Tolerance of Cheating: An Analysis Across Countries

Magnus, Jan R.; Polterovich, Victor; Danilov, Dmitri L.; Savvateev, Alexei

doi:10.1080/00220480209596462

Cited by 169 publications

(134 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

115

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Note that the link between cheating and corruption has been reported as strong (Magnus et al, 2002). Therefore, we have tested whether our experimental data correlate with any of the following international corruption indexes from Transparency International and WJR Rule of Law Index: i.e.…”

Section: Comparison With Other Evidence Of Unethical Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Context-Dependent Cheating: Experimental Evidence from 16 Countries

Pascual‐Ezama

Fosgaard

Cárdenas³

et al. 2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tPolicy makers use several international indices that characterize countries according to the quality of their institutions. However, no effort has been made to study how the honesty of citizens varies across countries. This paper explores the honesty among citizens across 16 countries with 1440 participants. We employ a very simple task where participants face a trade-off between the joy of eating a fine chocolate and the disutility of having a threatened self-concept because of lying. Despite the incentives to cheat, we find that individuals are mostly honest. Further, international indices that are indicative of institutional honesty are completely uncorrelated with citizens' honesty for our sample countries.

show abstract

Section: Comparison With Other Evidence Of Unethical Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

Context-Dependent Cheating: Experimental Evidence from 16 Countries

Pascual‐Ezama

Fosgaard

Cárdenas³

et al. 2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cheating is a global phenomenon and it is pervasive across diverse cultures (Magnus et al, 2002). Students from different parts of the world view cheating differently, cheat or plagiarize in different ways, and with different frequencies, and for various reasons (Eret & Ok, 2014).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unmonitored students self-created WhatsApp groups in distance learning environments: A collaborative learning tool or cheating technique

Alghamdi¹,

Rajab²,

Shah³

2016

IJRSET

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent advances of communication technology have brought a myriad of advantages to distance education. Students' interactivity and connectedness are no longer a concern in distance education. Yet, with this comes the challenge of maintaining academic integrity. As online instructors, we noticed a tendency among our online students to opt out of using our courses' formal discussion groups for their course communication, and instead, independently create a group in the social instant messaging app, WhatsApp, away from our direct observation. In this mixed method research, we first investigated what motivate our students (n= 64) to create the WhatsApp group and what types of interaction they engage in as a group. Then, we examined our online students' perceptions of cheating in reference to their participations in the group. Our findings revealed that our online students perceived cheating differently and expressed their objection to the inclusion of the term 'cheating' in the distance-learning contexts, as they believed that distance learning is an open educational environment which permits collaboration and open discussion.

show abstract

“…patients) (Mazur, 1989); editors and reviewers (Wells andFarthing, 2008 as quoted in Regmi, 2011)); unmerited academic credits (Draper et al, 2017); devalued diplomas (Dickerson, 2007); loss of professional credibility (Billings, 2004); defrauding future employers (Crittenden et al, 2009;Dickerson, 2007); career disruption (Regmi, 2011); deprivation of fair competition (Billings, 2004;Magnus et al, 2002); and jeopardising public safety and community confidence in higher education (Bertram-Gallant, 2016;White, 2016). These outcomes are not exhaustive and may vary depending on the type of infringer, either student or academic.…”

Section: Contract Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Many authors argue that the negative outcomes of contract cheating are egregious: the undermined validity of students' knowledge evaluation (Hawley, 1984;Magnus et al, 2002); demotivation to study honestly (Magnus et al, 2002); eventual harm to certain groups of people (e.g. patients) (Mazur, 1989); editors and reviewers (Wells andFarthing, 2008 as quoted in Regmi, 2011)); unmerited academic credits (Draper et al, 2017); devalued diplomas (Dickerson, 2007); loss of professional credibility (Billings, 2004); defrauding future employers (Crittenden et al, 2009;Dickerson, 2007); career disruption (Regmi, 2011); deprivation of fair competition (Billings, 2004;Magnus et al, 2002); and jeopardising public safety and community confidence in higher education (Bertram-Gallant, 2016;White, 2016).…”

Section: Contract Cheatingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical and legal observations on contract cheating services as an agreement

Tauginienė

Jurkevičius

2017

Int J Educ Integr

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper we cast light on one form of dishonest behaviour in academiacontract cheating services. We examine how an agreement between a student and a contract cheating services provider is viewed from ethical and legal perspectives. For this purpose we carried out an analysis of contract cheating services as an agreement which, in Lithuania, is currently facing the challenge of implementing laws regarding contract cheating services as a violation of academic ethics. Taking into consideration recent jurisprudence, together with social media articles, we conclude that while any agreement for contract cheating services is severely criticized in terms of ethics, the courts either do not regard this type of agreement as a violation of legal norms, or they inadequately apply legal remedies when such an agreement is deemed to be void.

show abstract

Tolerance of Cheating: An Analysis Across Countries

Cited by 169 publications

References 9 publications

Context-Dependent Cheating: Experimental Evidence from 16 Countries

Context-Dependent Cheating: Experimental Evidence from 16 Countries

Unmonitored students self-created WhatsApp groups in distance learning environments: A collaborative learning tool or cheating technique

Ethical and legal observations on contract cheating services as an agreement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About