Peer Effects in Academic Cheating

Carrell, Scott E.; Malmstrom, Frederick V.; West, James E.

doi:10.3368/jhr.43.1.173

Cited by 71 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research has indicated that cheating norms are incredibly important to students' decisions to cheat (Carrell et al, 2008;McCabe & Trevino, 1997;McCabe et al, 2001). One of the most direct ways that counternormative pressure can be applied is through the direct censure of peers.…”

Section: Cheating Preventionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Academic Misconduct: A Goals–Plans–Action Approach to Peer Confrontation and Whistle-Blowing

Henningsen¹,

Valde

Denbow

2013

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Cheating Preventionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Academic Misconduct: A Goals–Plans–Action Approach to Peer Confrontation and Whistle-Blowing

Henningsen¹,

Valde

Denbow

2013

Communication Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, Van Yperen, Hamstra, and van der Klauw (2011) show that goal setting can increase cheating. 10 Focusing on cheating in peer settings without monetary or task interdependencies, a number of studies based on field data show that own cheating behavior positively depends on perceptions or expectations of others' cheating behavior, that is the acceptability of cheating or the norm for cheating (Beekun and Westerman 2012;Carrell, Malmstrom, and West 2008;Deshpande and Joseph 2009;Ichino and Maggi 2000;Jones and Kavanagh 1996;Megehee and Spake 2008;O'Fallon and Butterfield 2012;Ostermaier and Uhl 2017;Pierce and Snyder 2008). 10 Focusing on cheating in peer settings without monetary or task interdependencies, a number of studies based on field data show that own cheating behavior positively depends on perceptions or expectations of others' cheating behavior, that is the acceptability of cheating or the norm for cheating (Beekun and Westerman 2012;Carrell, Malmstrom, and West 2008;Deshpande and Joseph 2009;Ichino and Maggi 2000;Jones and Kavanagh 1996;Megehee and Spake 2008;O'Fallon and Butterfield 2012;Ostermaier and Uhl 2017;Pierce and Snyder 2008).…”

Section: Related Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of Peer Presence on Cheating

Bäker

Mechtel

2019

Economic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has shown that the presence of peers can increase individual output both in the lab and the field. This paper tests for negative side effects of such peer settings. We investigate whether peer settings are particularly prone to cheating even if they do not provide additional monetary benefits of cheating. Participants in our real-effort experiment had the opportunity to cheat when declaring their output levels. Although cheating did not have different monetary consequences when working alone than when working in the presence of a peer, we find that cheating is a more severe problem in peer settings.(JEL J20, J30, M50) * We thank settings. Hence, we are not primarily interested in productivity spillovers between low and high productive workers, but focus on the question whether it, on average, pays for employers to rely on peer settings instead of letting employees work alone.2. The motives underlying such social comparisons are self-evaluation, self-improvement, and self-enhancement (Gibbons and Buunk 1999). 11. Dai, Galeotti, andVilleval (2017) show that cheating behavior in the lab is related to cheating in the field. Furthermore, Herbst and Mas (2015) find that peer effects in the lab and in the field are comparable in size.

show abstract

“…Students seem to feel that the likelihood of being caught is minimal and that they are justified in doing what everyone else is doing (Selwyn 2008). Carrell et al (2008) concentrated on peer influence as a contributing factor in US military academies. While they acknowledge that the military setting might differ considerably from that of US universities, the study does confirm that peer cheating has a considerable effect on individual cheating.…”

Section: Reasons For Plagiarismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-cultural study at tertiary level

Kayaoğlu

Erbay

Flitner³

et al. 2015

Journal of Further and Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plagiarism continues to dominate the academic world as one of its greatest challenges, and the existing literature suggests cross-cultural investigation of this critical issue may help all shareholders who detect, are confronted by and struggle with this issue to address it. Therefore, the present study, drawing upon a cross-cultural investigation using a questionnaire, aimed to investigate the differences between three groups of students, namely, Turkish (n = 106), Georgian (n = 83) and German (n = 72) regarding their tendency to conduct academic theft. It also investigated ways in which to plagiarise and reasons for and awareness of this issue. The results show that lack of time, busy schedules and weak academic writing skills are the most frequent reasons for plagiarism. However, in contrast to previous studies, the role of the Internet was found to be minimal in relation to increasing plagiarism. It is also worth noting that the German participants were found to have a higher level of sensitivity to this academic malpractice and were seen to be much more successful at identifying it. The article concludes with workable suggestions on how to discourage academic theft at universities.

show abstract

Peer Effects in Academic Cheating

Cited by 71 publications

References 32 publications

Academic Misconduct: A Goals–Plans–Action Approach to Peer Confrontation and Whistle-Blowing

Academic Misconduct: A Goals–Plans–Action Approach to Peer Confrontation and Whistle-Blowing

The Impact of Peer Presence on Cheating

Examining students’ perceptions of plagiarism: A cross-cultural study at tertiary level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About