Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Student Perceptions and Misconduct Type

Bisping, Timothy O.; Patron, Hilde; Roskelley, Kenneth

doi:10.3200/jece.39.1.4-21

Cited by 70 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relevant studies include those involving economic students (Bisping et al, 2008), engineering students (Harding et al, 2007;Yeo, 2007), marketing majors (Chapman et al, 2004), marketing and management students (Kisamore et al, 2007), business majors (Wilson, 2008), and criminal justice and legal studies students (Lanier, 2006).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do College Students Cheat?

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do College Students Cheat?

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, upper-level medical students cheated more than pre-clinical students (Hrabak et al, 2004). Bisping et al (2008) showed contrasting results for age and class level as predictorsolder students were less prone to be academically dishonest but upperclassmen were more likely to cheat than lowerclassmen. concluded that the higher the class level of insurance students, the more likely they were to cheat compared to other business majors.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…The self-reported predictor variable GPA, a proxy for the benefit of expected higher returns from schooling, is widely used in the cheating literature as a measure of the academic achievement of the individual student (Bunn et al, 1993;Mixon, 1996;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;Iyer & Eastman, 2006;Bisping et al, 2008;Teixeira & Rocha 2008Teodorescu & Andrei, 2009). The reasoning is that a student with a higher GPA has more at stake than another with a lower GPA and so is less likely to cheat, other things the same.…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Dishonesty among Undergraduate Students in a Korean University

Ledesma

2011

RWE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this exploratory study is to examine the determinants of alternative forms of academic misconduct among undergraduate students in a Korean university. An economic model of college cheating is estimated using logistic regression. The study differs from other studies in that it frames the issue of academic dishonesty in the context of recent developments to internationalize higher education in Korea, highlighting certain unique aspects of the Korean educational system that are undergoing rapid change and have largely remained unexamined in the literature. The presence of a native English-speaking foreign instructor in class, English-taught classes, and class levels are significant predictors of in-class cheating and such types of academic misconduct as seeking outside help and plagiarism. GPA, class size, cheating tolerance, and study-abroad experience are significant in some types of illicit academic behavior but not in others. Gender and being a foreign student turn out to be weak predictors.

show abstract

“…1 On some occasions, academic cheating may involve very deliberate unethical behaviours (e.g., copying in exams) and conducts in contexts where the distinction between ethical and unethical has weakened or disappeared-according to McCuen (2008, p. 152), ''most acts of plagiarism are likely acts of ignorance rather than intended acts of deception or fraud''. 2 Smyth et al (2009) (13 paired unethical situations) and Bisping et al (2008) (31 types of misconduct) put forward rather overarching definitions of (academic) cheating. However, notwithstanding the diversity of cheating behaviours and practices within academia, regardless of the context/institution/course, copying or cheating in exams is universally accepted as illicit conduct and is, therefore, the most widely-used notion of academic cheating, as well as potentially being the most appropriate when dealing with crosscountry/cross-institutional analysis.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cheating by economics and business undergraduate students: an exploratory international assessment

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today's economics and business students are expected to be our future business people and potentially the economic leaders and politicians of tomorrow. Thus, their beliefs and practices are liable to affect the definition of acceptable economics and business ethics. The empirical evaluation of the phenomenon of cheating in academia has almost exclusively focused on the US context, and non-US studies usually only cover a narrow range of countries. This paper presents a comprehensive, cross-country study on the magnitude and determinants of cheating among economics and business undergraduates, involving 7,213 students enrolled in 42 universities located in 21 countries from the American (4), European (14), Africa (2) and Oceania (1) Continents. We found that the average magnitude of copying among economics and business undergraduates is quite high (62%) but there was significant cross-country heterogeneity. The probability of cheating is significantly lower in students enrolled in schools located in the Scandinavian, and the US and British Isles blocks when compared with their Southern European counterparts; quite surprisingly this probability is also lower for the African block. On a distinctly different level, however, students enrolled in schools in Western and especially Eastern European countries reveal statistically significant higher propensities towards committing academic fraud.

show abstract

Modeling Academic Dishonesty: The Role of Student Perceptions and Misconduct Type

Cited by 70 publications

References 11 publications

Why Do College Students Cheat?

Why Do College Students Cheat?

Academic Dishonesty among Undergraduate Students in a Korean University

Cheating by economics and business undergraduate students: an exploratory international assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About