environmentmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Much confusion surrounds how academic dishonesty is defined and what actions constitute academic dishonesty. The vagueness of definition has confused some students about the appropriateness of certain kinds of academic exercises and behaviors which are loosely defined as cheating while providing other students with reasons for engaging in behavior that is not clearly defined (Uhlig & Howes, 1967).…”

Section: Defining Academic Dishonestymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although students cited that maintaining adequate grades may have influenced them to cheat, faculty indicated that the increase of incidents of academic dishonesty could be attributed to the high academic expectations parents placed upon children (Colloson, 1990). McBride (1987) agreed and further concluded that the attitude of parents towards their children's grades could be related to whether students engaged in academic dishonesty or not Uhlig and Howes (1967) disagreed that students cheated because of grades. They rather emphasized that if the opportunity arose to be dishonest, students would cheat based on whether the situation was stressful or non-stressful.…”

Section: Defining Academic Dishonestymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty as a Function of Ethnicity and Religious Participation

Sutton

Huba²

1995

NASPA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The practice of deception by governmental and corporate leaders also has raised concerns about professionals who serve as doctors, lawyers, and engineers as to their competence in rendering the services they profess to have obtained honestly (Mano & Keith, 1987). Simpson, Yindra, and Rosenfield (1989) surveyed medical students at a large midwestern medical school on their perceptions of academic dishonesty. The results indicated that even when students promised not to engage in academic dishonesty and to report others for similar violations under an honor code, 27 to 58 percent of these medical students still cheated on major exams. Simpson et al. (1989) also reported an assumption that those who cheated in medical school were likely to continue to be dishonest in the workplace. Pake (1985) reported that the increasing public awareness of political scandals has reinforced the attitude of youth that cheating is acceptable as long as one does not get caught Fowler (1986) also attributed the increase of academic dishonesty to the deceptive practices in our society and to the constant temptation students face to engage in academic dishonesty. Although many new methods such as honor codes (Williams, 1969) and random-response techniques (Scheers & Dayton, 1987) are now being used to reduce the temptation to cheat, faculty still continue to And proctoring examinations effective in reducing academic dishonesty in classroom. While these methods are being used to reduce academic dishonesty, faculty in colleges and universities still attribute student dishonesty to the high visibility of unethical behaviors of governmental and coiporate leaders (Brandis, 1986;Pake, 1985 andStevens &Stevens, 1987).According to the 1979 Carnegie Council Report, the percentage of undergraduate students cheating increased from 7.5 percent in 1969 to 8.8 percent in 1976. This increase according to Pavella (1988) poses four threats to the educational purpose of institutions.

show abstract

Section: The Environmentmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Defining Academic Dishonestymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Defining Academic Dishonestymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty as a Function of Ethnicity and Religious Participation

Sutton

Huba²

1995

NASPA Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baumeister and Scher (1988) noted that some individuals who practice academic dishonesty, prefer short-term risks for immediate benefits regardless of eventual or longterm cost. A study by Uhlig and Howes (1967) indicated that a large percentage of students would cheat at a particular assessment if the opportunity presented itself. Other authors have cited personal characteristics, for example the propensity for more males to perform such activities (Norton, Tilley, Newstead and Franklyn-Stokes, 2001), the environment of higher education institutes (Thorpe, Pittenger and Reed, 1999), and because they feel it is easy to get away with (McCabe and Trevino, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Cheating by pharmacy students: Perceptions, prevalence and comparisons

Harris¹,

Rutter²

2005

Pharmacy Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dishonesty has been part of the educational system for as long as students have been educated. The extent to which this happens varies between institution and course studied. Recent work has shown the prevalence of dishonesty by pharmacy students to be high. This study aimed to add to this body of evidence and determine what students believed the penalty should be if caught. Staff and undergraduate students at Portsmouth University, United Kingdom were asked to complete a survey consisting of 16 scenarios that reflected dishonest activity. Results revealed 53% of students had participated in dishonest behaviour, with students more likely to cheat in coursework than written examinations. Students suggested relatively lenient punishment for acts of dishonesty, although fourth year students felt cheating in examinations warranted removal from the course. This was in line with academic views. Portsmouth students also exhibited lower levels of dishonest behaviour compared to previously published rates.

show abstract

“…One of the problems of controlling academic cheating is lack of unanimity of opinions about the constituent behaviours (Uhling & Howers, 1967); more often than not students and Faculty members differ (Barnett & Dalton, 1981). In Nigeria, emphasis has been on cheating that takes place during examinations while cheating in other important assessment activities are ignored.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Cheating Behaviour Among Nigerian University Students: A Case Study of University of Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria

Adebayo¹

2011

WJE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study investigates the frequency of occurrences of some twenty one cheating behaviours among Nigerian University students and the reasons offered by them for engaging in these untowards behaviours. Participants are one hundred and fifty undergraduates in 200 and 300 levels of the Social and Management Science Faculty of a Nigerian University. Cheating Behaviour Questionnaire (Newstead et al, 1996) an instrument which contained 21 cheating behaviours and 21 reasons for engaging or not engaging in each of the behaviours was administered. Data analysis include frequency counts, ranks and chi-square, data revealed that the four cheating behaviours, which fell within collaborative cheating, were claimed to be the most frequent. They are: (1) premeditated collusion beteeen two or more students to communicate answers to each other during examinations (2)doing another students' coursework for them (3) allowing own coursework to be copied by another student and (4) agreement to mark each others work more generously than is merited. Analysis of data on reasons for engaging in these behaviours also revealed that the most frequently offered reason was " to help a friend", this suggests an altruistic reason.The present findings were compared with Newstead's et al (1996) findings with a British sample. Implication of findings of the present study vis-a-vs controlling the incidence of academic cheating borders on the need to re-orient the ethical value of students from ethic of care to ethic of justice. IntroductionBy virtue of the Nigerian law, academic cheating is a criminal offence. Despite this legal fact, offenders abound in the nation's educational institutions at all levels unapprehended by the law enforcement agencies nor prosecuted in the ordinary court of law. Rather, educational institutions have devised extra-judicial means of punishing offenders without recourse to the law. This, however, has not acted as a strong deterrence, hence the reported high incidence of academic cheating in the nation's newspapers (Ekpu, 1991; Nigerian Compass, 2010;Daily Eagles, 2010; Nigerian Tribune, 2010; Nigerian Observer, 2011).The literature on the influence of morality on academic cheating is not too clear and hopeful, while some studies have found significant relationship ( e.g. Grimm, Kohlberg & White, 1968; Malinoski & Smith, 1985) others have not (e.g. Lemming, 1978). Grimn et al (1968) and Malinowski & Smith (1985) have reported significant negative relattionship between scores on moral reasoning test and the occurrence of academic cheating. In a similar vein, Schwartz, Feldman Brown & Heingarther (1969) reported that fewer male University Freshman who were at higher level (level five and above) of Kohlbergian stages of moral development cheated less than those who were at lower levels (level 2 and 4) when opportunity to cheat was created.Contrary-wise Leming (1978) found that the cheating behaviours of subjects in high and low levels of moral development did not differ in both low-threat-low superv...

show abstract

Attitude Toward Cheating and Opportunistic Behavior

Cited by 14 publications

References 1 publication

Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty as a Function of Ethnicity and Religious Participation

Undergraduate Student Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty as a Function of Ethnicity and Religious Participation

Cheating by pharmacy students: Perceptions, prevalence and comparisons

Common Cheating Behaviour Among Nigerian University Students: A Case Study of University of Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About