Undergraduate Student Cheating in the Fields of Business and Economics

Nowell, Clifford; Laufer, Doug

doi:10.1080/00220489709595901

Cited by 103 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The findings are consistent with the prior researches (e.g. Nowell & Laufer, 1997;Randolph-Seng & Nielsen, 2007;Sierles, Hendrickx, & Circle, 1980;Smith, Wheeler, & Diener, 1975) that found no correlation between belief and religious attendance and cheating behavior. It means that the variation of subjects' belief and religious behavior is not in line with the variation of the level of cheating behavior.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

The Effect of Religiosity and Perception on Academic Cheating among Muslim Students in Indonesia

Hadjar¹

2017

JEHD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

The Effect of Religiosity and Perception on Academic Cheating among Muslim Students in Indonesia

Hadjar¹

2017

JEHD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This literature, which is based on students' responses to direct questions regarding whether they have ever cheated on their academic assignments, consistently finds a significant negative relationship between cheating and the GPA (e.g., Bunn et al, 1992;Nowell and Laufer, 1997;Crown and Spiller, 1998;Roig and Caso, 2005;Teixeira and Rocha, 2010). As Bushway and Nash (1977) conclude, "the majority of studies indicate that students who are lower in school achievement may cheat more frequently" (p. 624).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do higher achievers cheat less? An experiment of self-revealing individual cheating

Yaniv

Siniver²,

Tobol

2017

Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in Do Higher Achievers Cheat Less? An Experiment of Self-Revealing Individual CheatingAPrIl 2017 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world's largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5-9 53113 Bonn, Germany Phone: +49-228-3894-0 Email: publications@iza.org www.iza.org IZA -Institute of Labor EconomicsDiscussion PaPer series IZA DP No. 10709 Do Higher Achievers Cheat Less? An Experiment of Self-Revealing Individual CheatingAPrIl 2017 Erez Siniver COMAS Yossef Tobol Jerusalem College of Technology and IZA Gideon YanivAriel University AbstrActAPrIl 2017 IZA DP No. 10709 Do Higher Achievers Cheat Less? An Experiment of Self-Revealing Individual Cheating * The extensive body of survey-based research correlating between students' cheating and their academic grade point average (GPA) consistently finds a significant negative relationship between cheating and the GPA. The present paper reports the results of a tworound experiment designed to expose student cheating at the individual level and correlate it with three intellectual achievement measures: the GPA, the high-school matriculation average grade (MAG) and the psychometric exam score (PES). The experiment involved two classes of third-year economics students incentivized by a competitive reward to answer a multiple-choice trivia quiz without consulting their electronic devices. While this forbiddance was deliberately overlooked in the first round, providing an opportunity to cheat, it was strictly enforced in the second, conducted two months later in the same classes with the sa...

show abstract

“…Nelson and Schaeffer (1986), Scheers and Dayton (1987) and Karlins and Hargis (1988) all address the potential incongruence between actual and self-reported behavior in general. For example, Nowell and Laufer (1997) find that while 23% of students actually cheated when self-grading an assignment, their estimate of the percentage of the same students who admitted to cheating in a random response survey was only 9%.…”

Section: Survey Data Cheating Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Parr reports that 42% of students awarded themselves higher scores than their original exams warranted. Similarly constructed studies have been performed on college students by Canning (1956), Zastrow (1970), Fakouri (1972), Tittle and Rowe (1973), Erickson and Smith (1974), Kelly and Worrell (1978), Gardner, Roper, Gonzalez and Simpson (1988), and Nowell and Laufer (1997). All of these studies find frequent cheating among sample students, ranging from a low of 15.6% of students cheating in Fakouri's experiment to a high of 50.8% in Gardner et al Shelton and Hill (1969) performed this type of experiment with high school sophomores and juniors and found that 53% of students cheated.…”

Section: Observed Cheating Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Observing and Deterring Social Cheating on College Exams

Fendler

Yates

Godbey

2018

ij-sotl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research introduces a unique multiple choice exam design to observe and measure the degree to which students copy answers from their peers. Using data collected from the exam, an empirical experiment is conducted to determine whether random seat assignment deters cheating relative to a control group of students allowed to choose their seats. Empirical results demonstrate a significant decline in measured cheating within the assigned seating sample. This study contributes to the literature by providing a measurement of actual cheating frequency among students, as opposed to relying on reported cheating in anonymous surveys, and by demonstrating that an easily implemented deterrent can significantly reduce instances of cheating. This research introduces a unique multiple choice exam design to observe and measure the degree to which students copy answers from their peers. Using data collected from the exam, an empirical experiment is conducted to determine whether random seat assignment deters cheating relative to a control group of students allowed to choose their seats. Empirical results demonstrate a significant decline in measured cheating within the assigned seating sample. This study contributes to the literature by providing a measurement of actual cheating frequency among students, as opposed to relying on reported cheating in anonymous surveys, and by demonstrating that an easily implemented deterrent can significantly reduce instances of cheating. Observing and Deterring Social Cheating on College Exams

show abstract

Undergraduate Student Cheating in the Fields of Business and Economics

Cited by 103 publications

References 10 publications

The Effect of Religiosity and Perception on Academic Cheating among Muslim Students in Indonesia

The Effect of Religiosity and Perception on Academic Cheating among Muslim Students in Indonesia

Do higher achievers cheat less? An experiment of self-revealing individual cheating

Observing and Deterring Social Cheating on College Exams

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About