Page 93

CHEATING IN HIGHER EDUCATION:

THE CASE OF MULTI-METHODS CHEATERS
Laurent Josien, Utah Valley University
Britton Broderick, Utah Valley University
ABSTRACT
Cheating in academia has been the focus of several studies, mainly trying to determine
how often students cheat. This paper examines a different approach, as we not only surveyed the
level of cheating occurring in university setting, but also focus on ascertaining whether or not
students are willing to cheat their way to a degree by using multiple ways of cheating throughout
their college years. We used a survey presenting 16 different scenarios that was submitted to
students asking them whether the action of the fictional students in the scenario constituted
cheating or not. The analysis of the results showed that cheating does occur in college and that a
certain number of students do use several methods of cheating while trying to earn their degree.
Keyword: Academic dishonesty, Higher Education.

INTRODUCTION
In the academic world, a major problem exists. That issue is cheating. Pullen, Ortloff,
Casey, and Payne (2000) refers to it as the bane of higher education (p.616), and Moffatt
advance that the university at the undergraduate level sounds like a place where cheating comes
almost as naturally as breathing, where its an academic skill almost as important as reading,
writing, and math (in Whitley, 1998, p.2). However, determining how many students cheat is
difficult to figure out precisely as most data comes through self-reporting, and it is likely that
students do not want to advertise their cheating, making measurement difficult.
Nevertheless, several studies tried to establish a baseline of how many students engage in
academic dishonesty. One of the first studies (Baird, 1980) found that 75.5% of undergraduates
from several majors had cheated while in college. In 1992, Meade reported a rate of cheating of
87% in various majors at top universities. McCabe and Trevino (1997) reported a range of 13%
to 95% of students cheated at one point during their academic career. In his 2005 study McCabe
reported that 70% of the 50,000 undergraduate students surveyed from 2002 to 2005 had
cheated; the data was gathered from over 60 campuses nationwide. In his research Park (2003)
advanced that a minimum of 50% of students are cheating. Other studies put that percentage at
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 94

63% (Nonis and Swift, 1998), or even up to 75% (Kidwell, Wozniak, and Laurel, 2003;
Chapman, Davis, Toy, and Wright, 2004). Moreover, Whitley (1998) reviewed 46 studies
conducted from 1970 to 1996; the range of the number of students engaging in academic
dishonesty was from 9% to 95% across the different samples. The mean across the samples was
70.4%. This mean is similar to the number found by Kidwell, Wozniak, and Laurel in their 2003
study, where students self-reported any academic dishonest activity that they had participated in
more than once. According to that measure 74.5% of students are cheaters. Those who only
cheated once were not included because they are less of a threat to the academic community.
Furthermore, students also reported to more frequently cheating in forms that they considered
less serious such as collaboration and plagiarism of small excerpts.
Also, there is a developing body of evidence that academic dishonesty is increasing; with
the increase in tuition, the advance in technology, and the increase in online class offerings, new
ways to engage in academic dishonesty are available for potential cheaters (Born, 2003; Park,
2003; Scanlon, 2004; Eastman, Iyer, and Eastman, 2006; Brown, McInerney, 2008, Josien and
Seeley, 2012). Indeed, Brown and McInerney found significant increases in 7 of 16 cheating
practices between a 1999 and a 2006 sample using the same questionnaire, with an average usage
increase of these 7 practices of 19.2%. Finally, one of the latest studies confirms this trend, Jones
(2011) found that 92% of her students surveyed indicated that they had or they knew someone
that cheated. Finally, Mason (2006) also report an increase in cheating, reported to be as
occurring frequently to very frequently by 61.7 percent of students. Furthermore, it is
disheartening to know that many students (52.1 %) perceive cheating as only a minor problem at
their university. (Mason, 2006).
Therefore, the only conclusion that one can have is, that cheating does take place in
higher education and that the number of participants is significantly high. This is a very
important issue as Nonis and Swift (2001), based on the study of 1,051 business students,
reported that the frequency of cheating in college was highly correlated with cheating at work.
Also, Lawson (2004) found that business school students who cheat are more likely to be
accepting of unethical workplace behavior, and there is a growing body of evidence that a
positive correlation between cheating while in college and behaving unethically while at work
exists (Brown & Choong, 2005; Nonis & Swift, 2001; Sims, 1993; Hilbert, 1985).
In addition, academic dishonesty has several impacts on students that do not engage in
cheating. First of all, many firms that engage in on-campus recruiting require a minimum grade
point average for students who sign up for interviews. Thus, students who engage in academic
dishonesty may gain an unfair advantage that goes well beyond the higher grade earned through
cheating. GPA is also typically considered an important selection criterion for hiring purposes.
Finally, another way in which peers of the cheaters may be harmed is the potential backlash and
scrutiny that may be implemented once a cheater has been caught, as well as the potential for
distrust and poorer interpersonal relationship between students and faculty.

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 95

LITERATURE REVIEW
Most studies on academic dishonesty focused on situational and individual factors that
may contribute to cheating behavior (McCabe and Trevino, 1993, 1996, 1997; Straw, 2002;
Eastman, Iyer, Eastman, 2006). More specifically, McCabe and Trevino (1997) found that
cheating was influenced by age, gender, grade point average, peers, and Greek membership.
The literature found that younger, immature students cheat more than older, more
mature students (Choong and Brown, 2007); upper division classes encounter less cheating than
lower division classes, and unmarried students cheat more than married ones. (Whitley, 1998;
McCabe and Trevino 1997; Park, 2003; Straw, 2002).
Crown and Spiller (1998) looked at 16 previous studies on the relationship between
gender and academic dishonesty, and found mixed statistical results. Klein, Levenburg,
McKendall, and Mothersell (2006) established the same inconsistency regarding gender and
cheating. They reported that about half the studies analyzing gender and academic dishonesty
showed that males cheat more often than females, while the other half found no relationship.
However, McCabe and Trevino (1997) found men to be more involved than woman in academic
dishonesty. The same tendency was found by Buckley, Wiese, and Harvey (1998) and Chapman
and Lupton (2004), who also reported a higher probability of males engaging in academic
dishonesty than females. On the other hand, Leming (1980) reported that under a low risk
condition, woman cheated more than men, but that a higher risk of punishment reduced the risk
of cheating only for women. More recently, Anitsal, Anitsal, and Elmore (2009) found that both
genders are engaged in cheating behaviors, but that their approaches to cheating were different.
Also interesting to note is that Kisamore, Stone and Jawahar (2007) found that women are now
rivaling men in the amount of academic misconduct at the university level.
Regarding grade point average, Crown and Spiller (1998) analyzed 14 studies focusing
on grades and academic dishonesty. They established that the majority of studies found that
students with lower GPAs cheat more than students with higher GPAs. Straw (2002), also
reported that students with a lower GPA are more likely to cheat as they have more to gain and
less to lose than students with a higher GPA. Finally, Choong and Brown (2007) reported that
GPA is inversely related to flagrant cheating, but found no significant difference in other types of
cheating among brighter students and their counterparts.
On the subject of peers, McCabe and Trevino (1997) found that the most powerful
influential factors were peer-related contextual factors Academic dishonesty was lower when
respondents perceived that their peers disapproved of such misconduct, was higher among
fraternity/sorority members, and was higher when students perceived higher levels of cheating
among their peers (page 391). In a similar manner, results from student samples suggested that
they cheat less when they feel that they are more likely to get caught (Corcoran and Rotter, 1989)
and when their college has a known honor code (May and Lyod, 1993; McCabe and Trevino,
1993).
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 96

Regarding Greek membership, several studies advance that students involved in Greek
life are more likely to cheat (McCabe and Trevino, 1997; Straw, 2002; Park, 2003). One of the
main reasons for such behavior is grounded in the fact that fraternities are environments where
norms, values, and skills associated with cheating can easily be shared as they provide access to
resources (e.g. old test files) that facilitate academic dishonesty (McCabe and Trevino, 1997,
page 383).
Kisamore et al (2007) notes that one of the best things institutions can do to reduce the
amount of academic dishonesty is to build a culture that promotes professional behavior and
ethical conduct. This importance can be communicated by adopting an honor code, and making it
easier to report detected academic dishonesty, with penalties that can serve as proper deterrents.
Also for business students, Glenn (1992) shows that students who have completed a standalone
business ethics course are less likely to cheat than those who havent gone through an ethics
class. Bloodgood, Turnley, and Mudrack show in their 2007 study that ethics courses had more
pronounced effects on those who scored low in religiosity, as well as those who scored higher in
intelligence. For those who scored low in intelligence, cheating remained about the same after an
ethics course. Those with high intelligence and religiosity were much less likely to cheat than
their peers and in those with high religiosity scores but low intelligence scores religiosity has
much less effect on cheating.
As Kidwell et al (2003) mentioned, there are different ways of cheating with various
level of seriousness. They also ventured that there is a difference in the threat to the academic
community from students cheating once compared to students cheating multiple times.
Following that line of thought, we advance that not only students who cheat multiple times are a
threat to academia but those who cheat multiple times with different methods are even more of a
threat as it indicates a clear, conscious, active decision to engage in academic dishonesty. We
formulate that these multi-methods cheaters are individuals that considers cheating as an
acceptable mean to achieve their end, and that they adapt their method to the opportunity
available to them at the time. This attitude should put these students in a different group
altogether, as they are different than students who cheated only once.
However, there is a gap in the literature as we could not find any study that quantified
that aspect of academic dishonesty in a university setting.
Our goal, then will be to determine not only the prevalence of academic dishonesty in our
sample but also to discover what percentage of cheaters are pursuing several methods of cheating
during their curricular activities.
METHODOLOGY
A total of 16 scenarios were created for the study (see Appendix A for the full
questionnaire). Some example scenarios are: Jane is taking a test in a learning center by herself.
She is stumped by one question and texts her friend Maria for help. Maria responds with an
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 97

incorrect answer. and John is taking a test in class, while professor Absent Minded is not
looking, John looks at his friend Janes test and sees that she answered C for question #5.
Each respondent was then asked if Jane, John, or both were cheating. The scenarios can be
grouped into four categories of cheating: in class collaboration (voluntary or involuntary), out of
class collaboration (i.e. take home exam), improper use of technology (i.e. cell phone), and
plagiarism.
The surveys were distributed to students in institutions located in South Dakota,
Louisiana, and Utah. The institution in South Dakota is a small faith based liberal art college,
while the one in Louisiana is a regional extension of a large state-funded university, and the
institution in Utah is a large state university.
In order to select our respondents for the survey, a convenient sampling methodology was
used; surveys were administered during class time and were collected a few minutes after being
handed out, usually as students exited the class. As anonymity was guaranteed, it wasnt possible
to track who had responded or not to the survey; therefore, a response rate cannot be precisely
calculated. However, we estimate that the response rate associated with our study is in the high
80% rate based on the number of surveys distributed and the number returned completed (some
students could have been enrolled in several surveyed classes). In total, we obtained 256 usable
surveys that we used to conduct our analysis, with 76 surveys done by freshman, 52 from
sophomores, 73 from juniors and 54 from seniors.

RESULTS
Prominence of academic dishonesty
In our sample, 95 students self-reported that they had previously cheated in college. That
number put our percentage of students cheating in the low range compared to other studies.
Indeed, only 37.11% of the respondents indicated that they have cheated.
Further analysis per classification of student showed that freshmen and sophomores seem
to cheat less than their junior and senior counterpart. Table 1 shows the number of students that
reported cheating per student classification. Percentage wise, students in higher classifications
are more likely to have engaged in academic dishonesty than students in lower classifications. In
our sample, juniors were the most likely to have cheated at least once in their college education
(51.47%). An ANOVA analysis showed no statistical significance between the four groups of
students, therefore, no classification of students is more likely to cheat than any other
classification.

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 98

N
Cheater
%

Table 1: Number of cheaters per classification

Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
76
52
73
21
18
36
27.63
34.62
49.31

Senior
54
20
37.04

Prominence of multi-methods of cheaters

The analysis of our responses yielded that 38 of the 95 students who self-reported that
they had engaged in academic dishonesty, not only cheated but cheated while using different
methods to do so. This means that 40% of cheaters in our sample used at least 2 different
methods of cheating when they cheated. Compared to our total sample, multi-methods cheaters
represent slightly less than 15% of the students surveyed.
When we analyzed our results through the classification of students, we found that lower
classification (freshman and sophomore) cheaters had about a quarter of them using several
methods, while the upper classification (junior and senior) cheaters had half of their ranks to be
multi-methods cheaters. Table 2 represents the number of multi-method cheaters per
classification and its relative percentage to self-reported cheaters and to our sample.
We also found that while the highest percentage of multi-methods cheaters used 2
different methods (i.e. getting an answer from a friend during a test and working with a friend on
a take-home exam), the average, multi-methods cheater uses more than 4 different means to
cheat (4.31 average). Finally, the highest number of methods used reported was 10 (this
particular student used 10 different ways to cheat)! Chart 1 summarizes the frequency of the
numbers of methods used by the multi-methods cheaters.
Furthermore, we learned that the most common way that students cheat is the classical
in class communication between two students (sharing a MCQ result); this method was used 29
times. The next two most common methods are out of class communication type, both receiving
25 uses, in which students worked together on a take home exam or gathered information on an
upcoming test from someone that already took it. Table 3 recaps the frequency of each method
used, broken down by classification of students.
Table 2: Number of multi-method cheaters per classification (2 or more different methods of cheating)
Freshman
Sophomore
Junior
Senior
N
76
52
73
54
Cheater
5
5
18
10
% sample
6.58
9.62
24.66
18.52
% cheater
23.81
27.78
50
50

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 99
Chart 1: frequency of methods used

Our questionnaire is composed of 16 fictional scenarios that can be grouped into four
distinct categories of cheating. Two scenarios are related to in class collaboration (#1 and 12),
five are associated with out of class collaboration (#3, 7, 11, 13, and 15), two are related to
plagiarism (#2 and 9), and the remaining six are related to the use of technology in order to cheat
(technological, #4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 14).
We analyzed our results on two main axes, the first one focusing on how many categories
multi-methods cheaters used, while the second axe is determining which category is the most
likely to be used by cheaters.
We found that 16.79% of multi-methods cheaters engaged in all four categories of
cheating while the largest percentage of multi-methods cheaters engages in two categories of
cheating (14 out of 38 or 36.84%). The two most likely categories to be used by multi-methods
cheaters are outside the class room collaboration and inside the classroom collaboration.
Outside the classroom category is used by multi-methods cheaters 81.58% of the time, and is
universally used among senior multi-methods cheaters. The second highest category used is
inside the classroom, with a 65.79% chance of being utilized by the multi-methods cheaters.
Finally, technological and plagiarism ended up in a tie insofar as being used by the multimethods cheaters (44.74%). Table 4 summarizes the finding related to the categories of cheating.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 100

Table 3: frequency of methods of cheating

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
10
4
1
2
4
3
1
3
1
0
Freshman
4
7
1
0
0
2
3
1
1
0
Sophomore
12
8
11
2
0
6
5
6
4
5
Junior
3
1
7
0
1
0
7
1
3
2
Senior
29
20
20
4
5
11
16
11
9
7
total
1
In class collaboration (voluntary)
2
Plagiarism
3
Out of class collaboration
4
Technological
5
Technological
6
Technological
7
Out of class collaboration
8
Technological
9
Plagiarism
10
Technological
11
Out of class collaboration
12
In class communication (involuntary)
13
Out of class collaboration
14
Technological
15
Out of class collaboration
16
Technology

# of
Cheaters
1
5
1
Freshman
5
0
Sophomore
18
4
Junior
10
3
Senior
38
8
Total
I:
In class collaboration
O:
Out of class collaboration
P:
Plagiarism
T:
Technological

Table 4: Categories of cheating

# of categories used
2
3
4
0
2
2
2
3
0
7
4
3
5
1
1
14
10
6

11
4
2
11
8
25

I
4
4
11
6
25

12
4
4
8
3
19

13
3
1
10
11
25

14
0
0
2
0
2

category used
O
P
4
3
2
5
15
7
10
2
31
17

15
2
1
7
3
13

16
1
0
2
2
5

T
4
2
9
2
17

LIMITATIONS
As with any study, there are limitations to the conclusions that we can reach. First of all,
our biggest limitation is that we have to rely on self-reported data. On a topic like cheating, it is
easy to imagine that students may not be very forthcoming when a faculty member asks them
whether or not they ever have cheated, even with the promises of anonymity. Therefore, we have
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 101

to be careful with the results that we gathered as it may not be a true reproduction of what really
happened. Also, our sample size is relatively small; we only collected 256 usable surveys for our
study, which for an exploratory study should be sufficient, but if we want to enhance our
findings to the rest of the population, we would need to increase our sample size. Furthermore,
replicating our study would increase our convergent validity.
DISCUSSION
We set up our study to check the prominence of cheating in university setting. As
expected, unfortunately, we did found that there were cheaters in our sample. Even if our
academic dishonesty rate seems lower than other studies reported, there is still a significant
portion of our sample that engaged in cheating, as more than 1 in 3 students indicated that they
had cheated while in college.
We also found that the rate of academic dishonesty increases as students progress toward
the end of their undergraduate degree, indeed, freshman are less likely to have cheated than
seniors. One likely explication for that phenomenon is the simple fact that seniors have had more
opportunities to cheat than their fellow freshman. Another explanation may also resides in the
fact that seniors may have seen some of their fellow students cheat with no consequences and
decided to join the movement, however, further research will need to be done to determine if
seeing others cheat has a significant impact on ones decision to cheat.
Another finding from our study is the fact that there is a significant portion of cheaters
that use several different methods to cheat. We found that not only did 15% of our sample use
diverse ways of cheating; we also found that 40% of cheaters did engage in multiple methods of
cheating. This is significant as it indicates a willingness to engage in academic dishonesty. One
could hope that a student cheats once or twice, submitting to the temptation for one reason or
another, but regrets it as they know what they did was wrong. However, the same may not be
said for someone that engages in multiple ways to cheat, as we believe it indicates that their
values are not ethically correct. Furthermore, when we link that result to the positive correlation
between cheating while in college and behaving unethically in the workplace (Brown & Choong,
2005; Nonis & Swift, 2001; Sims, 1993; Hilbert, 1985), it begins to draw a very bleak picture. If
15% of students are willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their college degrees, what are
these 15% going to do when they are in the workforce? One could think that they are still going
to believe that the end justifies the means, and therefore would be highly likely to engage in
unethical behaviors.
An additional outcome of our study is in the type of cheating that students choose to
participate in. We found that students are most likely to cheat out of the classroom. This finding
indicates that for professors who use take home style exam or use at home exercises as part of
their grading, caution need to be taken. If our goal is to encourage group work, then we are
succeeding as a large majority of students engage in such activity, whether or not it is permitted
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 102

to do so! Indeed, 46 of 95 self-reported cheaters (48%) communicate with fellow students

regarding test material. Also, if they engage in multiple methods to cheat, that percentage rises to
over 81% (and 100% with the seniors in our sample). If our aim is to test individual knowledge
and we expect our students to work individually, then it seems that we are sadly mistaken.
Our final thought regards plagiarism. The attention that plagiarism received in the
literature is overwhelming compared to the rest of academic dishonesty. However, our research
shows that plagiarism is not a top method used by cheaters. This can be interpreted in several
ways: all the attention paid to plagiarism worked, and students do not engage in plagiarism as
they know what it is and that it will not be tolerated, or we are paying plagiarism too much
attention instead of focusing on other types of academic dishonesty.
REFERENCES
Anitsal, I., Anitsal, M.M., Elmore, R.: 2009, Academic Dishonesty and Intention to Cheat: A Model on Active
Versus Passive Academic Dishonesty as Perceived by Business Students, Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal 13(2), 17-26
Baird, J.S.:1980, Current Trends in College Cheating, Psychology in the Schools 17(4), 515-522
Born, A.D.: 2003, How to Reduce Plagiarism, Journal of Information Systems Education 14(3), 223
Brown, B.S., Choong, P.: 2005, An Investigation of Academic Dishonesty Among Business Students at Public and
Private United States, International Journal of Management 22(2), 201-214
Brown, B.S., McInerney, M.: 2008, Changes in Academic Dishonesty among Business Students in the United
States, 199-2006, International Journal of Management 25(3), 621-632
Bloodgood, J.,W. Turnley and P. Mudrack: 2008, The Influence of Ethics Instruction, Religiosity, and Intelligence
on Cheating Behavior, Journal of Business Ethics, 82(3), 557-571
Buckley, M.R., D.S. Wiese, and M.G. Harvey: 1998, An Investigation Into the Dimensions of Unethical Behavior,
Journal of Education For Business 73(5), 284-290
Chapman, K.J., Davis, R.D., Toy, D., and Wright, L.: 2004, Academic Integrity in the Business School
Environment: Ill Get by with a Little Help from My Friends, Journal of Marketing Education 26, 236-249
Chapman, K.J., Lupton, R.A.: 2004, Academic Dishonesty in a Global Educational Market: A Comparison of Hong
Kong and American University Business Students, The International Journal of Education Management
18(6/7), 425-435
Choong, P., Brown, B.S.: 2007, The Future of Academic Honesty, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal
11(2), 91-102
Corcoran, K.J., and Rotter J.B.: 1989, Morality-Conscience Guilt Scale as a Predictor of Ethical Behavior in a
Cheating Situation among College Females, Journal of General Psychology 116, 311-316
Crown, D. F., and Spiller, M.S.: 1998, Learning from Literature on Collegiate Cheating: A Review of Empirical
Research, Journal of Business Ethics 17, 683-700
Eastman J.K., R. Iyer, and K.L. Eastman: 2006, Addressing Academic Dishonesty: The Implications for Business
Schools, Professors, and Students, Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education 9, 1-8
Glenn, J.:1992, Can a Business and Society Course Affect the Ethical Judgment of Future Managers? Journal of
Business Ethics, 11(3), 217-223
Hilbert, G.A.:1985, Involvement of Nursing Students in Unethical Classroom and Clinical Behaviors. Journal of
Professional Nursing, 1(4), 230-234

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 103
Josien, L., and Seeley, E.: 2012, Cheating: Students and Faculty Perception. Academy of Management Conference
proceeding, Boston 2012.
Kidwell, L.A., K. Wozniak, and J.P. Laurel: 2003, Student Reports and Faculty Perceptions of Academic
Dishonesty, Teaching Business Ethics 7(3), 205-214
Klein, H.A., Levenburg, N.M., McKendall, M., and Mothersell, W.: 2007,Cheating During the College Years: How
Do Business School Students Compare? , Journal of Business Ethics 72, 197-206
Jones, D.: 2011, Academic Dishonesty: Are More Students Cheating?, Business Communication Quarterly 74(2),
141
Kisamore, J.L., T.H. Stone and I.M. Jawahar: 2007, Academic Integrity: The Relationship Between Individual and
Situational Factors on Misconduct Contemplations Journal of Business Ethics, 75(4), 381-394
Lawson, R.A.: 2004, Is Classroom Cheating Related to Business Students Propensity to Cheat in the Real World?,
Journal of the American Academy of Business 8, 142-146
Leming, J.S.: 1980, Cheating Behavior, Subject Variables, and Components of the Internal-External Scale Under
High and Low Risk Conditions, Journal of Educational Research 74(2), 83-87
May, K.M. and B.H. Lyod: 1993, Academic Dishonesty: The Honor System and Students Attitudes, Journal of
College Student Development 34, 125-129
Mason, K.: 2006, Student Integrity, The Business Review, 6(1), 297-300
McCabe, D.L., and L.K. Trevino: 1993, Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences,
Journal of Higher Education 64, 522-538
McCabe, D.L., and L.K. Trevino: 1996, What We Know About Cheating in College, Change 28(1), 28-32
McCabe, D.L., and L.K. Trevino: 1997, Individual and Contextual Influences on Academic Dishonesty, Research
in Higher Education, 38(3), 379-396
McCabe, D.L.: 2005, Cheating Among College and University Students: A North American Perspective,
International Journal for Educational Integrity, 1(1)
Meade, J.: 1992, Cheating: Is Academic Dishonesty par for the Course? Prism 1(7), 30-32
Nonis, S., and C.O. Swift: 1998, Deterring Cheating Behavior in the Marketing Classroom: An Analysis of the
Effects of Demographics, Attitudes and in-class Deterrent Strategies, Journal of Marketing Education
20(3), 188-199
Nonis, S., and C.O. Swift: 2001, An Examination of the Relationship between Academic Dishonesty and
Workplace Dishonesty: A Multicampus Investigation, Journal of Education for Business 77(2), 69-76
Park, C.: 2003, In Other (Peoples) Words: Plagiarism by University Students Literature and Lessons,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28(5), 471-488
Pullen, R., Ortloff, V., Casey, S., and Payne, J.B.: 2000, Analysis of Academic Misconduct Using Unobtrusive
Research: A Study of Discarded Cheat Sheets, College Student Journal 34, 616
Scanlon, P.M.: 2004, Student Online Plagiarism: How Do We Respond, College Teaching 51(4), 161-165
Sims, R.:1993, The Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and Unethical Business Practices. Journal of
Education for Education in Business, 68(4), 207-212
Straw, D.: 2002, The Plagiarism of Generation Why Not?, Community College Week, 14 (July 8), 4-7
Whitley, B.E.: 1998, Factors Associated with Cheating Among College Students, Research in Higher Education
39, 235-274

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 104

APPENDIX A
Questionnaire

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

John and Jane are two imaginary college students. Here are 16 different situations, please
tell us if you think that any of these constitutes cheating. Once completed, return the
questionnaire to the envelop provided, the last respondent will seal the envelop. To ensure
anonymity, please do not write your name on the questionnaire. Participation is voluntary,
if you do not want to participate or have done so in another class, return your
questionnaire blank.
John is taking a test in class, while professor Absent Minded is not looking; John asks his
friend Jane if C is the correct answer for question #2. Jane nods.
No
a) John is cheating
Yes
b) Jane is cheating
Yes
No
While writing a paper for Dr. Shake Spears, Jane goes to the library and downloads a few
papers to support her writing. After reading them, she cuts and pastes in her text some
sections of what she has read and she doesnt cite her sources.
Jane is cheating
Yes
No
While working on a take home test, John asks his friend William to double-check his math
for a problem that is in the test. William doesnt find any error.
John is cheating
Yes
No
Janes calculator comes preloaded with mathematical formulas. Johns calculator doesnt
have some formulas in it. Both calculators are in an approved list by their professor.
Before the test, John enters the missing formulas in his calculator. They both use some of
the formulas during the test.
a) John is cheating
Yes
No
No
b) Jane is cheating
Yes
Jane is taking a test in a learning center by herself. She is stumped by one question and
texts her friend Maria for help. Maria doesnt respond.
Jane is cheating
Yes
No
John is taking a test in class, while professor Absent Minded is not looking; John looks at
his notes in his cell phone and finds that the answer for question 3 is D.
No
John is cheating
Yes
While working on her take home test, Jane asks John if he found the same response for a
given question. He didnt, she checks her math and finds an error, she corrects it and now
her answer matches Johns.
a) John is cheating
Yes
No
b) Jane is cheating
Yes
No

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Page 105

8) John is taking a test in class, while professor Absent Minded is not looking; John looks at
his notes in his cell phone, but does not find the answer he was looking for.
No
John is cheating
Yes
9) While writing a paper for Dr. Shake Spears, Jane goes to the library and downloads a few
papers to support her writing. After reading them, she cuts and pastes in her text some
sections of what she has read and she cites only a few of her sources.
Jane is cheating
Yes
No
10) Jane is taking a test in a learning center by herself. She is stumped by one question and
texts her friend Maria for help. Maria responds with an incorrect answer.
No
Jane is cheating
Yes
11) John and Jane are in the same class, Professor Absent Minded gives a take home exam for
the class. John and Jane work together on the exam.
a) John is cheating
Yes
No
b) Jane is cheating
Yes
No
12) John is taking a test in class, while professor Absent Minded is not looking, John looks at
his friend Janes test and see that she answered C for question #5.
a) John is cheating
Yes
No
No
b) Jane is cheating
Yes
13) John couldnt be here for a test and asked his professor if he could take it at a later time.
Before taking his test, John discusses with Jane about what he really needs to review for
the test.
a) John is cheating
Yes
No
No
b) Jane is cheating
Yes
14) Jane is taking a test in a learning center by herself. She is stumped by one question and
texts her friend Maria for help. Maria responds with the correct answer.
No
Jane is cheating
Yes
15) Professor Absent Minded likes to use listing questions in his test (i.e. list the Marketing
four Ps). John knows that and writes possible questions and answers on paper to help in
his review. Jane asks John if she can use his review notes.
a) John is cheating
Yes
No
No
b) Jane is cheating
Yes
16) Janes calculator, which is approved by her mathematics professor, comes preloaded with
mathematical formulas. Before a test, Jane entered more formulas in her calculator. Jane
didnt use any of the extra formulas during the test.
Jane is cheating
Yes
No

Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, Volume 17, Number 3, 2013

Copyright of Academy of Educational Leadership Journal is the property of Jordan Whitney Enterprises, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.