Using environmental nudges to reduce academic cheating in young children

Abstract

Previous research on nudges conducted with adults suggests that the accessibility of behavioral options can influence people's decisions. The present study examined whether accessibility can be used to reduce academic cheating among young children. We gave children a challenging math test in the presence of an answer key they were instructed not to peek at, and manipulated the accessibility of the answer key by placing various familiar objects on top of it. In Study 1, we used an opaque sheet of paper as a two‐dimensional occluder, and found that it significantly reduced cheating compared to a transparent plastic sheet. In Study 2, we used a three‐dimensional occluder in the form of a tissue box to make the answer key appear even less accessible, and found it was significantly more effective in reducing cheating than the opaque paper. In Study 3, we used two symbolic representations of the tissue box: a realistic color photo and a line drawing. Both representations were effective in reducing cheating, but the realistic photo was more effective than the drawing. These findings demonstrate that manipulating accessibility can be an effective strategy to nudge children away from cheating in an academic context. They further suggest that different types of everyday objects and their symbolic representations can differentially impact children's moral behavior.

Subtle alterations of the physical environment can nudge young children to cheat less

“…Indeed, when such factors are conducive to cheating, cheating rates can be as high as 90% (e.g., Fu et al., 2016), but when they are not conductive to cheating, cheating rates can be as low as 20% (e.g., the present research; Zhao et al., 2020). Furthermore, this body of work has delineated exactly which situational factors encourage cheating (e.g., the presence of a physical reward, Kotaman, 2016; ability praise, Zhao et al., 2017), and which situational factors discourage it (e.g., physical or symbolic barriers, Zhao et al., 2020, 2021; low visibility of the target of cheating, in the present research). These discoveries provide important theoretical insights about the development of dishonesty, and lay an empirical foundation for developing effective interventions to prevent cheating in early childhood.…”

“…Most of the approaches used in prior research have been explicit and overtly social. Even the physical environmental nudges that were tested by Zhao et al (2020Zhao et al ( , 2021, such as having an adult place a conspicuous physical or symbolic barrier between the child and the target of cheating, are likely to be viewed as social signaling. The present research shows that subtle physical environmental manipulations alone can also function as effective honesty nudges, even in the absence of any social communicative cues.…”

“…The present research examined the impact of accessibility nudges on children's cheating, across three preregistered studies. We used a test‐taking paradigm (see Zhao et al., 2020, 2021) in which 5‐ to 6‐year‐old children were tested individually on a challenging math test (Figure 1). Participants were tempted to use a nearby answer key to cheat when the experimenter was out of the room .…”

“…The math test was modeled after a naturalistic paradigm that was designed to elicit spontaneous cheating. This paradigm has been used in many studies with older children and adults (e.g., Hartshorne & May, 1928; see Cizek, 1999), and it has recently been successfully adapted for use with young children (Zhao et al, 2020(Zhao et al, , 2021. It should be noted that it is common for teachers in China to leave an answer key near where children are taking tests because they often use it to grade completed tests whilst other students are still finishing.…”

The Effect of Religiosity and Self-Efficacy to Improve Students’ Literacy: A Study on Academic Cheating

“…In general, the tendency of students to behave honestly or dishonestly is influenced by personal factors and situational factors [9], [30], [31], and teacher factors [32]. Situational factors include conditions outside the individual that can affect his tendency to do academic cheating, including; the size of the institution, size of classrooms, seating in class, difficulty with assignments or exams or classes, teaching methods, fear of being arrested, punishment, which students will weigh the benefits and penalties involved in deciding to cheat, and so on.…”