A.S. Book - Winter 2018-2019

Winter 2018/2019
of Psychology
Additional Data on Academic Dishonesty and a Proposal for Remediation
Stephen F. Davis and H. Wayne Ludvigson
Teaching of Psychology 1995 22: 119
DOI: 10.1207/s15328023top2202_6
The online version of this article can be found at:
Published by:
On behalf of:
Society for the Teaching of Psychology
Additional services and information for Teaching of Psychology can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://top.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://top.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Apr 1, 1995
What is This?
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on November 13, 2014
ticipated in this study. All smdenrs were classified as either
juniorsorsenionand were surveyedduringreylarclassessions.
Additional Data on Academic Dishonesty
and a Proposal for Remediation
Stephen F. Davis
Eqorin State Unit~ersity
H. Wayne Ludvigson
Texas Christian University
In this article, we present data from 2,153 upper diuisim undergrnduate s d n r s regarding the frequency of cheating, reasoni
for cheating, and influence of penalties on cheating. We alqo
discuss hw a model that develops an internalized code of ethrcs
will counteract academic dishonesty.
Cheating has become a major concern on many college
campuses (Fishbein, 1993; Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, &
Clark, 1986; Singhal, 1982). Jendreck (1989) and Davis,
Grover, Becker, and McGregor (1992) indicated that between 40% and 60% of their student respondents reported
cheating on at 1e:lst one examination. McCabe and Bowers
(1994) corroborated these data at non-honor-code institutions, but they found that students at institutions having
honor codes had lower self-reported cheating rates. In addition, Davis et al. reported that students at small, private
liberal arrs colleges reported lower cheating rates.
Davis et al. (1992) and McCabe and Bowers (1994) also
discussed techniques used to cheat. Although the most
popular techniques were copying from a nearby paper and
using crib notes, more unusual techniques included trading
papers during the test or using intricate patterns of hand and
foot position.
Most of the students in Davis et al.'s (1992) study thought
that instructors should care whether students cheat. T o discourage cheating during a test, students favored the instructor's use of separate forms of the test, informing students
about the penalties for cheating, separating students by an
empty desk, walking up and down the rows, and constantly
watching the students.
Although Daviset al.'s (1992) study provided information
about the percentage of cheaters, cheating techniques, and
in-class deterrents, it provided no information about the
number of repeat offenders or the number of repeated offenses.
In this study, we corrected this deficit. The fear of being caught
and the intluence that this fear h.a on one's decision to cheat
aLw receivd attention in this smdy, as did the effect of
announcing strict penalties at the heginning of the semester.
Finally, we sought to ascertain why students cheat.
We devised aseven-item questionnaire that takes 10 min
or less to complete. The first two questions dealt with
whether the respondent had cheated at least once, the frequency of cheating, and whether the person had been
caught cheating in high school (Question 1) and college
(Question 2). Question 3 required a yes or no answer to
the question, "Do you fear being caught cheating!" If the
respond8:nn answered yes to Question 3, they rated this fear
on a 7-point scale ranging from minimally fearful (1) to v q
fearful (7). Using a 7-point scale ranging from minimal influence (1) to great influence (7), they further indicated
(Questi.on 4 ) the extent to which this fear intluences
whether they will cheat.
Students also responded yes or n o to Question 5, "If a
professor has smct penalties for cheating and informs the
class about them at the beginning of the semester, would
this prevent you from cheating!" Question 6 requested a
listing of penalties most likely to prevent the individual
from cheating. The final question dealt with reasons for
cheating. The respondents also provided information ahout
their sex; age; academic major; year in school; and if they
hold a job (if so, they were asked to list the number of
hours they work each week). All questionnaires were completed anonymously.
The '71 samples were obtained from private and public
institutions located in 11 different states. The class size of the
71 classessurveyedranged from 19 to 53 students.Enrollment
at the institutions surveyed ranged from approximarely 3,000
to more than 30,000. A faculty contact at each institution
assumed responsibility for distributing, collecting, and returning the informed consent documents and completed
questionnaires. All data were gathered in accord with institutional review board principles at all participating institutions.
Frequency of Clteating
More than 70% in each sample (lowest = 71% and highest = 79%) reported cheating in high school, and the percentage of men and women who cheated did not differ.
Self-reports of cheating in college fell within the 40% to
60% range (lowest = 42% and highest = 64%). Corrohorating Davis er al.'s (1992) result<, there was a consistent
A total of 2,153 undergraduates (675 men and 1.478
women) enrolled in upper d i v ~ s ~ ocourses
voluntarily parVol. 22, No. 2, April 1995
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on November 13, 2014
and reliable trend for a higher percentage of the men in
each sample to report cheating in college, t(140) = 2.07, p
< .05.
More than 80% of the students who reported cheating
at least once in high school reported cheating on several
occasions during high school (lowest = 83% and highest =
88%). Nearly 50% of those in each sample who reported
cheating in college also reported doing so on more than
one occasion (lowest = 45% and highest = 53%). The average number of transgressions was 7.88 in high school and
4.25 in college. In both instances, more men than women
were repeat offenders, smallest t(140) = 2.13, p < .05.
Virtually all (98.64%) students who reported cheating
on several occasions in college had also cheated on several
occasions in high scho31. This result contmu with the
findings that (a) of the students who reported cheating once
in high school, only 2436% reported cheating in college
on no more than one occasion; and (b) of the students who
did not cheat in high school, only 1.5 1% reported cheating
in college on no more than one occasion.
7'he Influence of Announced Penalties
In response to the question concerning whether the instructor's announcement of strict penalties at the beginning
of the semester would deter cheating, more than 40% of
eachsample of men responded no (lowest = 42% and higt~est
= 47%). Contrarily, less than 10% of each sample of women
answered no to this question (lowest = 4% and highest =
7%). A closer inspection of these no respondents indicated
that the majority in each sample reported cheating in college (for men, lowest = 82% and highest = 96%; for women.
lowest = 93% and highest = 100%).
Reasons for Cheating
The mcxt frequently cited reason for cheating (29.25%)
was "I dostudy. but cheat to enhance my score." "My job cuts
down on study time" (14.28%) and "usually don't study"
(13.60%) also were frequently cited reasons for cheating.
Other reasons included "1 cheat so my GPA looks better to
prospective employers" (8.16%), and "1 feel pressure fnom
parents to get good p d e s ra 1cheat" (6.80%). Various other
reasons, such as "pass the class," "class is toohard," "nervous,"
"only if I'm not sure of my answers." and "if I blank out and
someone else's paper is in clear sight." accounted for 18.36%
of the reacons for cheating. The number of references to
external iacto~slp~essures
is noteworthy.
Discussion and Remediation
One message from these data is clear: Although cheatvng
in college is a major problem that needs attention, there is
an equally pressing need to discourage cheaters, especially
repeat offenders, in high school. The extrapolation from
cheating in college to cheating in real life also has been
documented (Sims, 1993). Our data contradict McCabe's
contention (see Pavela, 1993) that academic dishonesty is
learr~edduring one's collegiate career and is largely determined by its social acceptability at a given institution.
Our data also indicate that, in general, professor-announced
penalties have more influence on female students than male
students. Moreover, the threat of strict penalties appears to
have agreater impact on women who have cheated in college
than men who have cheated in college.
Although measures to render cheating difficult, such as
those discussed by Davis et al. (I992), should reduce cheating, they do not solve the problem. Indeed, our data suggest
that external deterrents will fail in the long run.Altematively, the existence of ethical-moral-religious systems of
social control, from apparently early in our species's history,
tells us that only when students have developed a stronger
commitment to the educational pnxess and an internalized
ccde of ethics that opposes cheating will the p~oblembe
How do we facilitate appropriate internal controls? A
Skinnerian analysis (cf. Nye, 1992, p. 65, for a useful discussion) suggests two possible strategies: (a) Manipulate the
relevant contingencies of reinforcement, and (b) encourage
the learning of relevant rules. In both cases, we aim to
p d u c e or strengthen dispositions that naturally resist tendencies to cheat.
Although manipulation of the contingencies of reinforcemen[ surrounding cheating would seem, at first glance, to
he difficult, the work of Eisenberger (1992) and Eisenberger
and Shank (1985) is encouraging. For example, students
trained on high-effort tasks, for which they received only
modest reinforcement, displayed substantial resistance to
cheating compared with students trained on low-effort tacks
(Eisenherger & Shank, 1985). In short. Eisenberger (1992)
concluded, from a rich source of data, that long-term training in effortful tasks contributes to durable industriousness.
a work ethic that naturally resists cheating. In this context,
the spectacle over the last 20 to 30 years of substantial grade
inflation and associated pressures to reduce the necessity for
e f f o h l student behavior (e.g.. through student-controlled
contungencies influencing what teachers expect from srudents, the most obvious being universal student eval~~ation
of teaching) is depressing. If we have an epidemic in cheating, we can apparently lay pan of the blame on a deterio
ration of our own standards for student conduct.
Fishbein (1993) provided another view of manipulating
relevant reinforcement contingencies. Here he a ~ w e dthat
one way to "fundamentally alter [improve] the climate of
academic integrity [is] by increasing rhe volume of cases
handled by legitimate university disciplinary procedures and
by making enforcement more widespread and equitable" (p.
A52). Having codified penalties that take seriousness of
offense and number of offenses into account. Fishbein delineated a streamlined procedure. This pmpu<ed system may
have merit, but it awaits verification in the academy.
Thesecondstrategy, encouraging relevant rule learning or.
even hetter, encouraginga world view, life theory, or philoso
phy that naturally resists cheating hac probably seen diminished use as standards have deteriorated. Resistance to such
teaching may arise from an understandable reluctance of
instnlctors to impose their values on others. However, the
values implied by a world view that naturally opposes cheating may be nearly universally accepted in all education.
Teaching of Psychology
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on November 13, 2014
Such a world view relevant t o education and opposed to
academic dishonesty (Ludvigson, 1992) estahlishes the goal
of understanding as central (necessary hut not sufficient)
for s u c c w and general well-being. Perhaps a causal picture
of the following sort would be helpful:
Understanding . . .
(is required for . . .)
Competence . . .
(is required for
. . .) +
Success . . .
(is required for . . .)
Self-reliance . . .
(is required for
McCabe, D. L., & SIwers, W. J. (1994). Academic dishonesty
among males in college: A thirty year perspective. lot~malof
College Sudent Dwelopmenr. 35, 5-10.
Nye, R. D. (1992). The legacy of8. F. Skinner. Pacific Grove, CA:
Pavek. G. (1993). Donald L. McCabe on academic integrity:
What rhe latat rerarcli shows. SYNTHESIS: l n w rmd Policy
in Higher Edacatim, 5, 340-343.
Sim. R. L. (1993).The relationship beween academic dishonesty
and unethical business practices. J m l of Ehccation for
Blainecr. 68, 207-21 1.
Singhal. A. C. (1982). Factors in students'dishone~t~.
R e p a r , 51, 77%760.
. . .) +
Given its central role, students must learn that understanding does not entail rote memorization, although some
things must be memorized, or the learning of isolated facts,
although facts must be learned. In conmst, understanding
requires the construction of a penonal theory of what is to
be understood. T h a t is, if students are t o understand something, they must huild their own theories in their own heads
and not just parrot others'. Such a theory will yield a new
perspective that permits generalization of inferences to new
situations. I t will permit the scudent t o know what is irnponant about the suhject and what is nor.
Pertinent for resistance to cheating, students must be
convinced that building a gocd personal theory, just as in
science, is a continuing process of testing and revising t h e
theory. Testing the theory is critical for a good theory.
Recitation, listening t o lectures, and exams are all ways of
testing one's personal theory. Cheating in the process of
theory construction leaves one Oereft of understanding.
Cheating during exams deprives students of an opportunity
to test their theory. Students wlioaim for understanding must
take every. opportunity t o be tested. W e believe that such a
philosophy o f education, if taught with conviction, just may
lessen cheating.
k v i s , S. F.. Grover. C. A,. Becker. A. H., & McGregor, L N.
(1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques. and punishments. Teaching of Ps)rholo~,19, 1 6 2 0 .
Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned indusniousness. Piychdqical
Review, 99, 24tL267.
Eisenherger, R.. & Shank, D. M. (1985). Personal work ethic and
efforr training affect cheating. Jo~tmdof Pwwlity and So0111
I ' s y c h , 49, 510-528.
Fishbe~n,L. (1093. December 1). Curhing cheating and resroring
academic intcgritv. The Chmnicle of H i g h Erl~rcoda,p. A52.
Hainer. V. J., Diekh0ff.G. M.,LaAeff, E. E., &Clurk, R. E. (1986).
College cheating: Immaturity, lack of conrmitment, and the
neutralizing attitude. Kesearch in Higher Educadon. 25. 342-354.
Jendrcck,M. P. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty.
lmmal of Cdkge Snident Deuewent, 3 0 , 4 0 1 4 6 .
Ludviason. H. M. (1992. November). Chearing: What rodo? Paper
presented at the Southwest Regional Conference for Teachers
of Psychology, Fort Worth, TX.
1 . We appreciate the assistance of Charles L. Brewer and three
anonymous reviewers on the final draft of this article.
2. Requesrs for reprinrs should be sent to Stephen F. Davis, Deparrmenc of Psychology, Emparia State University, Emporia,
KS 6-5801-5807.
Consequences of Missing Postexam
Review Sessions
William E. Addison
En5tem Illinois Uniuersily
Educational research h demonstrated t k impmrance of howle d ~ of
e rrsulu in kaming. With this pn'm'ple in mind, I designed
a study to examine c
k relation benueen anendance at postexam
review sessions and overall coune performance in two psychology
courses. Students were divided into nuo groups bared on t k i r
attedance at postexam review sessions, and t k poues were
compared on measures of course performance. As expected,
students who missed one M more of the revieru sessions p . f m d
at a significantly Lou- level r h n students who missed none of
tk sessim~.
In one of the earliest studies of the use of feedhack from
exams. Jones (1923) found that tests administered immediately after a psychology lecture led to improved retention
among students. Jones's results supporting the value of immediate feedhack were corroborated by a host of studies
conducted in the 1950s (e.g., Fitch, Bucker, & Norton,
1951; Gueakow, Kelly, & McKeachie, 1954; McKeachie &
Hiler. 1954; Pressey, 1950). T h e consistency ot' these findings led McKeachie (1963) to conclude that knowledge of
results clearly facilitates learning.
In the 1970s and 19ROs, the emphasis o n mastery learning
at all levels of education led to further research on the rolc
of feedback, although much of this research focused o n specific reaching methods, such a individualized instruction
and pecr teaching (e.g., Good & Crouws, 1979; Kulik &
Kulik, 1979; Webb, 1980). More recently, Oosterhof (1990)
suggestecl that mastery learning must involve feedback from
a test indicating what the student has and has not learned,
Vol. 22, No. 2, April 1995
Downloaded from top.sagepub.com at DALHOUSIE UNIV on November 13, 2014
A model argumentative essay
Marine Parks
Marine life has always been an attraction for people to view and enjoy its wonders
as well as an ultimate target for scientists to investigate and unravel its secrecies. This
has lent credence to the opening of marine parks which have been proposed and created
to facilitate these purposes. Marine parks are areas of seas or lakes sometimes protected
for recreational use, but more often set aside to preserve a specific habitat and ensure the
ecosystem is sustained for the organisms that exist there. The issue of whether these
parks should be allowed to stay open has been widely debated in the Australian
community recently. While some consider marine parks as profitable and safe areas to
protect sea mammals, others argue that such places are needless because it is unethical
to deprive animals from their freedom. It is an important issue because it concerns
fundamental moral and economic questions about the way native wildlife is used. I
strongly advocate the introduction and enforcement of laws which prohibit these
unnecessary and cruel institutions.
It has been argued that dolphin parks provide the only opportunity for much of the
public to see marine mammals (Smith, 1992). Most Australians, so this argument goes,
live in cities and never get to see these animals. It is claimed that marine parks allow the
average Australian to appreciate our marine wildlife. However, as Smith states, dolphins,
whales and seals can be viewed in the wild at a number of places on the Australian coast.
In fact, there are more places where they can be seen in the wild than places where they
can be seen in captivity. Moreover, most Australians would have to travel less to get to
these locations than they would to get to the marine parks on the Gold Coast. In addition,
places where there are wild marine mammals do not charge an exorbitant entry fee - they
are free.
Dr Alison Lane, the director of the Cairns Marine Science Institute, contends that we
need marine parks for scientific research (The Age, 19.2.93). She argues that much of
our knowledge of marine mammals comes from studies which were undertaken at marine
parks. The knowledge which is obtained at marine parks, so this argument goes, can be
useful for planning for the conservation of marine mammal species. However, as Jones
(1991) explains, park research is only useful for understanding captive animals and is not
useful for learning about animals in the wild. Dolphin and whale biology changes in
marine park conditions. Their diets are different, they have significantly lower life spans
and they are more prone to disease. In addition, marine mammals in dolphin parks are
trained and this means that their patterns of social behaviour are changed. Therefore,
research undertaken at marine parks is generally not reliable.
It is the contention of the Marine Park Owners Association that marine parks attract
a lot of foreign tourists (The Sun-Herald 12.4.93). This position goes on to assert that
these tourists spend a lot of money, increasing our foreign exchange earnings and
assisting our national balance of payments. However, foreign tourists would still come to
Australia if the parks were closed down. Indeed, surveys of overseas tourists show that
they come here for a variety of other reasons and not to visit places like Seaworld (The
Age, Good Weekend 16.8.93). Tourists come here to see our native wildlife in its natural
environment and not to see it in cages and cement pools. They can see animals in those
conditions in their own countries. Furthermore, we should be promoting our beautiful
natural environment to tourists and not the ugly concrete marine park venues.
Marine parks are unnecessary and cruel. The sea mammals, which are naturally
used to roaming their natural habitat, are kept in very small cramped pools in these parks;
in consequence, they suffer numerous drawbacks. First and foremost, they are denied the
opportunity to engage with their families as well as engage in almost any natural
behavior. Over and above, the median age of mammals in captivity is considerably
reduced and most of them die far short of their natural life spans. For instance, the
average lifespan of a wild bottlenose dolphin is approximately 40 years; however,
statistics show the average life span of a captive bottle nose dolphin is a mere 5 years. A
second cruel fact about marine parks is that the concrete walls of the pools interfere with
the animals' sonar systems of communication. Unlike the open sea, captivated dolphins
struggle with communication and often display a lower less articulated vocalization
frequency. As a result, tremendous stress, social conflicts and a considerable reduction of
the dolphin’s immune defenses occur.
In conclusion, these parks should be closed, or at the very least, no new animals
should be captured for marine parks in the future. The society is no longer prepared to
tolerate unnecessary cruelty to animals for science and entertainment. If human beings
continue building marine parks and continue with their crimes against these creatures,
cruelty and inhumanity will prevail in the generations of the future.
Showing you are aware of both sides of the issue – questions
1: The Main Premise
In the introductory paragraph, the main premise is only one sentence. What is the main
2: Paragraph Topics
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 all cover different topics related to the issue of marine parks.
Describe the topic of each paragraph in four words or less and write the description in the
margin next to each paragraph
3: Opposing Arguments and Supporting Arguments
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 do not just contain arguments that support the main premise.
They also contain arguments that oppose the main premise. It is important to include
opposing arguments to show your reader that
1. you have considered both sides of the argument; and
2. you are able to anticipate and criticize any opposing arguments before they are
even stated.
Find the opposing arguments in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5. Then find the supporting
arguments in each paragraph.
4: Problematizing the Opposing Arguments
It is important that the reader knows that when you write opposing arguments you do not
agree with them. You have to make it very clear that you are presenting these arguments
only to show that you understand the issue from both sides, that you have anticipated the
opposing arguments and that wish to criticize them.
In order to signal this you need to use special phrases to problematize the opposing
statements. (To problematize something means to make it seem like a problem, to make it
seem untrue). We can problematize arguments by making them appear to be debatable
opinions and not facts. A common way to do this is to explicitly mark the statement as an
Ex.: It has been argued that children who attend childcare centers at an early age miss
out on important early learning that occurs in parent-child interaction.
By including the phrase "It has been argued that" in the above statement the writer is
problematizing the statement below:
Children who attend childcare centers at an early age miss out on important early
learning that occurs in parent-child interaction.
When there is no problematizing phrase, the statement appears non-debatable. The writer
is presenting it as a fact.
Find the problematizing phrases in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the text. They will all be in
the areas of the paragraphs where the opposing arguments are located (i.e. in the first part
of each paragraph).
5: Shifting from Opposing Arguments to Supporting Arguments.
You can also signal the difference between opposing and supporting arguments by clearly
marking the point in each paragraph where you shift from one to the other. You can use
contrasting connectives to mark this point. The most common of these contrasting
connectives is "However".
Find the point in each of paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 where the writer shifts from opposing
arguments to supporting arguments. Draw a circle around the contrasting connective used
to mark the point in each paragraph.
Writing introductions to argumentative essays
The four parts of an introduction
1. Introduces the topic
2. States why the topic is important
3. States that there is a difference of opinion about this topic
4. Describes how the essay will be structured and clearly states the thesis.
Look at the introductory paragraph and find its main four parts.
Task 8: Ordering sentences in an introduction
Now put the following sentences into the correct order. They make up the introduction to
an argumentative essay about the issue of whether Australia should become a republic.
a. As a result, the issue is a very controversial one and has attracted a lot of
b. It will then put forward a number of reasons why Australia should change to a
republican form of government.
c. The question of whether we maintain the monarchy is not merely a legal
detail but is intrinsically linked to the way we perceive ourselves as a distinct
nation of people with its own identity and culture.
d. Since the time of federation, Australia has been a constitutional monarchy
with the Queen of the United Kingdom as its head of state.
e. This essay will consider some of the arguments for maintaining the monarch
as head of state and will outline some of the problems with this position.
f. However, today many Australians are questioning whether this form of
government is still relevant or appropriate and are suggesting that we move
towards the establishment of a republic.
Writing conclusions to argumentative essays
The three parts of a conclusion
1. Restates the main premise.
2. Presents one or two general sentences which accurately summarise your
arguments which support the main premise.
3. Provides a general warning of the consequences of not following the premise that
you put forward and/or a general statement of how the community will benefit
from following that premise.
Task 2: Ordering sentences in a conclusion
Now put the following sentences into the correct order. They make up the conclusion to
another argumentative essay. The main premise of this essay is that the government
should spend more money on childcare places for the children of parents who study or
a. If we fail to meet our obligations in this area, we will be sacrificing our
present and future well-being merely in order to appease out-dated notions of
family life and to achieve short-term financial savings.
b. In conclusion, it is essential that we support the nation's parents and children
by funding more childcare places.
c. Only in this way can we provide the valuable learning environments that
young Australians need while, at the same time, utilising the skills of all
productive members of our society.
d. The entire national community will then be enriched economically, socially
and culturally.
Adapted from: www.eslplanet.com
Marine Parks Outline
A. Thesis Statement:
I believe that laws which prohibit these unnecessary and cruel institutions
should be introduced.
A. Opposing Claim/argument: Opportunity for the public to see marine life.
a. Refutation
1. Many places to view marine wild life.
2. Less traveling to get to marine wild life.
3. _______________________________
B. Opposing Claim/argument: ______________________________
a. Refutation
1. _________________________________________
2. Results of captive marine mammals are unreliable .
C. Opposing Claim/argument: _____________________________
a. Refutation
1. A variety of reasons to visit Australia.
2. _________________________________________
D. Thesis Support: Marine parks are unnecessary and cruel.
a. ___________________________________
b. ___________________________________
A. Restatement of thesis
B. Summary of main thesis support
C. A statement of warning.
Related flashcards
Create flashcards