Gender differences in students’ rational decisions to cheat

Tibbetts, Stephen G.

doi:10.1080/01639625.1997.9968068

Cited by 42 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Males, however, are less concerned with ethical issues and therefore may take risk and commit acts of dishonesty. Similar findings are reported by Byrnes et al (1999) who demonstrated that males are more risk takers in this regard and Tibbetts (1997) who states females usually prefer to avoid shame. McCabe et al (2006) also state that men may be conditioned to accept less ethical behavior in order to achieve desired results.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Cheating on Exams in the Iranian EFL Context

Ahmadi

2012

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study aimed at investigating the status of cheating on exams in the Iranian EFL context. One hundred thirty two university students were surveyed to this end. They were selected through convenient sampling. The results indicated that cheating is quite common among the Iranian language students. The most important reasons for this behavior were found to be "not being ready for the exam", "difficulty of the exam", "lack of time to study" and "careless and lenient instructors". The study also indicated that the most common methods of cheating are "talking to the adjacent individuals", "copying from others' test papers", and "using gestures to get the answers from others". It was also found that the student's field of study, academic level, and occupational status had a significant effect on cheating whereas gender and marital status had no effect in this regard. Furthermore, it became clear that field of study and occupational status had a significant effect on students' attitude toward cheating whereas gender, academic level and marital status had no effect. Finally, the study indicated that age significantly correlated with cheating and attitude toward cheating.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Cheating on Exams in the Iranian EFL Context

Ahmadi

2012

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some researchers showed that low self-control has a link with disparate forms of crime (Brownfield & Sorenson, 1993;Burton, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, & Dunaway, 1998;Delisi, 2001;Gibbs, Giever, & Higgins, 2003;Gibbs, Giever, & Martin, 1998;Gibson & Wright, 2001;Higgins, 2002Higgins, , 2004LaGrange & Silverman, 1999;Longshore, 1998;Longshore & Turner, 1998). In addition, researchers showed that low self-control had a link with traffic issues, including accidents and wearing seat belts (Junger & Tremblay, 1999;Keane, Maxim, & Teevan, 1993;Piquero & Tibbetts, 1996;Tibbetts, 1997). Overall, researchers showed that self-control theory had empirical support and provided important information for criminologists regarding why individuals were attracted to and commit crime.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 89%

Parental criminality and low self‐control: an examination of delinquency

Higgins

2009

Criminal Justice Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some studies report no gender differences in cheating behavior (Haines et al 1986;Diekhoff et al 1996;Blankenship and Whitley 2000), while other studies indicate that males are more likely than females to report cheating behavior (Ward and Tittle 1993;Cochran et al 1998;Tibbets and Myers 1999). On the other hand, Tibbets (1997) found that gender differences in students' decisions to cheat were conditional on theoretical specification. Finally, some studies do not control for gender at all (Lanza-Kaduce and Klug 1986;Daniel, Blount, and Ferrell 1991;Pulvers and Diekhoff 1999;McCabe and Trevino 2001).…”

Section: Some Demographics Related To Academic Misconductmentioning

confidence: 98%

Predicting Academic Misconduct: A Comparative Test of Four Sociological Explanations

Vowell

Chen

2004

Sociological Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extant studies have shown academic misconduct, that is, cheating, to be a pervasive problem among college students. A number of avenues have been explored in order to determine those factors related to this type of deviant behavior. This study looks at a variety of traditional theoretical factors, including constructs representing social bond, self‐control, social strain, and differential association theories, using data from a stratified random sample of 674 undergraduates at a Southwestern university. We also enter into the equations a host of other factors that have been found to be related to academic misconduct in previous studies. Separate equations were estimated for each theory, and in the full model all theoretical variables were included for a total of six equations. In the full model, the data did not support strain or social bond theories, and moderate support was found for self‐control theory; however, strong support was found for differential association theory. The final equation accounted for 53.2 percent of the variance in academic misconduct.

show abstract

Gender differences in students’ rational decisions to cheat

Cited by 42 publications

References 55 publications

Cheating on Exams in the Iranian EFL Context

Cheating on Exams in the Iranian EFL Context

Parental criminality and low self‐control: an examination of delinquency

Predicting Academic Misconduct: A Comparative Test of Four Sociological Explanations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About