Journal of Criminal Justice Education

ISSN: 1051-1253 (Print) 1745-9117 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcje20

Cheating Behaviors among Undergraduate College

Students: Results from a Factorial Survey

Tina L. Freiburger, Danielle M. Romain, Blake M. Randol & Catherine D.

Marcum

To cite this article: Tina L. Freiburger, Danielle M. Romain, Blake M. Randol & Catherine D.
Marcum (2016): Cheating Behaviors among Undergraduate College Students: Results from a
Factorial Survey, Journal of Criminal Justice Education, DOI: 10.1080/10511253.2016.1203010

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1203010

Published online: 08 Jul 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcje20

Download by: [University of California, San Diego] Date: 15 July 2016, At: 11:10
 Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2016.1203010

Cheating Behaviors among Undergraduate

College Students: Results from a Factorial
Survey

Tina L. Freiburger, Danielle M. Romain,

Blake M. Randol and Catherine D. Marcum
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Using a factorial survey administered to college students at two Universi-

ties, this study examines students’ tendencies to engage in academic mis-
conduct. The relation of strain, self-control, and deterrence theories to
likelihood of cheating are further explored. The results suggest that increas-
ing the severity of the punishment for cheating does not deter academic
misconduct; however, several variables indicating an increased certainty of
being caught did decrease the likelihood of cheating behaviors. Only the
strain variables that indicated a student had an ill family member or that
the student found the course difficult significantly increased academic mis-
conduct. Although self-control did not have a direct effect on cheating it
indirectly affected cheating behaviors through students’ perceptions of get-
ting caught and their perception of wrongfulness of the cheating behavior.
Policy and future research implications of the findings are further discussed.

Colleges have long been concerned with the prevalence of academic dishon-
esty, often suggesting that rates have been skyrocketing from earlier genera-
tions (see McKibban & Burdsal, 2013). Previous research has suggested that
over two-thirds of college students have engaged in cheating or plagiarizing at
least once in their academic career (e.g. McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield,
2001; McKibban & Burdsal, 2013). In addition, the growth of technology (e.g.
paper repositories, smart phones) and online learning has prompted university
officials to develop protocols and procedures to limit cheating behaviors
(Lanier, 2006). Although academic dishonesty is not a criminal offense, it is a
deviant behavior that has been likened to fraud (Walker & Holtfreter, 2015).
Whether buying a term paper online, copying a few sentences from a website,
or using a cheat sheet on an exam, academic dishonesty involves a deliberate
attempt to misrepresent one’s work. It is clear that academic dishonesty is a
problem, with long-term consequences for students in their careers (Smith,
Langenbacher, Kudlac, & Fera, 2013).

Ó 2016 Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences

 2 FREIBURGER ET AL.

Much of the older research across disciplines is atheoretical and examines

demographic factors or situational characteristics (e.g. Kisamore, Stone, &
Jawahar, 2007; Lambert & Hogan, 2004). Within the field of criminology,
several studies have examined self-control, strain, social learning, and deter-
rence/rational choice theory, often relying on self-reports of previous cheating
behaviors and non-experimental designs (e.g. Tibbetts & Myers, 1999). Fewer
studies have employed experimental designs (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2003; Ogilvie
& Stewart, 2010; Staats & Hupp, 2012), or examined competing theories simul-
taneously (Bichler-Robertson, Potchak, & Tibbetts, 2003; Michaels & Miethe,
1989; Stogner, Miller, & Marcum, 2013; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999; Vowell &
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Chen, 2004). The limited development of an integrated model in explaining

academic dishonesty has implications for current university policies.
Universities have developed a variety of responses to address the problem
of academic dishonesty. Honor codes and educational programs for students
have become more popular over the past 20 years aimed at changing the cul-
ture of competition and tolerance of cheating (Clement, 2001). Other scholars,
however, have argued for a hardened stance by professors in detecting and
sanctioning cheating and plagiarism (e.g. Woessner, 2004). These policies are
rooted in common sense understandings of why students engage in this type of
deviant behavior. Further, policies should be evidence-based, incorporating
fruitful information on the pathways involved in the decision to cheat or pla-
giarize. Failure to do so may promote a cheating culture, which undermines
integrity in the university setting (see Park, 2004; Walker & Holtfreter, 2015).
The purpose of this study is to develop a causal pathway model of the likeli-
hood of engaging in academic misconduct. Building on Walker and Holfreter’s
(2015) recommendation of utilizing a factorial survey design and testing
multiple theories, we examine whether three criminological theories (e.g. self-
control, strain, and deterrence theory) influence the intention to cheat and
plagiarize. Further, we propose an integrated pathway model through which
intention to cheat may be mediated by more proximate indicators of cheating
behavior—the perception of getting caught and the perception of wrongful-
ness. Given that extant research often involves survey questions, without
manipulation of variables, this study more explicitly tests factors influential on
cheating behavior. A series of vignettes were presented to undergraduate stu-
dents in two college universities, followed by questions to determine percep-
tion of wrongfulness, being caught, and likelihood of also committing the act.

Literature Review

Academic Dishonesty

Scholarship on academic dishonesty has arisen in several fields, most notably

education, psychology, and criminal justice. Much of the early work on dishon-
esty was athoeretical, examining individual-level factors and contextual
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 3

factors. In a meta-analysis of over 100 studies, Whitley (1998) found that

demographic factors (e.g. age, gender, marital status) correlated with aca-
demic misconduct (see also Lambert & Hogan, 2004; Lanier, 2006). Addition-
ally, academic ability and pressures, extracurricular activities, and prior
cheating were stronger predictors of dishonesty. Prior cheating, perceived like-
lihood of doing well on assessment, and spending time partying yielded the
strongest effect sizes (see also McCabe et al., 2001). Further, research sug-
gests that students often give rationalizations for their conduct such as neces-
sity to be successful and the perception that everyone else is doing it
(McCabe, 1992; McCabe et al., 2001). These neutralizing techniques may be
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

indicative of contextual influences, such as a perception that cheating is per-

vasive on campus and tolerated by faculty. Systematic reviews consistently
find that contextual factors, particularly prevalence of peer cheating behavior,
as stronger predictors of academic dishonesty than demographic factors
(McCabe et al., 2001; see also Farnese, Tramontano, Fida, & Paciello, 2011;
McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006).
Given the findings from largely exploratory research, applying existing theo-
ries to the problem of academic dishonesty may produce a more coherent
framework for understanding and prevention. In the field of psychology, self-
efficacy (Farnese et al., 2011; Yeşilyurt, 2014) and the theory of planned
behavior (Imran & Ayobami, 2011; Imran & Nordin, 2013; Stone, Jawahar, &
Kisamore, 2010) have commonly been employed. Given that academic dishon-
esty is a form of deviant behavior, it is appropriate to utilize criminological
theory to explain cheating behavior among students. Some of the most com-
monly employed explanations for academic dishonesty within the criminologi-
cal literature are strain theory, deterrence/rational choice theory, and
self-control theory. The present study will utilize these three theories in an
integrated framework for explaining likelihood to engage in cheating and
plagiarism.

Strain Theory

Given that many studies have found a link between having a lower grade point
average (GPA) and an increased likelihood of cheating (e.g. Lambert & Hogan,
2004; Lanier, 2006; Ogilvie & Stewart, 2010), one possible theoretical explana-
tion for this association is Agnew’s general strain theory. Agnew and White
(1992) posit that strain is experienced not only as a function of a gap between
desired goals and achievements (1), but through experiencing negative life
events (2) and losing positively valued items or relationships (3). Agnew argues
that when faced with stressors, a sense of frustration and perceived unfairness
are crucial mechanisms through which strain leads to deviant and criminal
behavior. This theory has been used to explain a variety of crimes, including
delinquency (Agnew, 2001; Hay & Evans, 2006; Higgins, Piquero, & Piquero,
 4 FREIBURGER ET AL.

2011; Moon, Morash, McCluskey, & Hwang, 2009) and white-collar crime
(Agnew, Piquero, & Cullen, 2009; Langton & Piquero, 2007).
Walker and Holtfreter (2015) liken academic misconduct to white-collar
crime, noting the constant pressure to exceed one’s peers and “get ahead” is
indicative of strain. Further, pressure from parents to succeed, expectations
to maintain a high GPA for one’s major or a scholarship, and being on aca-
demic probation for poor grades are all common stressful situations for college
students and have been used as justifications for cheating (Lambert & Hogan,
2004). Believing that a professor is unfair in their expectations or grading pol-
icy and the gap between effort employed in studying versus expected grade
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

most clearly fits with the first type of strain, particularly if they believe the
outcome was unjust (McCabe, 1992; Smith et al., 2013; Van Houtte & Stevens,
2008). Outside life factors can become sources of strain for college students,
such as a breakup with a significant other or a severe illness of a family mem-
ber, which serve as sources of removal of positively valued stimuli particularly
if they impact a student’s study habits (Smith et al., 2013).
Empirical tests of general strain theory have typically focused on the first
component of the theory (blockage of goals), with mixed support. Van Houtte
and Stevens (2008) find strong support for the influence of tracking systems in
secondary schools on academic misconduct and delinquency to be mediated by
a general sense of failure from blocked opportunities. When operationalized as
a gap between time spent studying and grade achieved, or a perception that
the professor is unfair in assigning grades, several studies have failed to find
support for strain theory (Bichler-Robertson et al., 2003; Stogner et al., 2013;
Vowell & Chen, 2004; see Whitley, 1998 for exception). Further, increased
pressure to succeed has not been found to influence online or face-to-face
cheating (Bichler-Robertson et al., 2003; Stogner et al., 2013).
Fewer studies have examined alternative measures of strain. Stogner and
colleagues (2013) found that an increased rate of overall life stressors increased
the frequency of cheating behaviors, suggesting a cumulative effect of strain as
a function of overall diminished coping capabilities. Smith and colleagues
(2013) created measures for negatively valued stimuli (e.g. academic proba-
tion), and positively valued stimuli (e.g. loss of privileges) and failed to find
support for the influence of these components of strain theory. Yet their mea-
sures included only academic strains; students may experience additional
strains in life that impact the time and quality of studying, which can produce a
sense of frustration. Only Vowell and Chen (2004) have examined outside
sources of strain, finding that increased hours at work was reduced to non-
significance when self-control was included in the model. Given that individuals
have different reactions to strain, and unique assessments of pressures and aca-
demic abilities, the use of an experimental manipulation may more clearly sort
out the effect of strain on academic dishonesty.
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 5

Self-Control Theory

Given that academic dishonesty is a form of deviant behavior, self-control

theory may also be useful to explain cheating and plagiarism. Indeed,
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) have argued that people with low-self control
engage in crime and analogous behaviors, such as driving without seatbelts and
excessive alcohol use. Engaging in cheating is a form of fraud that maximizes
self-interest (i.e. good grades), looks only to short-term benefits, requires little
skill or effort to accomplish, and involves the thrill of possible detection
(Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990, p. 14; Williams & Williams, 2012). Initially,
Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) stated self-control was a stable trait, established
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

at the age of 10, and rooted in poor child-rearing practices that failed to correct
errant behavior. Self-control has been one of the most cited theories for crimes
including white-collar offenses (Blickle, Schlegel, Fassbender, & Klein, 2006),
delinquency (Benda, 2005; Cauffman, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2005; Chapple,
2005; DeLisi et al., 2010; Young, 2011), and analogous behaviors (Baker, 2010;
Jones & Quisenberry, 2004; Martino, Collins, & Ellickson, 2004; Perrone,
Sullivan, Pratt, & Margaryan, 2004) often yielding moderate support.
Research on self-control theory and academic misconduct has often exam-
ined multiple theories (e.g. rational choice, social bond) in conjunction with
self-control. A consistent finding among these studies is that students with
lower self-control are more likely to engage in cheating and plagiarism,
although most often the effect is small to moderate (Cochran, Aleksa, &
Sanders, 2008; Vowell & Chen, 2004; Williams & Williams, 2012; see Tibbetts &
Myers, 1999 for exception). Others, however, suggest that self-control is mod-
erated by gender. Gibson, Khey, and Schreck (2008) found that self-control
predicted males’ prior cheating behavior, while females’ cheating was most
strongly influenced by perceiving academic dishonesty to be morally wrong.
Bolin (2004), however, found that self-control was mediated by a more proxi-
mate factor regardless of gender: namely, moral attitudes toward cheating.
These studies, employing interactions and path modeling, suggest a more
nuanced theoretical framework through which self-control may influence
intentions to engage in academic misconduct.

Deterrence Theory

One of the most commonly cited explanations for the prevalence of cheating is
deterrence theory. Beccaria (1963/1764) stated that to deter individuals from
committing criminal offenses, sanctions should be certain, swift, and severe
enough to outweigh any benefits from committing the act. Research on classi-
cal deterrence theory has supported Beccaria’s notion that certainty of punish-
ment is the most crucial factor, while severity of punishment does not exert a
large influence on reducing crime (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001; Paternoster &
Iovanni, 1986; Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, Daigle, & Madensen, 2006; c.f. Grasmick
 6 FREIBURGER ET AL.

& Bryjak, 1980). To deter students from engaging in academic misconduct,

faculty must make explicit statements on the sanctions for violating this code
of conduct. Further, they must adequately monitor exams, assignments, and
papers to render the benefits of engaging in cheating and plagiarism (i.e. pass-
ing grade with minimal effort) outweighed by the costs. It is common to see
statements about academic misconduct in course syllabi, including various
sanctions for being caught cheating, yet faculty are often reticent to catch
students cheating and apply appropriate sanctions (McCabe et al., 2001;
Woessner, 2004), thus reducing the certainty of being caught and punished.
Most of the research on classical deterrence and academic misconduct
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

utilize self-report surveys, with some support that increased perception of cer-
tainty reduces the likelihood of engaging in academic misconduct (Bisping,
Patron, & Roskelley, 2008; McCabe et al., 2006; Michaels & Miethe, 1989
Ogilvie & Stewart, 2010; c.f. McCabe & Trevino, 1996). Fewer studies have
employed experimental designs, which more robustly test the influence of
objective measures of certainty of detection and severity of punishment. Nagin
and Pogarsky (2003) conducted a field experimental manipulation of the cer-
tainty of detection and severity of sanctions for cheating on a short trivia quiz
for undergraduate students. Students who were assigned to a room proctored
by the researcher (i.e. high certainty) were less likely to cheat on the quiz
than those who had only brief visits by the researcher. Whether students were
told they would be punished for cheating did not influence actual cheating
behavior. Several studies, however, have found that a rational choice calcula-
tion of risk of being caught and severity of sanctions did not influence cheating
(Cochran, Chamlin, Wood, & Sellers, 1999; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999; see also
Staats & Hupp, 2012), and that more punitive sanctions actually increased the
likelihood of cheating (McCabe et al., 2006; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999).
Classical deterrence theory involves objective measures of certainty and
severity of punishment, ignoring the components that influence these percep-
tions of risk. In their reconceptualization of deterrence theory, Stafford and
Warr (1993) argue that two main components influence whether an individual
will be deterred: primary experience with a deviant behavior (i.e. being caught
and punished or avoidance of detection) and vicarious experience with a devi-
ant behavior (i.e. peers’ avoidance of detection or punishment). Given that
prior cheating is a robust predictor of intention to cheat in the future (Tibbetts
& Myers, 1999; Williams & Williams, 2012), applying Stafford and Warr’s con-
ception of deterrence is helpful for understanding intention to cheat. Further,
research on rational choice and opportunity finds that students who feel confi-
dent in being able to successfully cheat are more likely to engage in academic
misconduct (Whitley, 1998). Students with prior cheating experience have
learned valuable information about the likelihood of being caught and actual
low-risk of detection, which increases their perception that they can success-
fully cheat in the future (Whitley, 1998; Williams & Williams, 2012; see also
Tibbetts, 1998 for discussion).
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 7

Students without previous cheating experience are not uninformed on the

certainty of being caught, as they are often aware of friends or fellow class-
mates who have cheated and plagiarized in a class. Indeed, knowledge of peer
cheating has been found to be a strong predictor of intention to engage in aca-
demic misconduct (Bisping et al., 2008; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; McCabe
et al., 2006; Michaels & Miethe, 1989; Tibbetts, 1998; Tibbetts & Myers, 1999;
Vowell & Chen, 2004). Although peer behavior is often used to support social
learning theory (i.e. modeling, definitions favorable to cheating), knowledge of
peer success with cheating will likely influence the risk calculation of whether
a particular student would be caught. To date, there have been no empirical
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

tests of the linkage between vicarious experience with cheating, perception of

being caught, and subsequent intention to cheat.

Theoretical Framework

The above theories can be integrated into a cohesive framework for under-
standing the decision to engage in cheating behavior. As several scholars have
pointed out (e.g. McCabe et al., 2001; Woessner, 2004), situational factors are
important for prospective assessments of the likelihood of engaging in cheating
behavior. These factors may include those specific to a particular class (e.g.
previous experience with a professor, his/her syllabus policy, assessment of
whether anyone has been caught cheating in the past, class size, difficulty),
and those specific to the individual (e.g. prior cheating success or failures,
self-control, life strains, moral assessment of cheating).
One possible pathway toward intention to cheat is the influence of strain on
perceived wrongfulness of cheating. Whitley (1998) suggests that academic
stressors (e.g. difficult classes, class is required for major) and life events
(e.g. partying, work) may influence study habits, creating an increased sense
of anxiety and an incentive to cheat. Further, attitudes that cheating is
morally wrong have been found to reduce the likelihood of engaging in cheat-
ing (Farnese et al., 2011; Whitley, 1998). Students may engage in moral disen-
gagement when faced with a gap between expectations and achievements
(Farnese et al., 2011; McCabe, 1992; Sykes & Matza, 1957). Although previously
untested, this would suggest that strain would be mediated by a perception
that the behavior in a particular circumstance is morally wrong.
Second, prior cheating behavior will likely influence two more proximate
factors on the intention to cheat: perception of wrongfulness and the percep-
tion of being caught. Although previous research has demonstrated that prior
cheating behavior is a robust predictor of future behavior, it has failed to
examine any mediating factors. Prior engagement with cheating will diminish
one’s moral assessment that the behavior is wrong. In applying Stafford and
Warr’s (1993) deterrence theory, prior cheating informs one’s perceptions of
being caught and punished, and ultimately intention to cheat (see also
Whitley, 1998). If many students have cheated in the past and have not been
 8 FREIBURGER ET AL.

detected, or the sanction was not severe, their risk calculations are greatly
enhanced compared to non-cheaters.
Third, building on Stafford and Warr’s (1993) deterrence theory, vicarious
punishment and punishment avoidance will influence one’s perception of being
caught and subsequent intentions to cheat. Compared to the unknown, stu-
dents who have friends in the same class who have previously cheated and got-
ten away with it are more likely to engage in cheating, as their assessment of
opportunity and ability to succeed will be increased. Further, objective situa-
tional deterrence factors will be mediated by perception of being caught. More
severe sanctions that have more at stake (e.g. failing the course) involve
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

greater risk than sanctions that have a more limited effect on one’s final grade
(e.g. a letter grade lower on a quiz) (Woessner, 2004). Although sanction
severity and certainty are two separate factors in deterrence theory, a firmer
syllabus statement with clearly explained sanctions would likely influence
one’s risk calculation of detection and punishment.
Finally, we propose an indirect relationship between self-control and cheating
intention. Building on Bolin (2004), we propose that self-control will exert an
indirect influence on intention to cheat through the perception that the behavior
is morally wrong. Students with lower self-control will be less likely dissuaded
from moral assessments, as they are less concerned with long-term conse-
quences and seek self-gratification without concern for others or the potential
wrongfulness of the action, suggesting a mediation relationship (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990). Additionally, self-control will be mediated by the perception of
being caught. Opportunity is a key determinant of crime and analogous behavior,
which should not be confounded with level of self-control (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990; see also Nagin & Pogarsky, 2003). Bichler-Robertson and
colleagues (2003) found a moderating relationship between self-control and per-
ceived opportunity to get away with cheating, students were more likely to feel
as though there were more opportunities to cheat if they were in the lowest
quartile of self-control. As their research does not manipulate conditions of
opportunity, the current study more explicitly examines the causal pathway
between self-control and opportunity.

Current Study

The current study examines the impact of strain and deterrence on cheating
behaviors using a factorial survey. Randomly varying attributes of the survey
allow for a more direct test of existing theories, as students receive a vignette
with manipulated conditions and assess their impact on likelihood of cheating.
The variables were determined through prior research and theory, which has
indicated that contextual mechanisms may impact cheating behaviors.
Responses to additional survey questions are further examined to determine
the impact of self-control, belief in the morality of cheating, and students’
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 9

perceptions of being caught. Mediating relationships between contextual and

perceptual factors are also explored.

Methods

Sample

Students at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) and Appalachian

State University (ASU) were surveyed for the current study. The UWM is a large
public urban research school with a student population of 28,042, located in
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

the Milwaukee, Wisconsin, the largest city in the state. ASU is a mid-sized uni-
versity located in Boone, North Carolina with a student population of 18,026.
Classes to be included in the study from each University were selected using a
random number table from a numbered list of all the courses offered on cam-
pus (online and independent reading courses were omitted from the list) at
that University during the Spring 2013 semester. Once a class was selected,
the researchers emailed the instructors asking permission to administer the
survey during class time. If the instructor failed to respond or did not agree to
participate, a replacement class was selected through the same randomization
process. All surveys were administered during class time by a researcher or a
graduate research assistant. All the surveys were anonymous and participation
was voluntary.
This method resulted in 1,330 surveys (650 from UWM and 680 from ASU)
with a total of 5,314 completed vignettes (6 surveys had missing data for one
of the four vignettes). On the survey, respondents reported their gender,
race/ethnicity, year in school, and whether they had engaged in academic mis-
conduct in the past. Those who indicated that they had cheated in the past
were also asked to indicate the type of cheating they have engaged in,
whether they were caught, and whether they were punished. Respondents
were also asked to respond to an 8-item self-control scale; this 8-point scale is
a condensed version of Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev’s (1993) self-
control scale and has been used in previous research (e.g. Higgins, Marcum,
Freiburger, & Ricketts, 2012).
Table 1 presents the demographics of the sample. As presented in the table,
the sample was almost evenly split between males and females, with slightly
more females in the UWM sample and slightly more males in the ASU sample.
These sample statistics are similar to the University population, with 52.7% of
the UWM population being female and 55% of students at ASU being female.
The majority of respondents across both universities were white. Again, this is
similar to the population statistics with about 67% of UWM’s student population
being white and about 82% of ASU’s population. Juniors comprised a larger per-
centage of the sample from ASU, while seniors made up the majority in the
UWM sample. The mean level of self-control was 2.05 for the sample. Across
both universities, the majority of students had engaged in academic
 Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Table 1 Respondent characteristics

10

ASU (N = 680) % UWM (N = 650) % Total (N = 1,330) %

Gender
Female 314 46.2 356 54.8 670 50.4
Male 366 53.8 294 45.2 660 49.6

Race/ethnicity
White 605 89 458 75.2 1,063 82.9
FREIBURGER ET AL.

Black 14 2.1 34 5.6 48 3.6

Hispanic 18 2.7 33 5.4 51 3.8
Native American 3 .4 7 1.1 10 .8
Asian 9 1.3 47 7.7 56 4.2
Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian 1 .1 3 .5 4 .3
Multi-racial 13 1.9 19 3.1 32 2.4
Other 11 1.6 8 1.3 19 1.4
Missing 6 .01 41 6.3 47 3.5

Year in school
Freshman 158 23.2 137 22.1 295 22.2
Sophomore 164 24.4 133 21.5 297 22.3
Junior 214 31.9 154 24.9 368 27.7
Senior 130 19.4 183 29.6 313 23.5
Other 5 .7 12 1.9 17 1.3
Missing 9 31 40 3.0

Level of self-control 2.08 (mean) 45 (sd) 2.02 (mean) 46 (sd) 2.05 (mean) 46 (sd)

Cheated
No 192 28.2 163 25.1 355 26.7
Yes 488 71.8 487 74.9 975 73.3
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 11

misconduct during their college career, with about 73% of the sample
indicating that they had cheated in the past.
Table 2 displays the descriptive statistics for cheating behavior. For types of
cheating in which the respondents engaged, the surveys requested that respon-
dents indicate all that applied to them. Therefore, some respondents engaged
in more than one type. The percentage displayed in the table indicates the
percentage of the sample who engaged in that behavior. The most common
form of academic misconduct across both universities was for copying another
student’s in-class exam, followed by copying another student’s assignment.
For the ASU sample, the next most common form of cheating was copying
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

information and not citing the source, while the next common form of cheat-
ing among UWM students was writing exam answers on a body part. Of those
who cheated, only a small proportion was caught (4.9%). Table 2 shows that
the most common form of punishment across both universities was a lower
grade on the test or paper, followed by “other” at ASU and a lower grade in
the class at UWM.

Survey

Factorial surveys were created by randomly assigning variations in each inde-

pendent variable to hypothetical scenarios. This method presents unbiased
estimates of each independent variable simultaneously. When all scenarios are
combined together, they represent a random sample of all possible variable
combinations (Rossi & Anderson, 1982). Four vignettes were created to repre-
sent four different types of academic misconduct. The four types of miscon-
duct included were (1) using a “cheat sheet” during an exam, (2) plagiarism in
which the student copies and pastes paragraphs from a website without citing
the source, (3) copying a neighboring student’s answers during an exam, and
(4) submitting another student’s assignment and representing it as one’s own
work. Below is a sample of a vignette:

Olivia has an assignment due today in a required course for her major. The
course is a small seminar with 20 students. She finds the course very difficult.
She didn’t have time to complete the assignment because a family member
was ill. Her roommate, Emily, took the course last semester and Olivia decides
to turn in Emily’s old assignment. She knows this is considered cheating. The
syllabus states that students caught cheating will receive an F in the course.
Olivia has a friend who did this last semester and wasn’t caught.

The italicized sections are the randomly generated excerpts. In each vignette,
it was explicitly stated that the person depicted knew the action in which s/he
engaged was cheating.
 12 FREIBURGER ET AL.

Table 2 Characteristics of cheating behavior (N = 975)

ASU UWM Total

(N = 488) % (N = 487) % (N = 975) %

Prior cheating
Copied another student’s exam 343 70.3 315 64.7 658 67.5
Used a cheat sheet during an exam 109 22.3 143 29.4 252 25.8
Looked up answers on a cell phone 124 25.4 97 19.9 221 22.7
during an exam when it was
prohibited
Left notes out during an exam when 130 26.6 153 32.1 283 29.0
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

it was prohibited
Wrote answers on a body part 156 32.0 170 34.9 326 33.4
Turned in another student’s 39 8.0 60 12.3 99 10.1
assignment
Copied information without properly 205 42.0 162 33.3 367 37.6
citing
Copied another student’s 233 47.7 232 47.6 465 47.7
assignment

Was caught
No 462 94.7 465 95.5 927 95.1
Yes 26 5.3 22 4.5 48 4.9

Punishment Received for Cheating N = 26 N = 22 N = 48

Lower grade on test or paper 14 53.8 6 27.3 20 83.3
Lower grade in class 5 19.2 5 22.7 10 20.8
Gave failing grade for the class 0 0 4 18.2 4 8.3
Other 6 23.1 2 9.1 8 16.7
Missing 1 3.8 5 22.7 6 12.5

Variables

The variables of interest represented possible strain experienced by students

and measures of deterrence. For these variables attributes were randomly
selected by a computer for inclusion in the vignettes. Frequencies for these
variables are presented in Table 3. As shown in the table, the variable attri-
butes were fairly equally represented across the scenarios, as would be
expected with random assignment.1
Three strain variables were included. Whether the course was required for
the students’ college major was the first strain variable. The second distin-
guished whether the student found the course easy or difficult with an addi-
tional third category that did not mention the difficulty of the course. The

1. See Appendix for all four of the vignette skeletons.

 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 13

third assessed three different sources of strain that prevented the student
from completing his or her work. They included (1) the student worked until
late the night before, (2) the student was out partying with his or her friends
until late the night before, and (3) the student had a family member who was
ill. A fourth category was also included that did not mention any type of strain
in the scenario.
The deterrence variables assessed the type and severity of the punishment
for misconduct and the student’s vicarious experience with punishment or pun-
ishment avoidance for engaging in academic misconduct. To gage certainty of
punishment, a variable was included for class size that distinguished whether
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

the course was a small seminar with 20 students, a large lecture with 200 stu-
dents, or had no mention of class size. This variable was included to determine
whether the size of the class affected a respondent’s likelihood to cheat as
well as his/her perception of the likelihood that s/he would be caught
cheating.
The second deterrence variable examined the severity of punishment. For
this variable, five attributes were used that indicated in the course syllabus
what the punishment would be for cheating. They included (1) a statement
that the syllabus did not address cheating, (2) a statement in the syllabus
warning students that cheating would result in a lower grade on the exam/
assignment, (3) a statement in the syllabus warning students that cheating
would result in a zero on the exam/assignment, and (4) a statement in the
syllabus warning students that cheating would result in an F grade in the
course. Another category was also included that did not mention punishment
severity in the vignette.
An additional variable was created to assess experiences with vicarious
punishment and punishment avoidance. This variable had four attributes to
represent (1) having a friend that engaged in the same cheating behavior and
was not caught, (2) a friend who was caught but not punished, and (3) a friend
that was caught and punished. The last attribute (4) did not mention anything
about experiencing vicarious punishment or punishment avoidance.
Additional questions were included on the survey asking participants to indi-
cate on a 10-point scale how wrong they felt it was for the person depicted in
the scenario to engage in the behavior with one representing not wrong at all
and 10 representing very wrong. The mean for this variable was 2.59, indicat-
ing that overall students did not feel the cheating behaviors exhibited in the
vignettes were very wrong. Respondents also responded on two additional
10-point scales as to how likely they believed it was that the person in the sce-
nario would be caught and how likely they thought it was that the person
would be punished. For the caught variable, the mean was 6.29 and the mean
for the punished variables was 7.48 indicating that students had an overall per-
ception that the chances of the person getting caught were fairly strong and if
caught, an even stronger probability of being punished. For both scales, one
represented very unlikely and 10 represented very likely.
 14 FREIBURGER ET AL.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics for dependent and independent variables (N = 5,314)

Randomly selected variables Frequency Percentage

Strain variables
Major
No mention 2,647 49.8
Required for his/her major 2,667 50.2
Course difficulty
No mention of course difficulty 1,810 34.1
Student finds the course very difficult 1,774 33.4
Student finds the course easy 1,730 32.6
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Strain sources
No mention of strain 1,371 25.8
Student worked until late 1,323 24.9
Student was out late partying 1,303 24.5
Student was taking care of ill family member 1,317 24.8

Deterrence variables
Class size
No mention of class size 1,777 33.4
Large class with 200 students 1,756 33.0
Small seminar with 20 students 1,781 33.5
Sanction
No mention of sanction 1,030 19.4
Receive lower grade 1,053 19.8
Receive zero on the exam 1,086 20.4
Receive F in the course 1,063 20.0
Syllabus does not specify punishment 1,082 20.4
Punishment avoidance
No vicarious experience with behavior 1,389 26.1
Friend was not caught 1,363 25.6
Friend was caught but not punished 1,286 24.2
Friend was caught and punished 1,273 24.0

Additional response variables

Perception of wrongfulness 2.59 (mean) 2.01 (sd)
Perceived likelihood of getting caught 6.29 (mean) 2.82 (sd)
Perception of likelihood of getting punished 7.48 (mean) 2.66 (sd)

Dependent variable
Likelihood of student engaging in academic misconduct 2.73 (mean) 2.34 (sd)

Level of self-control, assessed on an 8-item self-control scale, was also

included to determine the mediated effects of self-control on indications to
engage in cheating. On the eight items, students were asked to indicate from
“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” how well each statement described
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 15

them. Items included such things as “I act on the spur of the moment” and “I
believe it is exciting to do things that can possibly get me in trouble.” The
average of the items was calculated for each participant. The Cronbach Alpha
for the scale was .88, indicating strong reliability. Prior experience with cheat-
ing was also included as an additive index for the eight types of cheating (see
Table 2 for a list) in which students were asked about their prior involvement.
Again, the direct and mediating effects of this variable were examined.
Descriptive statistics for these variables are also presented in Table 3.
Variables for the type of cheating (using a cheat sheet, plagiarism, copying
from neighboring student, and submitting another’s assignment) exhibited in
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

the vignette were also included as independent variables.

Dependent Variable

The last question for each scenario asked the respondents to rate on a 10-point
scale how likely they would be to do the same thing that the person depicted
in the scenario did if they were in the same situation. On the scale, one repre-
sented very unlikely that the respondent would engage in the same behavior
and 10 represented very likely that the respondent would engage in the same
behavior. This question comprised the dependent variable for the study. As
shown in Table 3, the mean was 2.73, indicating a low overall likelihood of
engaging in the cheating behaviors exhibited in the vignettes.

Analytical Technique

To assess the direct and indirect effects of the independent and control vari-
ables, the current study utilizes structural equation modeling. Structural equa-
tion modeling was chosen to model student likelihood of academic misconduct
because it allows for the simultaneous estimation of both direct and indirect
model effects while controlling for clustered data. By design, each respondent
was requested to respond to four different vignettes, each depicting a distinct
hypothetical circumstance of cheating, thus creating a clustered data struc-
ture. Using Mplus software, the statistical model was specified to account for
the dependence of observations within these clusters. Furthermore, to evalu-
ate the model, we employed the maximum likelihood parameter estimator
with robust standard errors, because the estimator is robust to non-normality
and non-independence of observations (Muthén & Muthén, 2010, p. 533).

Results

Figure 2 presents the path diagram illustrating our hypothesized model of col-
lege student academic misconduct. Our model tests the direct effects that
 16 FREIBURGER ET AL.

self-control, the likelihood of getting caught, the perception of wrongfulness,

and prior cheating had on the likelihood of students engaging in academic
misconduct. Further, the model also examines the indirect effects that deter-
rence, strain, and types of cheating had on the reported likelihood of aca-
demic misconduct. The indirect relationship between deterrence and
misconduct was fully mediated by the students’ perceived likelihood of getting
caught. On the other hand, the indirect relationship between strain and mis-
conduct, as well as type of cheating and misconduct, were fully mediated by
the students’ perception of wrongfulness.
The nominal variables measuring the types of strain, deterrence, and
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

misconduct that were randomly presented in each of the vignettes, had to be

recoded as dummy variables to determine the impact that each of these fac-
tors had on students’ likelihood of misconduct. Reference categories for these
dummy variables were determined by model fit. In other words, the categories
that correlated most highly with the other categories in these nominal vari-
ables were excluded from the statistical model to serve as a reference cate-
gories for the dummy variables. The categories that were excluded from the
final model were: small class size, no vicarious experience with punishment,
student finds the course easy, syllabus does not specify a punishment, no men-
tion of strain, submitting another student’s assignment, and submitting
another student’s assignment as one’s own. The variable for perceptions of
getting punished if caught was also excluded from the final model due to issues
with multicollinearity.
The fit indices, reported in Table 4, reveal that our model provides a rea-
sonable fit to our data. Overall, our model explained 49% of the variance in
student likelihood of academic misconduct. Although the model chi-square was
significant (indicating a lack of fit), the approximate measures of model fit
meet the criteria for a good/acceptable fitting structural equation model
(SEM).
The presence of a significant model chi-square value is common due to the
sensitivity that chi-square tests have to large sample sizes (Little, 2013). Chi-
square values tend to increase along with the sample size, and in large samples
chi-square tests frequently fail even though the discrepancies between the

Table 4 Goodness-of-fit estimates for academic misconduct path model

Fit indices Estimate

Chi-square test of model fit 1,426.61, (445) p < .001

RMSEA .04
CFI .9
TLI .9
SRMR .05
Overall R² .49
N = 5,314 number of cluster = 1,328
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 17

model predicted and actual covariance matrices are slight (Kline, 2011).
According to Little (2013) the chi-square test will be significant in most SEM
models (p. 107). Markland’s (2007) evaluation of studies published in Personal-
ity and Individual Differences found that among 28 studies using SEM only
three studies had non-significant chi-squares.
When sample sizes are large and chi-square tests are significant researchers
frequently follow the “modeling rationale” approach to assessing model fit
(Little, 2013, p. 106). According to advocates of this approach “all models are
wrong to some degree, even in the population, the best that one can hope for
is to identify a parsimonious, substantively meaningful model that fits observed
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

data adequately well” (MacCallum & Austin, 2000, p. 218). This approach relies
on the absolute fit and relative fit measures when chi-square tests are signifi-
cant (Kline, 2011; Little, 2013; Markland, 2007). Absolute fit indices for our
model include the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Relative fit measures include
the comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis index (TLI). Following
Little’s (2013) criteria for interpreting fit indices, the findings suggest that our
model achieves a good absolute fit and an acceptable relative fit to the data.
As presented in Figure 1 and Table 5, results from our model show that the
likelihood of getting caught, perception of wrongfulness, and prior cheating
each had statistically significant direct effects on student likelihood of aca-
demic misconduct. One standard deviation unit increase in the likelihood of
getting caught was correlated with a .13 unit decrease in the likelihood of aca-
demic misconduct (p < .05). The perception of wrongfulness was also nega-
tively associated with the likelihood of academic misconduct. One standard

Deterrence dummy variables

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9

-0.05** 0.04**
Self-
Control
0.23*
Likelihood of
getting R² = 0.49
caught
-0.13*
e
SC SC SC SC SC SC SC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.21*
Likelihood of
0.81 0.50 0.45 0.37 0.75 0.70 0.63 Academic
Perception of -0.83*** Misconduct
Wrongfulness

0.05*
Prior cheating
index

-0.31* -0.42** 0.05*

S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 M1 M2 M3

Strain dummy variables Type of misconduct

Figure 1. Academic misconduct path model.

Note. Figure reports p-values and standardized coefficients, *p < .05, **p < .01, *** p < .001.
 18 FREIBURGER ET AL.

Table 5 Direct and indirect effects of academic misconduct

Path effects β SE p

Direct effects on likelihood of misconduct

Perceived likelihood of getting caught −.133* .026 .049
Self-control −.017 .009 .061
Perception of wrongfulness −.828*** .098 .000
Prior cheating .045* .014 .035

Partially mediated indirect effects on misconduct

Self-control mediated by perceived likelihood of getting caught −.029* .007 .047
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Self-control mediated by perception of wrongfulness −.174** .009 .002

Prior cheating mediated by perception of wrongfulness .041* .006 .039

Fully mediated indirect effects on misconduct

Deterrence effect on misconduct mediated by likelihood of getting caught
D1, large class with 200 students .006 .021 .479
D2, no class size mentioned .011 .024 .428
D3, no mention of sanction .039 .027 .165
D4, receive lower grade .008 .028 .781
D5, receive zero on the exam −.004 .028 .838
D6, receive F in the course −.042 .023 .132
D7, friend not caught .033 .021 .172
D8, friend caught but not punished .019 .025 .410
D9, friend caught and punished −.009 .026 .320
Strain effect on misconduct mediated by perception of wrongfulness
S1, class required for his/her major −.010 .019 .531
S2, no mention of course difficulty .026 .021 .371
S3, students find the course difficult .257** .023 .009
S4, student worked until late .007 .024 .751
S5, student was out late partying −.034 .025 .201
S6, student was taking care of ill family member .349*** .027 .000
Type of misconduct’s effect on likelihood of misconduct mediated by perception of
wrongfulness
M1, using a “cheat sheet” during an exam .011 .003 .435
M2, plagiarism .042 .014 .211
M3, copying a neighboring student’s answers during an exam .009 .002 .455

Notes. N = 5,314, number of clusters = 1,328. Robust standard errors are reported. *p < .05,
**p < .01, *** p < .001.

deviation unit increase in the perception of wrongfulness was associated with

a .83 unit decrease in academic misconduct (p < .001). On the other hand,
prior cheating was positively associated with student likelihood of academic
misconduct, whereas one standard deviation unit increase in prior cheating
was correlated with a .05 unit increase in the likelihood of misconduct
(p < .05).
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 19

Partially mediated indirect effects tested in our model include two indirect
relationships between self-control and likelihood of academic misconduct, and
the indirect relationship between prior cheating and the likelihood of miscon-
duct. Results show that the indirect effect that self-control had on the likeli-
hood of academic misconduct, partially mediated by the likelihood of getting
caught, was statistically significant (p < .05). One standard deviation unit
increase in self-control, partially mediated by the likelihood of getting caught,
was associated with a .03 unit decrease in the likelihood of misconduct. The
second indirect effect that self-control had on misconduct, partially mediated
by the perception of wrongfulness, was also statistically significant (p < .01).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

One standard deviation unit increase in self-control, partially mediated by the

perception of wrongfulness, was associated with a .17 unit decrease in the
likelihood of academic misconduct. The indirect effect that prior cheating had
on the likelihood of misconduct, partially mediated by the perception of
wrongfulness, was also statistically significant (p < .05). A unit increase in prior
cheating was associated with a .04 unit increase in misconduct.
Three segments of fully mediated indirect effects were tested in our model.
First, the model assesses the indirect effects that deterrence dummy variables
had on the likelihood of academic misconduct, fully mediated by the students’
perceived likelihood of getting caught. Second, the model tests the indirect
influence that strain dummy variables had on the likelihood of misconduct,
fully mediated by the effect of prior cheating. Finally, the model estimates
the indirect effect that the specific types of misconduct discussed in the ran-
domized vignettes had on the likelihood of misconduct mediated by the per-
ception of wrongfulness.
Results show that none of the deterrence variables have significant indirect
effects on the likelihood of misconduct. Interestingly, two of the deterrence
variables (large class size; friend caught and punished) have significant direct
effects on the perceived likelihood of getting caught (See Figure 1). As shown
in Table 5, two of the strain variables have significant indirect effects on aca-
demic misconduct. First, when the vignette mentions that students find the
class difficult, the likelihood of misconduct increases by .26 units (p < .01).
Furthermore, when the vignette suggests the strain of taking care of an ill
family member, the likelihood of academic dishonesty increases by .35 units
(p < .001). Although plagiarism had a significant direct effect on the perception
of wrongfulness, none of the types of misconduct mentioned in the vignettes
have a significant indirect effect on the students’ likelihood of misconduct
(see Figure 1).

Discussion

The current study found that there is some potential to deter students from
cheating, but not all strategies typically used by professors reduce cheating
behaviors. Although deterrence theory would expect that increasing the
 20 FREIBURGER ET AL.

certainty of punishment by mentioning the punishment in the syllabus, the cur-

rent study did not find that it had an impact. Students’ likelihood of indicating
they would cheat was also not affected by the severity of the sanction. Given
that prior research has found that instructors often fail to catch and punish
students who cheat (McCabe et al., 2001; Woessner, 2004), it is likely that stu-
dents are not being deterred by what is written in the syllabus because their
experiences with punishment avoidance are so strong. Other studies have addi-
tionally found that telling students they would be caught and punished for
cheating did not deter cheating behavior (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2003). Students
who indicated a higher likelihood of getting caught, however, were less likely
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

to indicate that they would cheat. This is also consistent with prior deterrence
research that finds certainty of punishment to be most impactful on an individ-
ual’s actions (Nagin & Pogarsky, 2001; Pratt et al., 2006). Further supporting
the importance of certainty, those in larger classrooms indicated a higher like-
lihood of engaging in misconduct. It is likely that students are weighing their
likelihood of being caught as rather low in classes in large lecture halls where
it is impossible for the instructor to watch all students closely during exams
and quizzes.
The results did find support for Stafford and Warr’s (1993) argument that
primary and vicarious experiences with punishment avoidance impact students’
indication that they would engage in academic misconduct. Students who had
cheated in the past were more likely to indicate that they would engage in the
behavior depicted in the scenario. Given that only 4.9% of students who have
previously cheated were caught and punished in some manner, it is extremely
likely that prior experience is a strong source of information regarding the
actual likelihood of being caught. Students who have cheated in the past are
typically able to avoid punishment, and as such are more likely to cheat in the
future because of their low assessment of being caught. In scenarios that
depicted a person who had a friend who had engaged in the behavior and was
not caught respondents also indicated a higher likelihood of engaging in the
behavior. Again, this suggests that experience with cheating, whether vicari-
ously or directly, is more influential than syllabus statements regarding aca-
demic misconduct. This is also consistent with previous studies that have
found that students who believe many of their peers cheat are also more likely
to engage in misconduct (Bisping et al., 2008; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Vowell
& Chen, 2004).
Students who indicated a stronger belief that the act of misconduct
depicted in the scenario was more wrong were also less likely to cheat. Again,
this is consistent with previous deterrent literature that finds that individuals
are less likely to engage in behaviors they feel are morally wrong. Bachman,
Paternoster, and Ward (1992) found that male college students were less likely
to indicate that they would engage in sexual assault if they believed the act
depicted in the vignette presented to them was morally wrong. In cases where
they believed the act was wrong, deterrence did not impact their likelihood of
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 21

engaging in the behavior. It was only when they did not feel the act was wrong
that their actions were influenced by deterrence.
The effects of strain were less prominent in the current study. Only in situa-
tions when a student was faced with an ill family member whom they had to
care for were they impacted by strain variables. This might be due to the
other strain variables presented in the scenario. The other variables presented
situations in which the student worked late or had stayed out late partying.
Both these situations could be considered within the control of the student.
The student could have chosen not to attend the party or could have exercised
better time management with their work schedule. Course difficulty did, how-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

ever, significantly impact students’ decisions. It appears that students are

more inclined to engage in academic misconduct if the course is difficult for
them. This finding is expected given strain theory as having a difficult class
would increase a student’s level of strain.

Practical Implications

The findings of this study indicate that the most important thing universities
can do to deter cheating is to increase students’ perceptions of being caught
and punished. Common practices that are easier to implement, such as men-
tioning punishments in the syllabus, do not appear to be effective in influenc-
ing students’ behaviors. It is important, therefore, that instructors make an
effort to detect cheating in their classrooms. This could include having gradu-
ate assistants assist in proctoring exams, using plagiarism detection software,
and continual reiteration of the importance of not engaging in misconduct and
consequences for being caught.
Also important is that instructors properly punish academic misconduct
when it occurs. The results of this study found that having a friend who
engaged in academic misconduct and was not punished increased students’
likelihoods of cheating. This is problematic as many instructors may ignore
cheating or handle acts of academic misconduct informally to avoid the work
associated with properly punishing these behaviors. Previous research has
demonstrated that instructors are reticent to punish those caught cheating
(Woessner, 2004). This can create a culture in which students receive the unin-
tended message that cheating is not serious and is tolerated.
Given the large percentage of students who reported engaging in academic
dishonesty in both universities studied (71.8 and 73.3%) compared to the per-
centage who reported being caught (5.3 and 4.9%), it is possible that this is in
fact the message students are receiving. It is imperative to universities’ repu-
tations and the integrity of their programs that they make more of an effort to
combat academic misconduct. Universities might consider providing trainings
for instructors to detect, report, and punish acts of misconduct. Systems
should also be established that make this process less cumbersome for
 22 FREIBURGER ET AL.

instructors. Future research should also survey instructors regarding their prac-
tices for detecting academic misconduct in their classes and the strategies
they use after detecting misconduct. Universities should then consider estab-
lishing best practice guidelines for instructors.
In addition, universities should consider more extensive trainings for stu-
dents in which it is explained to them the seriousness of cheating. Given the
results indicated that students who view cheating behaviors as more wrong are
less likely to cheat, universities should make an effort to increase students’
opinions of wrongfulness. Scanlan (2006) noted that while many universities
have developed honor codes and required students and faculty to pledge to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

abide by these codes, students often do not view cheating and plagiarizing as
a serious problem. Our results further indicate this to be true. Welcoming
week seminars or required courses on academic integrity may be one avenue
for changing these beliefs. In addition to educating students on the perceived
“gray areas” of cheating (i.e. collaborative work on an assignment, recycling
old papers), these courses should incorporate information on the ethical prob-
lems associated with cheating. Having students work though activities that
demonstrate their understanding of both the ethical and the definitional
aspects of plagiarism is one measurable demonstration of success at changing
the culture of cheating within the university.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Tina L. Freiburger is an associate professor and chair of the Department of Criminal Jus-
tice at the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. She has published several journal arti-
cles on racial and gender disparities in decision-making and juvenile justice issues. Her
recent publications have appeared in Feminist Criminology, Crime and Delinquency,
and Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice.

Danielle M. Romain, MS, is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Urban Studies at

the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. Her research interests include court processing
of domestic violence and sexual assault cases, gender and racial disparities in prosecu-
torial decision-making and charge reduction. Her publications include articles in Crimi-
nal Justice Studies and Feminist Criminology.

Blake M. Randol is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the

University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee. His primary research interest involves the applica-
tion of organizational theory to the study of police organizations. He holds a PhD in
criminal justice and criminology from Washington State University.

Catherine D. Marcum is an associate professor of criminal justice and Criminal Justice

Curriculum Coordinator in the Department of Government and Justice Studies at
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 23

Appalachian State University. She is also an associate editor of the ACJS journal,
Corrections: Policy, Practice and Research. She has published several journal articles
and books in the fields of cybercrime, sexual victimization, and correctional issues.

References

Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the
types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319–361.
Agnew, R., Piquero, N. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2009). General strain theory and white-collar
crime. The criminology of white-collar crime (pp. 35–60). New York, NY: Springer.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory. Criminol-
ogy, 30, 475–500.
Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., & Ward, S. (1992). The rationality of sexual offending:
Testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual assault. Law and Society
Review, 26, 343–372.
Baker, J. O. (2010). The expression of low self-control as problematic drinking in adoles-
cents: An integrated control perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 237–244.
Beccaria, C. (1963/1764). On crimes and punishments. New York, NY: Bobbs-Merrill.
Benda, B. B. (2005). The robustness of self-control in relation to form of delinquency.
Youth & Society, 36, 418–444.
Bichler-Robertson, G., Potchak, M. C., & Tibbetts, S. (2003). Low self-control, opportu-
nity, and strain in students’ reported cheating behavior. Journal of Crime and
Justice, 26, 23–53.
Bisping, T. O., Patron, H., & Roskelley, K. (2008). Modeling academic dishonesty: The
role of student perceptions and misconduct type. The Journal of Economic
Education, 39, 4–21.
Blickle, G., Schlegel, A., Fassbender, P., & Klein, U. (2006). Some personality correlates
of business white-collar crime. Applied Psychology, 55, 220–233.
Bolin, A. U. (2004). Self-control, perceived opportunity, and attitudes as predictors of
academic dishonesty. The Journal of Psychology, 138, 101–114.
Cauffman, E., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2005). Psychological, neuropsychological
and physiological correlates of serious antisocial behavior in adolescence: The role of
self-control. Criminology, 43, 133–176.
Chapple, C. L. (2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly,
22, 89–106.
Clement, M. J. (2001). Academic dishonesty: To be or not to be? Journal of Criminal
Justice Education, 12, 253–270.
Cochran, J. K., Aleksa, V., & Sanders, B. A. (2008). Are persons low in self-control
rational and deterrable? Deviant Behavior, 29, 461–483.
Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M. B., Wood, P. B., & Sellers, C. S. (1999). Shame, embarrass-
ment, and formal sanction threats: Extending the deterrence/rational choice model
to academic dishonesty. Sociological Inquiry, 69, 91–105.
DeLisi, M., Beaver, K. M., Vaughn, M. G., Trulson, C. R., Kosloski, A. E., Drury, A. J., &
Wright, J. P. (2010). Personality, gender, and self-control theory revisited: Results
from a sample of institutionalized juvenile delinquents. Applied Psychology in Crimi-
nal Justice, 6, 31–46.
Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M. (2011). Cheating behaviors in
academic context: Does academic moral disengagement matter? Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 29, 356–365.
 24 FREIBURGER ET AL.

Gibson, C. L., Khey, D., & Schreck, C. J. (2008). Gender, internal controls, and
academic dishonesty: Investigating mediating and differential effects. Journal of
Criminal Justice Education, 19, 2–18.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Grasmick, H. G., & Bryjak, G. J. (1980). The deterrent effect of perceived severity of
punishment. Social Forces, 59, 471–491.
Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, Jr., R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the
core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.
Hay, C., & Evans, M. M. (2006). Violent victimization and involvement in delin-
quency: Examining predictions from general strain theory. Journal of Criminal
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Justice, 34, 261–274.

Higgins, G. E., Marcum, C. D., Freiburger, T. L., & Ricketts, M. L. (2012). Examining the
Role of peer influence and self-control on downloading behavior. Deviant Behavior,
33, 412–423.
Higgins, G. E., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). General strain theory, peer
rejection, and delinquency/crime. Youth & Society, 43, 1272–1297.
Imran, A. M., & Ayobami, O. R. (2011). Academic dishonesty among tertiary institution
students: An exploration of the societal influences using sem analysis. International
Journal of Education, 3(2), 1–15.
Imran, A. M., & Nordin, M. S. (2013). Predicting the underlying factors of academic
dishonesty among undergraduates in public universities: A path analysis approach.
Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 103–120.
Jones, S., & Quisenberry, N. (2004). The general theory of crime: How general is it?
Deviant Behavior, 25, 401–426.
Kisamore, J. L., Stone, T. H., & Jawahar, I. M. (2007). Academic integrity: The relation-
ship between individual and situational factors on misconduct contemplations.
Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 381–394.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Lambert, E. G., & Hogan, N. L. (2004). Academic dishonesty among criminal justice
majors: A research note. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 1–20.
Langton, L., & Piquero, N. L. (2007). Can general strain theory explain white-collar
crime? A preliminary investigation of the relationship between strain and select
white-collar offenses. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 1–15.
Lanier, M. M. (2006). Academic integrity and distance learning. Journal of Criminal
Justice Education, 17, 244–261.
Little, P. T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling
in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 201–226.
Markland, D. (2007). The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary
on Paul Barrett’s recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation
modelling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 851–858.
Martino, S. C., Collins, R. L., & Ellickson, P. L. (2004). Substance use and early
marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 244–257.
McCabe, D. L. (1992). The influence of situational ethics on cheating among college
students. Sociological Inquiry, 62, 365–374.
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty in
graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of
Management Learning & Education, 5, 294–305.
 CHEATING BEHAVIORS 25

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college:
Longitudinal trends and recent developments. Change, 28, 28–33.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in academic
institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219–232.
McKibban, A. R., & Burdsal, C. A. (2013). Academic dishonesty: An in-depth investiga-
tion of assessing measurable constructs and a call for consistency in scholarship.
Journal of Academic Ethics, 11, 185–197.
Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to academic
cheating. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 870–885.
Moon, B., Morash, M., McCluskey, C. P., & Hwang, H. W. (2009). A comprehensive test
of general strain theory: Key strains, situational- and trait-based negative emotions,
conditioning factors, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delin-
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

quency, 46, 182–212.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus, statistical analysis with latent variables:
User’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Mplus.
Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal
sanction threats into a model of general deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminol-
ogy, 39, 865–892.
Nagin, D. S., & Pogarsky, G. (2003). An experimental investigation of deterrence:
Cheating, self-serving bias, and impulsivity. Criminology, 41, 167–194.
Ogilvie, J., & Stewart, A. (2010). The integration of rational choice and self-efficacy
theories: A situational analysis of student misconduct. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 43, 130–155.
Park, C. (2004). Rebels without a clause: Towards an institutional framework for dealing
with plagiarism by students. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 28, 291–306.
Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1986). The deterrent effect of perceived severity: A
reexamination. Social Forces, 64, 751–777.
Perrone, D., Sullivan, C. J., Pratt, T. C., & Margaryan, S. (2004). Parental efficacy,
self-control, and delinquency: A test of a general theory of crime on a nationally rep-
resentative sample of youth. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Compar-
ative Criminology, 48, 298–312.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The
empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In Taking stock: The status
of criminological theory (Vol. 15, pp. 367–396). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Rossi, P. H., & Anderson, A. B. (1982). In P. H. Rossi & S. L. Nock (Eds.), The factorial
survey approach: An introduction. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Scanlan, C. (2006). Strategies to promote a climate of academic integrity and minimize
student cheating and plagiarism. Journal of Allied Health, 35, 179–185.
Smith, T. R., Langenbacher, M., Kudlac, C., & Fera, A. G. (2013). Deviant reactions to
the college pressure cooker: A test of general strain theory on undergraduate
students in the United States. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences,
8, 88–104.
Staats, S., & Hupp, J. M. (2012). An examination of academic misconduct intentions
and the ineffectiveness of syllabus statements. Ethics & Behavior, 22, 239–247.
Stafford, M. C., & Warr, M. (1993). A reconceptualization of general and specific deter-
rence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 123–135.
Stogner, J. M., Miller, B. L., & Marcum, C. D. (2013). Learning to e-cheat: A criminolog-
ical test of internet facilitated academic cheating. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 24, 175–199.
Stone, T. H., Jawahar, I. M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2010). Predicting academic misconduct
intentions and behavior using the theory of planned behavior and personality. Basic
and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 35–45.
 26 FREIBURGER ET AL.

Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of

delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.
Tibbetts, S. G. (1998). Differences between criminal justice majors and noncriminal jus-
tice majors in determinants of test cheating intentions. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education, 9, 81–94.
Tibbetts, S. G., & Myers, D. L. (1999). Low self-control, rational choice, and student
test cheating. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 179–200.
Van Houtte, M., & Stevens, P. A. (2008). Sense of futility: The missing link between
track position and self-reported school misconduct. Youth & Society, 40, 245–264.
Vowell, P. R., & Chen, J. (2004). Predicting academic misconduct: A comparative test
of four sociological explanations. Sociological Inquiry, 74, 226–249.
Walker, N., & Holtfreter, K. (2015). Applying criminological theory to academic fraud.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego] at 11:10 15 July 2016

Journal of Financial Crime, 22, 48–62.

Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A
review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.
Williams, M. W. M., & Williams, M. N. (2012). Academic dishonesty, self-control, and
general criminality: A prospective and retrospective study of academic dishonesty in
a New Zealand University. Ethics & Behavior, 22, 89–112.
Woessner, M. C. (2004). Beating the house: How inadequate penalties for cheating make
plagiarism an excellent gamble. Political Science and Politics, 37, 313–320.
Yeşilyurt, E. (2014). Academic locus of control, tendencies towards academic dishonesty
and test anxiety levels as the predictors of academic self-efficacy. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14, 1945–1956.
Young, J. T. (2011). How do they ‘end up together’? A social network analysis of
self-control, homophily, and adolescent relationships. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 27, 251–273.

Appendix. Vignettes

Tom has an exam today [Variable 1: Major]. [Variable 2: Class Size]. [Variable 3: Diffi-
culty of Class]. [Variable 4: Strain]. He decides to take a cheat sheet to the exam. He
knows it’s considered cheating. [Variable 5: Potential Level of Sanction]. [Variable 6:
Vicarious Punishment/Avoidance].

Amy has a paper due today. [Variable 1: Major]. [Variable 2: Class Size]. [Variable 3:
Difficulty of Class]. [Variable 4: Strain]. Before class, she goes to a website and copies
and pastes a couple of paragraphs into her paper but doesn’t cite the website. She
knows it’s considered plagiarism. [Variable 5: Potential Level of Sanction]. [Variable 6:
Vicarious Punishment/Avoidance].

Jake has an exam today [Variable 1: Major]. [Varibale 2: Class Size]. [Variable 3: Dif-
ficulty of Class]. [Variable 4: Strain]. During the exam he looks over at his neighbor’s
exam and copies a couple of the answers. He knows this is considered cheating. [Vari-
able 5: Potential Level of Sanction]. [Variable 6: Vicarious Punishment/Avoidance].

Olivia has an assignment due today [Variable 1: Major]. [Variable 2: Class Size]. Oli-
via has an assignment due today. [Variable 3: Difficulty of Class]. [Variable 4: Strain].
Her roommate, Emily, took the course last semester and Olivia decides to turn in
Emily’s old assignment. She knows this is considered cheating. [Variable 5: Potential
Level of Sanction]. [Variable 6: Vicarious Punishment/Avoidance].