This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] On: 10 July 2012, At: 00:26 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Accounting Education: An International Journal

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/raed20

Challenges to Academic Integrity: Identifying the Factors Associated With the Cheating Chain
Richard A. Bernardi , Caitlin A. Banzhoff , Abigail M. Martino & Katelyn J. Savasta
a a a a a

Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA

Version of record first published: 12 Aug 2011

To cite this article: Richard A. Bernardi, Caitlin A. Banzhoff, Abigail M. Martino & Katelyn J. Savasta (2012): Challenges to Academic Integrity: Identifying the Factors Associated With the Cheating Chain, Accounting Education: An International Journal, 21:3, 247-263 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.598719

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-andconditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Accounting Education: an international journal Vol. 21, No. 3, 247 263, June 2012

Challenges to Academic Integrity: Identifying the Factors Associated With the Cheating Chain
Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

RICHARD A. BERNARDI, CAITLIN A. BANZHOFF, ABIGAIL M. MARTINO and KATELYN J. SAVASTA

Roger Williams University, Bristol, Rhode Island, USA
Received: November 2010 Revised: March 2011; June 2011 Accepted: March2011 Published online: August 2011

ABSTRACT This study examined whether seeing other students cheat in examinations and/or knowing students who routinely cheat in examinations associates with other students cheating behaviour and on their intentions to cheat in the future. We also examined whether cheating in minor and/or major examinations associates with students intentions to cheat in the future. Our sample included 195 business students enrolled in accounting classes from three universities located in the USA. Our analyses indicated that having cheated in a minor and/or major examination associated with the sum of having observed other students cheating, knowing a student who routinely cheated and social desirability response bias. Our model for students intentions to cheat in the future included their having cheated in minor and major examinations. We also tested our ndings on the data from prior research, which included students from Australia, China, Ireland, Japan and the USA. KEY WORDS : Cheating chain, reduced ethical sensitivity

Introduction The rate of cheating in examinations in college increased from 39% to 64% between 1963 and 1993 (McCabe, Trevino and Buttereld, 2001). Smyth and Davis (2003) report that, although 92% of those surveyed reported that cheating was not ethical, 45% believed that cheating was socially-acceptable. Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley and Washburn (1998, p. 215) suggest that educators may overlook cheating because of insufcient evidence, time and effort involved, the probability of catching the worst offenders and the educators lack of courage.

Correspondence Address: Richard A. Bernardi, Gabelli School of Business, Roger Williams University, Bristol, RI 02809 2921, USA. Email: rbernardi@rwu.edu 0963-9284 Print/1468-4489 Online/12/03024717 # 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2011.598719

248 R. A. Bernardi et al.

Baack, Fogliasso and Harris (2000) suggest that ignoring minor offenses has the potential for eroding ones ethical sensitivity to situations, which can lead to viewing increasingly larger deviations as being acceptable. For example, if students continue to see other students cheating in examinations, they might come to believe that cheating in examinations is a socially-acceptable behaviour (Smyth and Davis, 2003). The ndings that cheating in college associates with unethical behaviour in the workplace (Lucas and Friedrich, 2005; Lawson, 2004) highlight the importance of this area of research. Additionally, Rettinger and Jordan (2005) report that business students cheat more and that they are less critical of cheating than are liberal arts students. In this research, we hope to familiarize instructors with the dramatic rate of growth of cheating that exists in college and the factors inuencing this growth. Our questionnaire was developed from Sierles, Hendrickx and Circles (1980) questionnaire, which was also used by Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006); Bernardi and LaCross (2004); Salter, Guffey and McMillan (2001); and Ameen, Guffey and McMillan (1996). All of these prior studies used students intent to cheat in the future to predict their prior cheating behaviour. This study explores Baack et al.s (2000) suggestion that ignoring minor offences has the potential to erode ones ethical sensitivity. Our sample included 195 business students enrolled in accounting classes from three universities located in the USA. We also tested our ndings on the data from prior research, which included 474 students from Australia, China, Ireland, Japan and the USA.1 Our analysis indicates that students cheating behaviour in minor and major examinations associates with having seen other students cheat (also McCabe, Buttereld and Trevino, 2006), knowing students who regularly cheat, which suggests that instructors should increase their vigilance during classroom examinationsespecially in the introductory courses.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Literature Review Increase in College Cheating Sims (1993) research suggests a pandemic increase in the proportion of students engaging in cheating between the early 1940s and the late 1980s (Figure 1). While Sims data were from a variety of majors, Ameen et al. (1996) and Salter et al. (2001) report that approximately 56% of the accounting majors from the USA had cheated. Salter et al. (2001) also report that about 40% of accounting majors from the UK had cheated. Bernardi and

Figure 1. Increase in college cheating: 1942 to 1991. Data reported in Sims (1993)

Challenges to Academic Integrity

249

Adamaitis (2006) report that 57% of the Australian; 71% of the Chinese; 51% of the Irish; 72% of the Japanese; and 62% of the US students in introductory accounting classes reported having cheated. While these percentages are below those of Sims (1993), McCabe et al. (2006) report that business students cheat more than do non-business students.

Overview Four studies (Bernardi and Adamaitis, 2006; Bernardi and LaCross, 2004; Salter et al., 2001; Ameen et al., 1996) examined student cheating using Sierles et al.s (1980) questionnaire developed to study cheating in medical schools. Bernardi and LaCross (2004) and Ameen et al.s (1996) samples included participants from the USA; Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) (Salter et al.s, 2001) research included participants from Australia, China, Ireland, Japan and the USA (the UK and the USA). Although Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) and Bernardi and LaCross (2004) samples were business students in accounting classes, and Ameen et al.s (1996) and Salter et al.s (2001) samples were accounting majors, the results of all four studies indicated that prior cheating behaviour associated with future intentions to cheat (i.e. accounting and business students behaviours and intentions were similar). Finally, only Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) and Bernardi and LaCross (2004) controlled for socially desirability response bias; their analyses indicated that students who were more (less) prone to socially desirable responding had a lower (higher) self-reported rate of cheating.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Proposed Model The research by Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006), Bernardi and LaCross (2004), Salter et al. (2001), and Ameen et al. (1996) all used students intentions to cheat in the future as an independent variable when analysing students past cheating behaviour. However, past behaviour should be used to predict future behaviour, not the opposite. This study employs Baack et al.s (2000) premise that ignoring minor offenses has the potential for eroding ones ethical sensitivity. This premise is consistent with Diekhoff, LaBeff, Shinohara and Yasukawa (1999) ndings, that there is a difference in the mindset between those who cheat and those who do not cheat. For example, Trevino (1986) reported a negative association between moral development and cheating. Similarly, Abdolmohammadi and Baker (2007) found that, as a students ethical sensitivity (as measured on the Dening Issues Test, Rest, 1979) increased, plagiarizing internet data (another form of cheating) decreased. Consequently, we propose a model (Figure 2) to examine the effect of seeing other students cheat and knowing students who routinely cheat with students cheating in minor-and-major examinations and their intention to cheat in the future.

Student Knowledge McCabe et al. (2001) suggest that students think that cheating is the only way to level the playing eld because of the competition in college. Additionally, McCabe and Trevino (1993, p. 533) believe that:
The fact that others are cheating may also suggest that . . . cheating may come to be viewed as an acceptable way of getting and staying ahead [in the future]. (Wording in brackets added by authors.)

250 R. A. Bernardi et al.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Figure 2. Proposed cheating chain

Jordan (2001) notes that academically-honest students (i.e., those students who believe cheating is wrong) witness less cheating and believe their peers are cheating less. Conversely, academically-dishonest students (i.e. those students who do not believe cheating is wrong) witness more cheating and believe their peers are cheating more often (i.e., cynicism). Additionally, the ndings of Haswell, Jubb and Wearing (1999) and Jensen, Arnett, Feldman and Cauffman (2001) indicated that students were more apt to cheat in the future because their academic integrity was low. Smith, Davy, Rosenberg and Haight (2002) and Lord and Melvin (1997) note that students who cheat typically rationalized (i.e. cynicism) their unethical actions. All four of the business studies that used Sierles et al.s (1980) questionnaire included the following three questions pertaining to cynicism: 1. People who say they have never cheated before are hypocrites. 2. Everybody steals, cheats, or lies at least once in his/her lifetime. 3. People have to cheat in this dog-eat-dog world. Salter et al. (2001) and Ameen et al. (1996) found that students with a higher level of cynicism (i.e. the sum of the students responses to these three questions) are more likely to cheat. Consequently, observing others cheat or knowing someone who cheats reinforces ones own cheating behaviour. Baack et al. (2000) would probably suggest that seeing another student cheat erodes a persons ethical sensitivity and can lead to that person cheating in the future. However, Bernardi and LaCross (2004) and Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) models on cheating did not include cynicism (i.e. a major difference from Ameen et al., 1996; and Salter et al., 2001). Both Bernardi and LaCross (2004) and Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) found that social desirability response bias (Paulhus, 1991) associated with selfreported cheating and cynicism. These two studies noted that those students who tended (not) to respond in a socially-desirable manner had a lower (higher) level of self-reported cheating and cynicism. It may be that Ameen et al.s (1996) and Salter et al.s (2001)

Challenges to Academic Integrity

251

ndings on cynicism reected the effect of social desirability response bias. Given the results of prior research, we propose the following set of hypotheses (null form) for students self-reported cheating behaviour in minor examinations:
H1a: Being personally aware of other student(s) cheating in tests will not increase the likelihood of a students cheating in a minor examination.2

H1b: A students beliefs about the ethicality of cheating will not affect the likelihood of a students cheating in a minor examination.

Prior Cheating Behaviour Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006); Bernardi and LaCross (2004); Salter et al. (2001); and Ameen et al. (1996) all used students responses to the following four questions to quantify students past cheating behaviour: 1. Have you ever cheated in a major examination (20% or more of the nal grade)? 2. Have you ever cheated in a minor examination (less than 20% of the nal grade)? 3. Have you ever cheated in a major project or assignment (20% or more of the nal grade)? 4. Have you ever cheated in a minor project or assignment (less than 20% of the nal grade)? Salter et al. (2001) and Ameen et al. (1996) dened cheating in college as the student answering Yes to any of these four questions; therefore, for these authors, cheating was a dichotomous variablethe student had either cheated (coded as one) or not cheated (coded as zero) in college. Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) and Bernardi and LaCross (2004) used the same dichotomous variable in their research; however, both sets of authors also used a cheating variable that summed a students responses to these four questions. While zero still indicated that the student had not cheated in college, the variable also took on values from one to four indicating the extent of cheating in a students college efforts. Bernardi and LaCross (2004) (i.e. US sample) ndings for both of their cheating variables were consistent with those of Salter et al. (i.e. USA and UK sample) and Ameen et al. (1996) (i.e. US sample) with respect to a students intention to cheat in the future, intolerance, and the testing environment. Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) tested the ndings of these three prior studies on an international sample from Australia, China, Ireland, Japan, and the USA. Bernardi and Adamaitis ndings for their dichotomous cheating variable were consistent with those of Salter et al. (2001) and Ameen et al. (1996) with respect to intolerance, the testing environment, cynicism, punishment, and a students intention to cheat in the future. These authors also found that social desirability response bias was a signicant variable. For their cheating variable that summed the students responses to the four questions on cheating, their model was also consistent with those of Salter et al. (2001) and Ameen et al. (1996) with respect to intolerance, the testing environment, cynicism, and a students intention to cheat in the future. These authors also found that social desirability response bias was a signicant variable. One should recall that a students intention to cheat in the future is the variable that we suggest should not have been used as an independent

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

252 R. A. Bernardi et al.

variable to predict past cheating behaviour (i.e. a future action to predict past behaviour). We suggest that having cheated in a minor examination might, as Baack et al. (2000) posit, further erode a students ethical sensitivity towards cheating and could lead to that student cheating on more important examinations. Consequently, we propose the following set of hypotheses (null form) for students self-reported cheating behaviour in major examinations:
H2a: Being personally aware of other student(s) cheating in tests will not increase the likelihood of a students cheating in a major examination. H2b: A students beliefs about the ethicality of cheating will not affect the likelihood of a students cheating in a major examination. H2c: Having cheated in a minor examination will not increase the likelihood of a students cheating in a major examination.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Intent to Cheat in the Future Tibbetts and Myers (1999, p. 192) suggest that higher perceptions of anticipated pleasure of cheating and friends cheating behavior [i.e. a form of cynicism and/or justication] led to more cheating intent by the respondent. Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006); Bernardi and LaCross (2004); Salter et al. (2001); and Ameen et al. (1996) all asked students Do you think you will cheat in the future? All four studies used this dichotomous variable to predict past cheating behaviour; consequently, it has already been established that intent associates with students cheating in general (i.e. as the prior research dened cheating). While all four studies demonstrated this on a dichotomous variable that indicated the student had cheated in college in some way (i.e. responded Yes to any one of the four cheating questions) or as a summation variable (Bernardi and Adamaitis, 2006; and Bernardi and LaCross, 2004), we only examine our students responses to the specic questions about cheating in minor and major examinations. Our proposed model (Figure 2) suggests that students who cheated in the past in minor and major examinations are more prone to cheat in the future and leads to our nal set of hypothesis (null form):
H3a: Being personally aware of other student(s) cheating in tests will not increase the likelihood of a students intention to cheat in the future. H3b: A students beliefs about the ethicality of cheating will not affect the likelihood of a students intention to cheat in the future. H3c: Having cheated in a minor examination will not increase the likelihood of a students intention to cheat in the future. H3d: Having cheated in a major examination will not increase the likelihood of a students intention to cheat in the future.

Method Participants The data in Panel A of Table 1 are from the responses of 195 (74 women and 121 men) business students enrolled in accounting classes from three institutions located in the USA (one public, one private, and one with a religious afliation).3 Our sample does not include any freshmen as the accounting classes in which the questionnaires was

Challenges to Academic Integrity

Table 1. Survey overview Men (a) Demographic data College level Sophomore Junior Senior Total Average Age (b) Students responses to survey questions Survey question 1 Have you ever observed another student cheating in an examination? 2 Do you know anyone who routinely cheats in examinations? 3 Have you ever cheated in a major examination (20% or more of the nal grade)? 4 Have you ever cheated in a minor examination (less than 20% of the nal grade)? 5 Do you think you will cheat in the future? 6 Do you believe cheating is wrong, dishonest,or unethical? Propensity to respond in a socially-desirable manner (Paulhus, 1991) Men Women 91.7 94.6 41.3 24.8 57.0 31.4 58.7 5.2 33.8 9.5 48.6 28.4 54.1 7.0 2.8 54 34 33 121 20.3 Women 2.8 29 28 17 74 20.3

253

Total 2.8 83 62 50 195 20.3

Signicance 0.434 0.292 0.004 0.259 0.655 0.531 , 0.000

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

College level: Students were sophomores (2), juniors (3), or seniors (4) Data for college level expressed as a percentage.

administered were at the sophomore level or higher. The data in Table 1(b) indicate the percentage of students who reported Yes to our survey questions by gender. The data indicate that, except for Question 3, there were no signicant differences between the average responses of male and female students. While male students reported a signicantly higher rate of cheating in major examinations (Question 3: P 0.004), female students had a higher propensity to respond in a socially-desirable manner (P , 0.000). Survey Questionnaires We use the same variables in this research that were used by Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006), Bernardi and LaCross (2004), Salter et al. (2001), and Ameen et al. (1996); this survey was developed by Sierles et al. (1980) who examined cheating in medical school (hereafter referred to as Sierles et al.s, 1980 survey). Our survey included a three-part questionnaire: (1) a short background questionnaire, which asked for information on age, gender, major, graduation year and home country; (2) six questions from Sierles et al.s (1980) survey questionnaire (Appendix A); and, (3) Paulhus (1991) Impression Management Subscale (Appendix B).4 All of the questions we used from Sierles et al.s survey were yes/no questions. For consistency, the students who passed out the survey gave the same instructions. The surveys were given out during class time and were administered by a student who told the participants that faculty would not see any of the completed surveys. The student also told the participants that the researchers would only be provided with an Excel le, which contained the survey data.

254 R. A. Bernardi et al.

Variables Our rst two dependent variables for having cheated in a minor examination (Q4) and major examination (Q3) were indicator variables coded one for having cheated and zero for not having cheated. Our nal dependent variable was a students intention to cheat in the future (Q5): this was also an indicator variable coded one for Yes and zero for No responses. Our independent variables included whether the student had ever observed another student cheating (Q1), whether the student knew a student who routinely cheated in examinations (Q2), the sum of these two variables (Q1 + Q2) and the students belief on the ethicality of cheating (Q6). Except for the sum variable, the variables from our questionnaire were all indicator variables coded one for Yes and zero for No responses. It is important to note that having cheated in a minor examination (Q4) becomes an independent variable for having cheated in a major examination (Q3) and both of these variables become independent variables for intent to cheat in the future (Q6) as shown in Figure 2. As part of our research design, we controlled for gender and socially-desirable responding. Gender was an indicator variable coded one for male students and zero for female students. One of the problems with self-reported data is socially-desirable responding. We used a direct measure to control for social desirability response bias. Paulhus (1991) Impression Management Subscale (see Appendix B) has 20 statements to which participants responded on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). The IMS reverse codes every other response; for example, the rst two questions on Paulhus IMS are: (1) Sometimes I tell lies if I have to. (2) I never cover up my mistakes. On the rst statement, responding in a socially-desirable manner is on the strongly disagree side of the Likert scaletelling a lie is not a socially-desirable behaviour. Similarly, on the second statement, responding in a socially-desirable manner is on the strongly agree side of the Likert scalecovering up ones mistakes is not a socially-desirable behaviour. Consequently, we believe that, by directly controlling for social desirability response bias (SDRB), we have addressed the issue of self-reported data. Data Analysis Introduction The analysis section is divided into two parts. The rst part tests our three sets of hypotheses.5 The second part of the research tests our ndings on the data from Bernardi and LaCross (2004) and Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) to determine how generalizable our ndings are on prior data from Australia, China, Ireland, Japan and the USA. The replication of our ndings follows Lindsays (1995, p. 35) posit that:
Replication provides the crucial test of the reliability and validity of facts, hypotheses, and theories. It leads, when successful, to generalizable and predictable results.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Part 1: Current Data In this part of the analysis, we test our research premise which evolved from the work of Baack et al. (2000) who suggested that ignoring minor offences has the potential for

Challenges to Academic Integrity

255

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

eroding ones ethical sensitivity. It should be recalled that all four of the prior studies used students intentions to cheat in the future as an independent variable when analyzing students past cheating behaviour just as we did above. However, we suggest that past behaviour should be used to predict future behaviournot the opposite. In the initial stage of the analysis, we used stepwise logistic regression because we wanted to determine the order and the explanatory power (estimated r2) for each of our variables.6 Table 2(a) shows that our model for cheating in a minor examination (H1) includes the Obs + Know variable (reject H1a: P 0.005). This variable sums the indicator variable representing whether a student had observed another student cheating and/or knew another student who routinely cheated. The second variable in the model was SDRB (P 0.015). These two variables explained 6.7% of the variation (estimated r2) in the model. The presence of the Obs + Know variable in our model suggests support for Baack et al.s (2000) premise of the eroding of ones ethical sensitivity to cheating by observing other students cheat and/or knowing a student who routinely cheats in examinations. Finally, we were unable to reject the null hypothesis for a students beliefs about the ethicality of cheating (H1b).

Table 2. Models for proposed associations among cheating behaviours (a) Model for cheating in minor examinations Model Est Rsq Chi square Regress 0.067 18.02 Term Coeff Chi square Obs + Know 0.74 7.79 SDRB 0.12 5.90 (b) Model for cheating in major examinations Model Est Rsq Chi square Regress 0.345 65.38 Term CheatMinor SDRB Obs + Know Gender Coeff 1.89 0.26 1.07 0.53 Chi square 13.03 6.99 6.02 4.03 P . Chi square , 0.000 P . Chi square 0.005 0.015

Part EstR2 0.044 0.067

P . Chi square , 0.000 P . Chi square , 0.000 0.008 0.014 0.045 Part EstR2 .230 .063 .029 .023

(c) Model for intention to cheat in the future Model Est Rsq Chi square Regress 0.331 79.02 Term CheatMinor CheatMajor CheatMajor CheatMinor Gender Obs + Know Coeff 1.31 0.94 Chi square 21.58 15.50

P . Chi square , 0.000 P . Chi square , 0.000 , 0.000 Part EstR2 0.255 0.056

SDRB

Coded as one (zero) if the student reported having cheated (not having cheated) in a major examination. Coded as one (zero) if the student reported having cheated (not having cheated) in a minor examination. Coded as one (zero) for male (female) students. The sum of the indicator variables indicating the student had observed another student cheating and/or knew a student who routinely cheats. This variable takes on values of 0, 1 and 2. Social desirability response bias score

256 R. A. Bernardi et al.

Table 2(b) data show that our model for cheating in a major examination (H2) includes a students having cheated in a minor examination (reject H2c: P , 0.000), SDRB (P 0.008), the Obs + Know variable (reject H2a: P 0.014), and Gender (P 0.045). These four variables explained 34.5% of the variation in the model. The presence of having cheated in a minor examination and the Obs + Know variable in our model suggests support for Baack et al.s (2000) premise of losing ones ethical sensitivity and our proposed cheating model (Figure 2). We were unable to reject the null hypothesis for a students beliefs about the ethicality of cheating (H2b). Table 2(c) data show that our model for a students intention to cheat in the future (H3) includes a students prior cheating behaviour in minor examinations (reject H3c: P , 0.000) and major examinations (reject H3d: P , 0.000). While having observed another student cheating and knowing a student who regularly cheated (H3a) were signicant at the beginning of the stepwise modelling process, a students beliefs about the ethicality of cheating (H3b) was not initially signicant. However, after cheating on minor and major examinations entered the model, the other variables (i.e. observing and knowing) were no longer signicant. This suggests that these variables and their coefcients summarize the modelling process up to this point. The presence of having cheated in a minor and/or major examination supports our proposed cheating model (Figure 2). Figure 3 supports the Table 2 data; it divides students according to whether or not they reported having cheated in a minor examination. As shown in Figure 3, there are dramatic differences in the past and future behaviours of the two groups of students. For the 105 students who reported having cheated in a minor examination, 34.7% reported that they had cheated in a major examination and 52.4% (28 + 27/105) also reported that they intended to cheat in the future. For the 90 students who reported that they had not cheated in a minor examination, only one student reported that he/she had cheated in a major examination and only four students (4.4%) reported that they intended to cheat in the future. The data in Figure 3 are consistent with the ndings of Diekhoff et al. (1999) that there is a difference in the mindset between those who cheat and those who do not cheat. The data in Figure 3 support Baack et al.s (2000) premise of the eroding of ones ethical sensitivity to cheating. Part II: Testing Current ndings on Prior International Data In this part of the analysis, we test our ndings on the data from Bernardi and LaCross (2004) and Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) to test how generalizable the ndings using the current data are on prior data. Bernardi and Adamaitis used Bernardi and LaCross data from the USA (n 174) to complement their data from Australia (n 33); China (n 86); Ireland (n 101); and Japan (n 47). They analysed their data using only the three countries outside the USA and the data for all four countries and found comparable results. Table 3(a) shows that our model for self-reported cheating in a minor examination includes: the Obs + Know variable (reject H1a: P 0.005); SDRB (P 0.015); Ireland (P 0.001); and Wrong (reject H1b: P 0.012). While the combined effect of having observed a student cheating in an examination and knowing a student who routinely cheated in an examination increased students self-reported cheating behaviour in a minor examination, the SDRB variable reduced the self-reported level of cheating (i.e. cheating is not considered a socially-desirable behaviour). Students from Ireland reported less cheating in minor examinations than students from the USA (our control group). Finally, students who believed cheating is wrong, dishonest, or unethical also had a lower rate of self-reported cheating. These variables explained 17.9% of the variation (estimated r2) in the model.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Challenges to Academic Integrity

257

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Figure 3. The cheating chain found in the current research. Highlighting used to separate behaviour types. All data rounded to nearest per cent. A, Australia; C, China; I, Ireland; J, Japan; US, United States. Read as follows for initial Yes cheated in minor examination: Australia 58%, China, 55%; Ireland, 26%; Japan, 62%; and the United States, 57%.

Table 3(b) data show that our model for cheating in a major examination includes a students having cheated in a minor examination (H2c: P , 0.000), knowing a student who routinely cheats in examinations (reject H2a: P 0.003), Wrong (reject H2b: P 0.006); SDRB (P 0.006); and China (P 0.046). While having cheated in a minor examination and the effect of knowing a student who cheats routinely in examinations increased students self-reported cheating behaviour in major examinations, the SDRB variable and the belief that cheating was wrong reduced the self-reported level of cheating. Students from China reported a higher level of cheating in major examinations than students from the USA. These variables explained 20.8% of the variation (estimated r2) in the model. Table 3(c) shows data from our model for a students intention to cheat in the future. While prior cheating behaviour in minor examinations (reject H3c: P , 0.000) and the Obs + Know variable (reject H3a: P 0.001) tended to increase students selfreported intention to cheat in the future, SDRB (P , 0.000), and, a students belief that cheating was wrong (H3b: P , 0.000) reduced the self-reported level of intention to cheat in the future. These variables explained 25.1% of the variation (estimated r2) in the model. We were unable to reject the null hypothesis for a students having cheated in a major examination (H3d). Figure 4 shows the levels of cheating for the current sample (upper half of each box) and the levels of cheating for the four countries included in Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) and Bernardi and LaCross (2004) research. The main differences noted between the

258 R. A. Bernardi et al.

Table 3. Models for prior research on cheating behaviours (a) Model for cheating in minor examinations Model Est Rsq Chi square Regress 0.179 96.95 Term Obs + Know SDRB Ireland Wrong Coeff 0.95 0.18 0.47 0.49 Chi square 27.34 19.96 10.34 6.32 P . Chi square , 0.000 P . Chi square , 0.000 , 0.000 0.001 0.012 P . Chi square , 0.000 P . Chi square , 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.046 P . Chi square , 0.000 P . Chi square , 0.000 , 0.000 , 0.000 0.002 Part EstR2 0.137 0.064 0.031 0.019 Part EstR2 0.126 0.032 0.022 0.018 0.010 Part EstR2 0.092 0.053 0.021 0.013

(b) Model for cheating in major examinations Model Est Rsq Chi square Regress 0.208 87.11

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Term CheatMinor Know Wrong SDRB China

Coeff 0.63 0.43 0.46 0.19 0.32

Chi square 21.44 8.56 7.66 7.62 3.99

(c) Model for intention to cheat in the future Model Est Rsq Chi square Regress 0.251 147.70 Term CheatMinor Wrong SDRB Obs + Know CheatMinor China Ireland Know Obs + Know Coeff 0.66 1.04 0.16 0.58 Chi square 28.64 27.97 15.10 10.00

SDRB Wrong

Coded as one (zero) if the student reported having cheated (not having cheated) in a minor examination. Student was from Chinacoded 1 for yes and 0 for no. Student was from Irelandcoded 1 for yes and 0 for no. Student knew a student who routinely cheatedcoded 1 for yes and 0 for no. The sum of the indicator variables indicating the student had observed another student cheating and/or knew a student who routinely cheats. This variable takes on values of 0, 1 and 2. Social desirability response bias score Student thought cheating was wrongcoded 1 for yes and 0 for no.

current data and prior research is for the cheating in minor examinations for the Irish sample and cheating in major examinations for the Chinese sample. Consequently, the data in Figure 4 also support our cheating chain shown in Figure 2. The data in Figure 4 also support Baack et al.s (2000) premise of the eroding of ones ethical sensitivity to cheating. Conclusions This study explores Baack et al.s (2000) suggestion that ignoring minor offences has the potential for eroding ones ethical sensitivity. This research examined the effect of having observed another student cheating in an examination, knowing another student who

Challenges to Academic Integrity

259

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Figure 4. Comparing the current datas cheating chain with that of prior research. Note: One should be cautious of percentages of zero or 100 as these indicate very small sample sizes.

routinely cheats in examinations and having cheated in a minor and/or major examination. The research also examined how prior cheating behaviour associates with future intentions of cheating. In the analysis section, it was important to demonstrate the similarities between the results of our analyses and those of Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) and Bernardi and LaCross (2004. These similarities demonstrate that, even though we used different variables in our models, there is a strong level of comparability among the results of studies from varying countries (i.e. indicates the generalizability of our ndings). A major contribution of this research is developing an association among cheating in a minor examination, cheating in a major examination and the intention to cheat in the futureestablishing a cheating chain. The lack of signicance of a students belief about the ethicality of cheating provides evidence of our point. While a students belief about the ethicality of cheating (i.e. our Wrong variable) was a signicant factor in all three of the models using the older data (Table 3), it was not a factor in our current students decision process (Table 2). This suggests a further eroding of students ethical sensitivity (Baack et al., 2000) during the period between these studies. The data in Tables 2 and 3 as well as Figures 3 and 4 suggest that the way to stop the increase in student cheating is to become more proactive in our classroom efforts to reduce

260 R. A. Bernardi et al.

cheating (i.e. break the cheating chain). Bernardi, Baca, Landers and Witek (2008) and Smith, Davy, Rosenberg and Haight (2002) provide several relatively simple ways to reduce cheating during in-class examinations. Both suggest distributing different forms of the same test, scrambling the seating during an examination, increased supervision of the testing environment, and spreading students out. An inexpensive method which the lead author uses is to provide the students with identical calculators with limited memory capability.7 This procedure levels the playing eld during examinations; for example, students with sophisticated calculators can no longer enter data into deep memory to be recalled in the examination. Additionally, this procedure also eliminates students requesting to use their cell phones because they left their calculators in their rooms. However, one must also consider the caution from Haswell et al. (1999, p. 234) that increasing the risk of detection is not effective unless followed up by a strong penalty. Finally, McCabe and Trevino (1993) and Verschoor (2004) report a signicantly lower level of cheating in examinations at universities that have strong cultures of academic integrity and codes of conduct. While students attitudes and behaviour can be changed, Shaftel and Shaftel (2005) noted that a semester-long intervention was necessary to bring about a change in the attitudes regarding behavioural intentions concerning cheating. Our data suggest the need to increase our efforts to deter cheatingespecially during the introductory accounting classes, which typically are taken in either the freshman or sophomore years. When cheating is observed by students in these early business classes, our data suggest that, like common diseases such as colds or the u, it spreads throughout our academic community and cheating in college associates with unethical behaviour in the workplace (Lucas and Friedrich, 2005; Lawson, 2004). This is especially true at the end of semester when time pressure increases the likelihood of cheating (Koh, Scully and Woodliff, forthcoming; Abdolmohammadi and Baker, 2007). Finally, Flynn (2003) suggests that instructors may have to be proactive in reducing the level of cheating when teaching international students whose cultures vary signicantly with respect to honesty. The results from the current data are supported by the results from using prior data. It should be noted that the data from Bernardi and LaCross (2004) (Bernardi and Adamaitis, 2006) are already six (three) years old. However, this difference may also explain the difference in the models with respect to students beliefs concerning whether cheating is wrong, dishonest, or unethical. While this belief did not inuence students in the current sample from the USA, it was a factor in the models for cheating in minor examinations and intent to cheat in the future using a sample from Australia, China, Ireland, Japan and the USA. One possible explanation was that the earlier sample included data from four countries outside the USA; however, it should also be recalled that the students from the USA represented 39.5% (174/440) of this sample. Consequently, because of its size, the sample from the USA would have had a signicant effect on this variables inuence. Another explanation is that, with the passage of time, students may report that cheating is wrong, dishonest, or unethical; however, this no longer associates with their behaviour (i.e. cheating has now become a socially-acceptable behaviour among students). This explanation is supported by the data from the current research and the ndings of Smyth and Davis (2003). While only 56.9% of the students in our sample reported that they believed cheating was wrong, dishonest, or unethical (Table 1: Question 6), 85.6% (83.9) of Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) overall (US) sample and 92% of Smyth and Davis (2003) sample reported that cheating was not ethical (i.e. a decrease of about 30 to 35% depending on the study used). Our research has two apparent limitations. The rst limitation is the size and diversity of our sample. However, as Lindsey (1995) suggests, given the consistency of our results with

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Challenges to Academic Integrity

261

those of Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) and Bernardi and LaCross (2004), we believe that a larger sample would strengthen our results. Our second limitation is that our sample came from only three institutions; again, we note the consistency of the results we found in the prior two studies. However, these limitations also provide opportunities for future research. When selecting countries for future examination, we would suggest that researchers consider using Transparency Internationals (2008) Corruption Perceptions Index as a means to identify candidate countries which potentially provide a measure of contrast.

Notes
1

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

The authors wish to thank Bernardi and LaCross (2004) and Bernardi and Adamaitis (2006) for the use of their data. 2 We operationalized being personally aware of other student(s) cheating in tests to include one of the following three student experiences: (1) having observed another student cheating; (2) knowing a student who routinely cheats in examinations; and, the sum of these two experiences. The rst two of these were from the responses of students to our questionnaire (Appendix A). 3 In the analysis, we aggregated the data from these three schools. When recruiting schools to participate in our research, we had to assure each school that strict condentiality would be maintained and that no school comparisons would be made among the three types of collegespublic, private, and religious schools. This type of assurance is not unusual in research; the lead author has experienced similar requests from public accounting rms. Even if this had not been the case, sample size was a problem with one of the schools. 4 The survey was shortened from Sierles et al.s (1980) 51-question survey because of time constraints. The six questions we used were Questions 1, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 18 from Sierles et al.s personal experience questions. This research was approved by our universitys Human Subjects Research Board. 5 Prior to analysing our data using our methodology (Figure 2), we analysed our data using the methodology from the prior four studies; our results replicate their data. 6 Logistic regression provides an estimated r2 for its models. Only variables that were signicant at the 0.05 level or lower were shown in our hypothesis-testing models. 7 A basic calculator that adds, subtracts, multiplies and divides with one level of memory can typically be purchased for about US $5 at an ofce-supply store. We acknowledge that this procedure is not practical for large lecture-hall classes.

References
Abdolmohammadi, M. J. and Baker, C. R. (2007) The relationship between moral reasoning and plagiarism in accounting courses: a replication study, Issues in Accounting Education, 22(1), pp. 4555. Ameen, E. C., Guffey, D. M. and McMillan, J. J. (1996) Accounting students perceptions of questionable academic practices and factors affecting their propensity to cheat, Accounting Education: an international journal, 5(3), pp. 191205. Baack, D., Fogliasso, C. and Harris, J. (2000) The personal impact of ethical decisions: a social penetration theory, Journal of Business Ethics, 24(1), pp. 3949. Bernardi, R. A. and Adamaitis, K. L. (2006) Data contamination by social desirability response bias: an international study of students cheating behavior, Research on Professional Responsibility and Ethics in Accounting, 11, pp. 157184. Bernardi, R. A., Baca, A. V., Landers, K. S. and Witek, M. B. (2008) Ways and deterrents to college cheating: an international study, Ethics & Behavior, 18(4), pp. 373391. Bernardi, R. A. and LaCross, C. C. (2004) Data contamination by social desirability response bias in research on students cheating behavior, Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 1(8), pp. 1325. Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K. and Yasukawa, H. (1999) College cheating in Japan and the United States, Research in Higher Education, 40(3), pp. 343353. Flynn, R. S. (2003) Confronting academic dishonesty in the accounting classroom: a cultural experience?, Accounting Education: an international journal, 12(4), pp. 437439. Haswell, S., Jubb, P. and Wearing, B. (1999) Accounting students and cheating: a comparative study for Australia, South Africa and the UK, Teaching Business Ethics, 3(3), pp. 211239.

262 R. A. Bernardi et al.

Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S. and Cauffman, E. (2002) Its wrong but everybody does it: academic dishonesty among high school and college students, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), pp. 209222. Jordan, A. E. (2001) College student cheating: the role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy, Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), pp. 233247. Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E., Jr. and Washburn, J. (1998) Why professors ignore cheating: opinions of a national sample of psychology instructors, Ethics & Behavior, 8(3), pp. 215227. Koh, H. P., Scully, G. and Woodliff, D. R. (forthcoming) The impact of cumulative pressure on accounting students propensity to commit plagiarism: an experimental approach, Accounting & Finance. Lawson, R. A. (2004) Is classroom cheating related to business students propensity to cheat in the real world?, Journal of Business Ethics, 49(2), pp. 189199. Lindsey, M. (1995) Reconsidering the status of tests of signicance: an alternative criterion of adequacy, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(1), pp. 3553. Lord, A. T. and Melvin, K. B. (1997) The attitudes of accounting students, faculty and employers towards cheating, Research on Accounting Ethics, 3, pp. 120. Lucas, G. M. and Friedrich, J. (2005) Individual differences in workplace deviance and integrity as predictors of academic dishonesty, Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), pp. 1535. McCabe, D. L., Buttereld, K. D. and Trevino, L. K. (2006) Academic dishonesty in graduate business programs: prevalence, causes, and proposed action, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(3), pp. 294305. McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K. and Buttereld, K. D. (2001) Cheating in academic institutions: a decade of research, Ethics & Behavior, 11(3), pp. 219232. McCabe, D. L. and Trevino, L. K. (1993) Academic dishonesty: honor codes and other contextual inuences, Journal of Higher Education, 64(3), pp. 522533. Paulhus, D. L. (1991) Balanced inventory of desirable responding (BIDR) Vol. 1, pp. 3741, in: J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver and L. S. Wrightsman (Eds) Measures of Personality and Psychological Attitudes (New York: Academic Press). Rest, J. R. (1979) Dening Issues Test (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minneapolis Press). Rettinger, D. A. and Jordan, A. E. (2005) The relations among religion, motivation, and college cheating: a natural experiment, Ethics & Behavior, 15(2), pp. 107129. Salter, S. B., Guffey, D. M. and McMillan, J. J. (2001) Truth, consequences and culture: a comparative examination of cheating and attitudes about cheating among U.S. and U.K. students, Journal of Business Ethics, 31(1), pp. 3750. Shaftel, J. and Shaftel, T. L. (2005) The inuence of effective teaching in accounting on student attitudes, behavior and performance, Issues in Accounting Education, 20(3), pp. 231246. Sierles, F., Hendrickx, I. and Circle, S. (1980) Cheating in medical school, Journal of Medical Education, 55(2), pp. 124125. Sims, R. (1993) The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices, Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), pp. 207211. Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., Rosenberg, D. L. and Haight, G. T. (2002) A structural modeling investigation of the inuence of demographic and attitudinal factors and in-class deterrents on cheating behavior among accounting majors, Journal of Accounting Education, 20(1), pp. 4565. Smyth, M. L. and Davis, J. R. (2003) An examination of student cheating in the two-year college, Community College Review, 31(1), pp. 1733. Tibbetts, S. G. and Myers, D. L. (1999) Low self-control, rational choice, and student test cheating, American Journal of Criminal Justice, 23(2), pp. 179200. Trevino, L. K. (1986) Ethical decision making in organizations: a person-situation interactionist model, Academy of Management Review, 11(3), pp. 601617. Transparency International (2008) Corruption Perceptions Index. Available at http://www.transparency.org/ news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table (accessed 5 September 2008). Verschoor, C. C. (2004) Accountancy students develop a unique code of ethics, Strategic Finance, 86(2), pp. 1516.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

Challenges to Academic Integrity

APPENDIX A Cheating Questionnaire (Developed from Salter et al., 2001)
Circle Yes or No for the following: 1. Have you ever observed another student cheating in an examination? Yes No Do you know anyone who routinely cheats in examinations? Yes No Have you ever cheated in a major examination (20% or more of the nal grade)? Yes No Have you ever cheated in a minor examination (less than 20% of the nal grade)? Yes No Do you think you will cheat in the future? Yes No Do you believe cheating is wrong, dishonest, or unethical? Yes No

263

2.

3.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 00:26 10 July 2012

4.

5.

6.

APPENDIX B Impression Management Subscale Using the scale below as a guide, write a number beside each statement to indicate how much you agree with it.
1 Not true 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 2 3 4 5 6 7

Somewhat true Very true Sometimes I tell lies if I have to. I never cover up my mistakes. There have been occasions when I have taken advantage of someone. I never swear. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. I always obey laws, even if Im unlikely to get caught. I have said something bad about a friend behind his/her back. When I hear people talking privately, I avoid listening. I have received too much change from a salesperson without telling him or her. I always declare everything at customs. When I was young, I sometimes stole things. I have never dropped litter on the street. I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit. I never read sexy books or magazines. I have done things that I dont tell other people about. I never take things that dont belong to me. I have taken sick leave from work or school even though I wasnt really sick. I have never damaged a library book or store merchandise without reporting it. I have some pretty awful habits. I dont gossip about other peoples business.