Cheating The Researcher: A Study Of The Relation Between Personality Measures And Self-Reported Cheating - Statistical Data Included

College Student Journal, March, 1999 by Maleah F. Thorpe, David J. Pittenger, Brenda D. Reed

Students from a moderate-sized state university and a private liberal arts college volunteered to complete a questionnaire that surveyed rates of various forms of academic dishonesty and measured three personality characteristics, self-esteem, locus of control, and social disability. The data confirm previous observations that some forms of cheating (e.g., copying homework) occur at greater rates than others (e.g., cheating on exams). The data also challenge previous observations concerning sex differences and differences in the rates of cheating between larger and smaller institutions. There were also significant negative correlations between the Crowne-Marlow (1960) measure of social desirability and rates of cheating.

Academic dishonesty, or cheating, is a ubiquitous phenomenon in higher education. Bowers (1964) conducted one of the first and most comprehensive studies of cheating behavior among college students. Although his work defies quick summarization, one can draw several generalizations. First, academic dishonesty of all kinds occurs within all institutions of higher education. Students copy each other's homework, plagiarize, sneak crib notes into exams or copy from others, and lie to their faculty about the cause of missed deadlines.

A second generalization is that students with lower overall academic standing are more likely to cheat. Furthermore, students who cheat are motivated more by high grades and less by the acquisition of knowledge. Bowers (1964) also reported the relation between several demographic variables and cheating. Specifically, men are more likely to cheat than women, and cheating is more pervasive in larger institutions than smaller institutions.

During the past 30 years numerous researchers have replicated and expanded upon Bowers's findings (see Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; and Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, & Armstead, 1996 for brief reviews). For example, McCabe and Bowers (1994) and Spiller and Crown (1995) reported that contemporary rates of cheating are equivalent to rates reported 30 years earlier. Similarly, several researchers (Anderson & Obenshain, 1994; Baldwin, Daugherty, Rowley, & Schwartz, 1996; Dans, 1996) reported evidence of academic dishonesty in medical schools. These results replicate the results reported for undergraduate institutions, namely, men are more likely to cheat than women and students with a history of cheating are likely to continue to cheat.

Other researchers have examined rates of cheating in different countries. Newstead et al. (1996) examined cheating behaviors among students at English colleges and universities. Their results demonstrated that the rates and patterns of cheating behavior replicate those found among American students. Davis, Noble, Zak, and Dreyer (1994) compared the levels of cheating between American and Australian students, finding that American students report more cheating than do their Australian counterparts. Davis et al. also found that Australian students are motivated more by learning than by obtaining high grades. By contrast, American students indicated a greater motivation for obtaining high grades. In similar research, Waugh, Godfrey, Evans, and Craig (1995) compared Australian student's attitudes toward cheating to the attitudes of students from other countries. They concluded that Australian students are less tolerant of cheating because of a "cultural emphasis on fair play combined with personal achievement" (p. 73).

Although the existence of cheating is well documented, its specific causes have not been extensively studied until recently. During the past decade, several researchers have begun to examine the relation between personality and attributional variables that may help predict cheating behavior. For example, several researchers examined the relation between the Type A personality profile and cheating (e.g., Huss, et al., 1993; Perry, Kane, Bernesser, & Spicker, 1990). One of the defining characteristics of the Type A personality profile is competitive striving for achievement (Friedmand & Rosenman, 1977). As such, the Type A profile may be associated with high motivation to earn high grades and possible Cheating. Consistent with this expectation, Davis, Pierce, Yandell, Arnow, and Loree (1995) demonstrated that students characterized by a Type A personality have a higher motivation to learn and earn high grades than Type B students. In addition, Type A students are more likely to cheat on a task designed in which they did not have direct control. There was, how, ever, no correlation between Type A personality and reported levels of cheating.

The lack of a correlation between Type A personality and cheating may represent several conditions. First, students who cheat may deny their transgressions thus obscuring the true relation between personality and behavior. Second, this personality scale may not measure aspects of personality that portend the proclivity for cheating. Academic dishonesty is, most likely, a multidetermined behavior that includes environmental conditions, such as opportunity; as well as a host of personality and motivational factors. Finally, current measures of the Type A personality may lack the construct validity needed to detect the covariance among variables (e.g., Matthews, 1982). Therefore, greater attention should be given to examining a broader range of personality factors that will help explain this complex phenomenon.