EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 41(3), 129–145

Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

MURDOCK AND
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
ANDERMAN

Motivational Perspectives on Student Cheating:

Toward an Integrated Model of Academic Dishonesty
Tamera B. Murdock
Department of Psychology
University of Missouri–Kansas City

Eric M. Anderman
Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology
University of Kentucky

This article uses theoretical concepts from self-efficacy theory, goal theory, expectancy value,
and intrinsic motivation theory as a way to organize the vast and largely atheoretical literature
on academic cheating. Specifically, it draws on 3 particular questions that students encounter
when deciding whether to cheat: (a) What is my purpose?, (b) Can I do this task?, and (c) What
are the costs associated with cheating? This article reviews both experimental and
nonexperimental evidence related to each of these questions and offers suggestions for future
research and instructional practices that will lessen the likelihood of cheating.

Today’s high school and college students openly admit that extent, these studies examine personal characteristics associ-
academic cheating has become both pervasive and expected. ated with dishonesty, including demographic variables such as
As many as 80% to 90% of students cheat prior to graduating gender and prior achievement, as well as personality and moti-
from high school, and a similar percentage cheat during their vational factors, including self-efficacy, goal orientation, and
undergraduate years (Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, moral development. A second body of studies focuses on con-
1992; McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Many students admit to textual factors associated with cheating, such as the difficulty
cheating only once; however, for a substantial minority, the of students’ course loads or the level of instructor proctoring.
behavior is repetitive (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; Whereas a minority of these studies are grounded in motiva-
McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Moreover, cheating rates have tion, moral development, or social deviance theories, most are
risen steadily over the past 30 years, coupled with a growing atheoretical. Moreover, there have been few efforts to interpret
majority of students who believe that cheating is acceptable these findings within an overarching conceptual framework
in some circumstances (Cizek, 1999; Evans & Craig, 1990a, (see Whitley, 1998), making it difficult to build to a systematic,
1990b; Schab, 1991). Although the causes of increased progressive body of scholarship.
cheating are unknown, some speculate it is due to more pres- We propose a framework for organizing this vast literature,
sures for success (Callahan, 2004). In a recent article in the using concepts and research from achievement motivation.
New York Times, a group of Connecticut adolescents spoke Specifically, we seek to show how many of the seemingly dis-
about their knowledge of student cheating and their own feel- parate factors that predict cheating influence dishonest behav-
ings of pressure to cheat to keep up with their peers (Gross, ior via three motivational mechanisms: (a) students’goals, (b)
2003). Other research suggests that an increased national em- students’ expectations for accomplishing those goals, and (c)
phasis on high-stakes testing may encourage dishonesty students’ assessments of the costs associated with achieving
(Nichols & Berliner, in press). those goals. We demonstrate that students are more likely to
Scholarship focused on understanding and predicting aca- cheat when they answer the question “What do I hope to ac-
demic cheating has also expanded in the last decade. To a large complish?” with goals that are performance, ego, or extrinsi-
cally focused versus mastery, learning, or intrinsically fo-
Correspondence should be addressed to Tamera B. Murdock, Depart-
cused). Second, cheating rates are higher when students have
ment of Psychology, University of Missouri–Kansas City, Kansas City, poor expectations of their abilities to accomplish their goals
MO 64110–2499. E-mail: murdocktb@[Link] through personal effort (“Can I do this?”). Finally, when stu-
130 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

dents assess that the potential costs incurred from cheating are as a whole and offer suggestions to improve our understand-
minimal, they are more apt to engage in dishonest behaviors. ing of academic dishonesty. This final section outlines what
Within this framework, both individual factors and contextual we can infer about creating classroom environments that
factors are presumed to influence students’answers to each of ameliorate cheating and a brief discussion of cheating within
these questions. For example, although a student may have the larger societal context. We hope to illustrate the parallels
high self-efficacy for performance in mathematics, and we between the school-based factors that affect the likelihood of
would thus predict that she would not be inclined to cheat in cheating and the larger changes in our society that make the
math classes, within a particular classroom, that student may promotion of academic honesty a complex task for teachers
doubt her ability to accomplish a given goal because of poor and other school personnel (Callahan, 2004).
teaching, unclear tests, or a host of other environmental vari-
ables that are outside of her control.
Although macro level changes in the values and behaviors
QUESTION #1: WHAT IS MY PURPOSE?
of our society have undoubtedly contributed to the academic
dishonesty epidemic (Callahan, 2004), we limit our frame-
Theoretical Perspective
work (see Figure 1) and our analysis of cheating to the effects
of classrooms, families and peers, or what Bronfenbrenner Students approach their classroom learning with a range of
(1979) refers to as microlevel influences. We delimited our goals, both academic and social (Anderman & Anderman,
framework in this way because the majority of the cheating 1999; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Midgley, 2002; A. M. Ryan,
literature addresses micro-level effects and, as educational Hicks, & Midgley, 1997; Urdan, 1997; Wentzel, 1998). Our
psychologists, we are particularly interested in identifying focus is primarily on students’academic purposes, because so-
factors that can help schools to reduce academic dishonesty. cial goals (i.e., belonging, friendship) have been minimally
This article is organized into four major sections. Extant examined in relation to cheating (see Calabrese & Cochran,
literature demonstrating how cheating is related to students’ 1990; Murdock, Hale, & Weber, 2001). Numerous theories of
goals, judgments about their capabilities to achieve those achievement motivation, including intrinsic motivation theo-
goals, and the perceived costs of cheating is presented in the ries (Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985) and goal theories (Ames,
first three sections. We have framed each section with a guid- 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) explain differences in achieve-
ing “question” that students consider in academic contexts. ment-related behavior in terms of students’reasons for pursu-
Within each topic, we provide a conceptual argument for the ing their academic work (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Across
relations between the specific motivational concepts and these theories, there is a distinction between students who ap-
cheating and then review both the nonexperimental and ex- proach classroom tasks with a genuine desire to understand
perimental research supporting these relations. A critical (i.e., high intrinsic value, strong mastery or learning goals)
synthesis of the findings concludes each section. We subse- versus those who are more interested in external indicators of
quently provide a more integrated analysis of this literature accomplishment (i.e., performance goals, ego goals, extrinsic

FIGURE 1 Proposed motivational framework for integration of the cheating literature.

 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 131

motivation). The most utilized of these theories, achievement whereas grade orientations were positively associated with
goal theory, emphasizes how students’ constructed sense of cheating among those same students (Huss et al., 1993;
the purpose of schooling influences their motivated behaviors Weiss, Gilbert, Giordano, & Davis, 1993). Further, relations
(Urdan, 1997). Learners who pursue understanding are re- between students’ purposes for schooling and their academic
ferred to as mastery, task, or learning-oriented, whereas those dishonesty appear well before the college years. Middle
whose primary goal is to demonstrate their ability are termed school students who reported cheating in a specific class also
performance, relative-ability, or ego-oriented. Some goal-ori- reported lower levels of personal mastery goals and higher
entation researchers also distinguish students who are moti- levels of extrinsic goals than noncheaters (Anderman et al.,
vated primarily by extrinsic rewards and recognition (e.g., 1998). Logistic regression analyses revealed that individual
Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998). differences such as worrying and strategy-usage, and contex-
Conceptually, cheating can be viewed as a viable strategy to tual factors such as perceived school-wide emphases on per-
attain extrinsic or performance goals. However, academic dis- formance goals, were also predictive of academic cheating.
honesty might hinder goal-directed progress if students are When Murdock and colleagues (Murdock et al., 2001)
primarily engaged with a task because of intrinsic interest or a replicated the work of Anderman et al. (1998), they too found
strong desire to learn. The forthcoming review of the literature that students who reported cheating in middle school had
suggests that students’ achievement goals are related to fre- lower levels of personal mastery goals than noncheaters and
quency of cheating in predictable ways: the pursuit of mastery perceived their classrooms as being less focused on mastery.
goals is related to decreased cheating, whereas the pursuit of Personal extrinsic goals were positively related to the likeli-
performance and extrinsic goals is related to greater cheating. hood of cheating. Classroom goal structures were also re-
lated to cheating; however, because of the high correlation
between scores on those measures and three of the other con-
Nonexperimental Evidence
textual variables in the model (teacher competence, teacher
Numerous correlational and comparative studies demonstrate commitment, and teacher respect), they were not unique pre-
that motivation toward extrinsic outcomes is associated with dictors of dishonesty. The multicollinearity among these per-
academic cheating, whereas the pursuit of intrinsic goals is as- ceived classroom characteristics raises questions about the
sociated with less dishonesty. For example, when college stu- specific aspects of the environment that may facilitate cheat-
dents rated their reasons for cheating or for not cheating, the ing: Is cheating affected by the goal structure per se, or the
desire to increase one’s grades was one of the primary reasons other factors in the classroom that are concordant with low
cited for dishonest behavior. In contrast, honest students said mastery settings?
they do not cheat because it would devalue their achievement Dweck and Leggett (1988) frame differences in students’
(Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, & Armstead, 1996). Moreover, achievement goals in terms of theories of intelligence. Entity
rates of cheating were almost 40% higher among students who theorists see intellect as a fixed capacity. In contrast, incre-
viewed their education primarily as a means to an end, such as mental theorists believe that intelligence is a reflection of what
securing a better job, than for those who said they were pursu- one currently knows and can thus be improved through addi-
ing a college education for personal development. tional effort. Therefore, persistence, struggle, and effort are
Canadian community college students asked to assess viewed as valued behaviors to incremental theorists and
the extent to which various circumstances would affect threatening behaviors to entity theorists. Not surprisingly, en-
their likelihood of cheating on an exam indicated that the tity theorists tend to pursue ego, extrinsic, or performance
effect of the exam on their long-term grades and their abil- goals, as compared to the more mastery-oriented pursuits of
ity to garner future financial support would be two of their students who espouse an incremental view of intelligence. In
top five reasons for cheating (Genereux & McLeod, 1995). addition, there is some evidence that entity theorists may be
Still other evidence indicates the cheating declines when quicker to cheat to succeed. In one study, fifth graders viewed a
motivation is intrinsic: College students report that they vignette depicting a peer who had failed a quiz despite study-
cheat less when the class is interesting to them (Pulvers & ing for it and being confident (Dweck & Sorich, 1999). When
Diekhoff, 1999; Schraw et al., in press). the participants rated various strategies they might adopt for
Several scholars have explicitly applied achievement goal the upcoming quiz, incremental theorists were more likely to
theory to studies of cheating. One group of these studies dis- say they would try harder, whereas entity theorists were signif-
criminates between students’ orientations for grades versus icantly more likely to say that they would try to cheat.
learning, using Eison’s (1981) Learning and Grade Orienta- Dweck’s focus on theories of intelligence as underlying
tion scale (LOGO), whereas others measure students’ mas- students’ achievement goals suggest that goal orientations
tery, performance, or extrinsic goal orientations, based on the are dispositional attributes. In contrast, many contemporary
Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS; Midgley et al., goal theorists argue that goals should be conceptualized as
1998). College students’ endorsements of a learning orienta- situational rather than personality variables (e.g., Anderman
tion as measured by the LOGO have been inversely associ- & Maehr, 1994). As such, one would expect that as students’
ated with self-reported cheating in two college samples, goals change across classroom contexts, so too will their lev-
132 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

els of cheating. To test this hypothesis, participants attending duced with classroom practices that foster learning and
an elite private college rated their goal orientations and their deemphasize grades. Middle and high school students en-
frequency of engaging in 17 cheating behaviors for each rolled in highly competitive advanced placement courses
course they were enrolled in during a particular semester stated that pressures for high grades from parents, peers, and
(Jordan, 2001). Across classes, students’ cheating was in- teachers contributed to cheating (Taylor, Pogrebin, & Dodge,
versely related to mastery goals and positively related to ex- 2002). College-bound students in a second study indicated
trinsic goals. Moreover, among the students who admitted to that cheating increases during the junior year because of the
cheating, their dishonesty was not consistent across classes. weight given to those grades in the college admission process
They were more extrinsically oriented and less mastery ori- (Stephens, 2004). Similarly, in a nationwide survey of col-
ented in classes where they cheated than in classes where lege undergraduates, three of the top 12 suggestions to in-
they reported being honest. In fact, “dishonest” students’ structors for decreasing cheating pertained to shifting the
goals in classes where they had not cheated were not signifi- norms for the course: not grading on a curve, focusing on
cantly different than those of the noncheaters. learning rather than grading, and removing assignments that
Academic integrity also appears to decline when families, were trivial and uninteresting (McCabe, Trevino, &
peers, or instructors emphasize extrinsic or performance goals Butterfield, 2001).
over mastery goals. Recall that in both the Anderman et al. In summary, correlational, comparative, and longitudinal
(1998) and the Murdock et al. (2001) studies, the perceived data provide convergent evidence that by late elementary
goal structure of the classroom, in addition to one’s personal school, students have developed different approaches to
goals, predicted self-reported cheating. Several additional learning that are related to cheating in predictable ways. Stu-
studies indicate positive relations between perceived competi- dents who focus on their abilities, social comparisons, and
tiveness of the classroom and amount of academic dishonesty extrinsic rewards report increased dishonesty. Although it
(Perry, Kane, Bemesser, & Spicker, 1990; Smith, Ryan, & appears that the competitiveness of the environment may also
Diggins, 1972). Longitudinal evidence reveals that students affect cheating, conclusions about any environmental effects
moving from middle school math classes that are relatively should be tempered as a majority of these studies relied on
mastery-oriented to high school classes that are more perfor- one-time data collection, making it impossible to determine
mance-oriented also report increases in their cheating during if variations in the perceived environment were related to
that same time period (Anderman & Midgley, 2004). In con- changes in cheating, or if people who cheat judge their envi-
trast, students moving from a performance-oriented to a more ronment more harshly as a justification for their actions.
mastery-oriented environment reported cheating less in high
school math than they had in middle school.
Experimental Evidence
Although the findings above suggest that students are
more apt to cheat both as a function of their personal goals Several forms of experimental research add additional support
and of goals that are emphasized in the classroom, these re- to the literature on the relations between personal goals, con-
sults are limited by an exclusive reliance on methodologies textual goal attributes, and academic dishonesty. In one set of
that correlate student self-reported cheating with their indi- studies, learning environments are manipulated experimen-
vidual perception of the classroom goal structure. Such cor- tally using hypothetical vignettes; in another set, students
relations might exist because the students who admit to complete laboratory tasks that permit and measure cheating.
cheating are likely to report that the classroom gives them a Research using high school, undergraduate, and graduate
motive to cheat. Such findings may also be affected by students indicates that various classroom practices alter the
multicollinearity between measures of personal goals and justifiability of cheating in a given context, as well as the
classroom goal structures. likelihood that cheating will occur (Murdock, Miller, &
In an effort to better understand the relations of class- Goetzinger, 2005; Murdock, Miller, & Kohlhardt, 2004).
room variables to student cheating, Murdock, Miller, and Students in these three age groups were asked to read a hypo-
Anderman (2005) reanalyzed data from two previous stud- thetical vignette depicting a teacher who created a perfor-
ies using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Students’ in- mance or mastery-oriented classroom. The teacher was also
dividual perceptions of the classroom goal structure were portrayed as pedagogically more or less competent, yielding
entered at level one, whereas aggregated goal structures a 2 (goal structure) × 2 (pedagogical competence) design.
were entered at level two. In both sets of data, rates of Cheating was rated as more justifiable and more likely in
cheating differed significantly across classrooms. However, classrooms where teachers emphasized performance goals as
although the individual student perceptions of the goal compared to mastery goals and where teachers were per-
structures predicted personal rates of cheating, the aggre- ceived as less versus more competent.
gated variables did not. Wryobeck and Whitley (1999) demonstrated that stu-
Survey and interview data suggests that students from dents’ goal orientations not only predict their own cheating,
high school through college believe that cheating is caused but also how those students evaluate the dishonest behavior
by pressure and competition for high grades and could be re- of others. College students read one of several scenarios de-
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 133

picting a student who had cheated and an accomplice who veillance. Incentive rewards did not increase the amount of
had assisted the culprit for either altruistic (friendship) or cheating for high self-monitoring students. However,
monetary incentives. Across scenarios, students with a high among the low self-monitoring students, cheating rates in
versus low learning orientation endorsed a higher rate of the high incentive condition were double those in the low
punishment for the cheater and the accomplice. In addition, incentive condition.
students’ ratings of their own likelihood of engaging in the
behaviors of the cheater and accomplice were a product of
the interaction between the incentive that was offered and
Summary and Questions for Further Exploration
their own learning (high versus low) and grade (high versus
low) orientations. Students with high grade orientations in- The goals of many teachers and students today are focused
dicated that they would be more likely to cheat and to help on the attainment of high test scores, given the high-stakes
the cheater than those with low grade orientations. This ef- assessments that most students and teachers encounter
fect was true in both incentive conditions for students in the (Nichols & Berliner, in press). Pressure for high test scores
low learning orientation group. For those with high learning is so extreme that teachers and administrators have falsi-
orientations, the effects were more complex: students with fied students’ standardized tests themselves (Levitt &
high learning and high grade orientations reported that they Dubner, 2005). As our society continues to emphasize out-
would act like the cheater and the accomplice more in both comes over learning, many argue that cheating is likely to
the altruistic and the monetary incentive conditions. How- continue to occur (Callahan, 2004). Whereas some stu-
ever, within conditions, the high grade/high learning group dents focus on mastery and learning, others focus on dem-
identified more with the scenario in the altruistic condition, onstrations of ability and attaining extrinsic incentives. In
whereas the high learning/low grade group identified more addition, some students may pursue a host of goals, both
in the monetary condition. mastery and performance, simultaneously. Cheating is a
Vignette studies are useful as a first step in clarifying strategy that some students choose to employ to achieve
the mechanisms that underlie students’ decisions to cheat those goals.
but are limited to assessing dependent variables that re- The extent to which teachers can reduce cheating by im-
flect attitudes and intentions, rather than behavior. Two plementing practices that are less extrinsically or perfor-
studies have manipulated achievement goals and mea- mance focused and more mastery focused is still unclear.
sured actual cheating within a laboratory setting. External Correlational studies simply examine how students’ per-
incentives increased cheating in a laboratory study with sonal characteristics and perceptions of learning contexts
10- to 12-year-old students (Lobel & Levanon, 1988). Stu- are related to behaviors. Nevertheless, these results cannot
dents were instructed to draw figures, without lifting their disentangle the extent to which variations in teaching prac-
pencil from the paper or retracing their path. Of the five tices across classrooms predict cheating. The two studies
puzzles they completed, only two could be solved; thus, that have attempted to tease out variance between classes
when students scored their work, any student reporting a from variance within classes using HLM suggest that al-
score of above two was labeled a “cheater.” One group was though students report cheating more if they perceive the
offered a prize for high performance, a second group was presence of a performance goal structure, goal structure ap-
told that their scores would be made public, and a third pears to be unrelated to cheating when a more objective
group received no incentives. Students cheated more in the method of assessing context is utilized. In addition, most
prize condition than in the other two conditions. Self-es- studies to date have not assessed students’ perceived inter-
teem and need for approval were also assessed but were est in a course or valuing of the course simultaneously with
unrelated to cheating. Covey, Saladin, and Killen (2001) measures of students’ goals and perceptions of classroom
monitored college students’ cheating as a function of, goal structures. It is indeed possible that highly valuing a
among other variables, the reward structure of the task. certain class may either buffer or exacerbate the likelihood
Participants were shown a series of mazes and were told to of cheating.
memorize and then trace the mazes with their eyes closed. Although cheating can be induced by extrinsic rewards
The number of mazes correctly completed was the depend- in laboratory settings, generalizing from these results to the
ent variable. In the extrinsic reward condition, dou- classroom minimizes important differences between the
ble-credit was offered to the participants for high perfor- settings. After leaving the lab, students will not have to in-
mance; the other participants were promised double credit teract with an experimenter, nor is that person in a position
simply for completing the task. The level of experimenter to affect the participants’ academic careers. In contrast,
surveillance was also manipulated (high versus low), and cheating in a classroom comes with the potential for embar-
comparisons were made between high and low self-moni- rassment, as well as grade penalties. Fears of being caught
tors, defined as the extent to which self-presentational and the perceived severity of the consequences for being
concerns motivated an individual’s behavior. Cheating oc- caught are two of the most important deterrents to potential
curred less frequently at higher versus lower levels of sur- cheaters (Cizek, 1999).
134 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

QUESTION #2: CAN I DO THIS? Frone, 2004; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Michaels & Miethe,
1989; Newstead et al., 1996; Roig & DeTammaso, 1995).
Theoretical Perspectives However, a 1998 meta-analysis of studies of college popula-
tions reported that the average effect size of GPA on cheating
Students’ judgments about their capabilities to bring about a
is small (Whitley, 1998). Results from the one study that used
desired outcome (Can I do this?) represent a second compo-
actual cheating as the dependent variable also suggest that
nent of many theories of achievement motivation, including
prior achievement and cheating are inversely related. For
expectancy-value theory (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield & Eccles,
each of six quizzes, undergraduate students in an economic
2002) and self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997). Both of
class handed in their completed work, which, unknown to the
these perspectives maintain that the cognitive beliefs underly-
students, was photocopied by the Teacher Assistant and re-
ing motivated behaviors result from interactions between stu-
turned to the student at the next class (Nowell & Laufer,
dents and their environments. Within Bandura’s social-cogni-
1997). Students then graded their own work and 27% of them
tive framework, students’responses to the question, “Can I do
cheated. Although GPA was not uniquely related to dishon-
this?” are a product of their self-efficacy judgments or their
esty in multiple regression analysis, a lower grade in that spe-
confidence in their ability to execute the skills needed to bring
cific course grade was a significant predictor of dishonesty.
about a desired outcome, combined with their assessments of
Undoubtedly, the lack of effect of GPA was due to its correla-
the contingencies between executing those behaviors and the
tion with course grade, but the simple correlations were not
desired outcome (i.e., outcome expectations). Although effi-
provided by the study’s authors.
cacious students are generally more engaged in classroom ac-
Dishonesty is not confined to low-achieving students but
tivities, a student may be confident that she can master the
occurs among those who are the most academically able
skills covered on the next test (i.e., high self efficacy), but not
(Stephens, 2004). From a social-cognitive framework, the
exert effort because she believes that her mastery of the mate-
negative correlation between GPA and cheating is not contra-
rial will not be reflected in the teacher’s poorly constructed
dicted by the evidence that cheating also occurs among those
tests (i.e., low outcome expectations) (Linnenbrink &
with high GPA because achievement (GPA) and self-efficacy
Pintrich, 2003). Conceptually, one would expect that cheating
are not isomorphic constructs. Even among high achievers,
would vary as a function of self-efficacy beliefs, and the indi-
one’s self-efficacy judgments predict behavioral outcomes
vidual and environmental factors that influence students’
more so than one’s prior achievement (Bandura, 1997). These
self-efficacy or outcome expectations.
findings have also been documented in relation to cheating.
Among late adolescents attending high school and college,
self-efficacy beliefs predicted levels of cheating above and be-
Nonexperimental Evidence
yond that which was accounted for by GPA (Finn & Frone,
Several correlational studies have directly examined self-ef- 2004). Moreover, self-efficacymoderated the effect of GPA on
ficacy beliefs in relation to cheating behavior. For example, dishonesty. Strong prior performance was inversely related to
Murdock et al. (2001) reported an inverse relation between cheating, but only among students with high self-efficacy. For
cheating and academic self-efficacy for middle school stu- those with lower levels of self-efficacy, stronger and weaker
dents, even after controlling for personal goals, classroom performers were equally likely to cheat.
goal structures, and other aspects of the classroom environ- The complicated relations between cheating and prior
ment. Similar relations between self-efficacy and cheating achievement might also be understood in terms of the
have been reported in college samples (e.g., Finn & Frone, goals that students have for themselves. Although mastery
2004). Other studies have linked cheating to a fear of failure goals are typically associated with more effective strategy
(Calabrese & Cochran, 1990; Michaels & Miethe, 1989), test use, more sustained effort, and other desirable motiva-
anxiety (Malinowski & Smith, 1985), and worrying about tional outcomes, performance goals are typically related
one’s performance (Anderman et al., 1998). Although fear to higher grades (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Bandura,
and worry are not direct assessments of self-efficacy, within 1997). Moreover, at the middle and high school levels,
social-cognitive theory, arousal, which is tied to emotion, has higher achieving students are more likely to be tracked
been shown to be one of the four sources of information that into classes with similarly achieving peers, creating a
people use in forming their self-efficacy judgments higher standard for their performance. At all levels, stu-
(Bandura, 1986, 1997), with negative and anxious emotions dents typically compare their performance against others
serving as low efficacy cues. who they view as similar to themselves. Thus, although
Actual achievement is also another cue for individuals’ high GPA students may be more capable than others in an
appraisals of their self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997). In absolute sense, they be equally or less confident in their
general, there is a positive correlation between measures of ability (self-efficacy) to achieve their self-imposed goals
academic achievement and self-efficacy belief, and indices than are lower ability students.
of achievement such as grade point average (GPA) have also Indirect evidence for relations between self-efficacy and
been inversely related to self-reported cheating (Finn & cheating also comes from studies that demonstrate relations
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 135

between various indices of students’ lack of preparedness perceptions of the fairness of the classroom mediated the re-
and their engagement in academic dishonesty. For example, lations between pedagogical competence and judgments of
both quantity and quality of study time are inversely related cheating acceptability, offering some evidence that cheating
to cheating (Kerkvliet, 1994; Norton, Tilley, Newstead, & may be higher in classes where teachers behaviors are per-
Franklyn-Stokes, 2001), as is class attendance (Michaels & ceived as reducing students’ outcome expectations.
Miethe, 1989). Procrastination has been found to be posi-
tively correlated with cheating on examinations and plagia-
Can I Do This? Summary and Questions for
rism among university students (Roig & DeTommaso, 1995).
Further Exploration
In addition, cheating is more prevalent in math, science, and
technology courses (Schab, 1991), which are also perceived Similar to the research linking students’ goals to cheating,
as more difficult. there is more evidence that students’ individual self-efficacy
Factors such as instructional quality and course or exam beliefs and their perceived outcome expectations are related
difficulty may influence students’ self-efficacy judgments to cheating, and there is less evidence for the effects of the en-
and outcome expectations. Unorganized teachers, for exam- vironment on cheating, via their impact of these beliefs sys-
ple, may make it more difficult to learn, thereby undermining tems. When students have high self-efficacy beliefs and ex-
self-efficacy judgments, and tests that do not match the pect to succeed at an academic task, cheating is probably
course material may lower students’ outcome expectations. neither a necessary nor useful strategy. As noted by
Consistent with this prediction, students report that they are Anderman et al. (1998), cheating is a somewhat unique be-
more likely to cheat when classroom factors impede learn- havior, different from other behaviors associated with perfor-
ing. When asked to rate the competence and commitment of mance avoidance. Self-handicapping and other avoidance
their teachers, middle schools students who cheated in a strategies (e.g., avoidance of help-seeking, avoidance of nov-
given class gave the instructor lower ratings as compared to elty) are means of explaining and justifying failures. In con-
students who did not report cheating (Murdock et al., 2001). trast, cheating is a strategy that is designed to lead to success,
Among university students, an inverse relation was reported albeit via antisocial and unacceptable means (Turner et al.,
between level of cheating and the perceived quality of orga- 2002; Urdan, Ryan, Anderman, & Gheen, 2002).
nization and task-focus of the instructor (Pulvers & Diekhoff, Although there are theoretical explanations for the rela-
1999). Moreover, when asked their opinion concerning why tions between cheating and self-efficacy beliefs, two un-
students cheat, junior and senior high school students were der-explored facets of education that may yield additional in-
more likely than their teachers to attribute cheating to tough sights regarding the relations of self-efficacy to academic
academic standards, large amounts of work, and difficult cheating are ability grouping and differentiation of academic
grading practices (Evans & Craig, 1990b) tasks. Self-efficacy and expectancies for success may be
lower for students in lower-ability tracks. However, in terms
of cheating, perhaps a more serious problem emerges for stu-
Experimental Evidence
dents who are in high-ability classes but do not feel as effica-
A number of experimental vignette studies provide addi- cious as their peers. When students feel that they cannot keep
tional evidence that pedagogical factors may influence stu- up with their more able peers, they may be more likely to re-
dents’ cheating via their influence on students’ self-efficacy sort to cheating to appear as competent as their classmates.
and outcome expectations. In one study, high school and col- This is, in some ways, reminiscent of a performance-avoid
lege students each read 19 vignettes depicting a student who goal orientation in that students may resort to cheating if they
was portrayed as having cheated for one of 19 reasons feel that they will be perceived as incompetent if they do not
(Jensen, Arnett, Feldman, & Cauffman, 2002). Participants perform as well as their peers (Elliot, 1999; Middleton &
then rated the acceptability of each of those motives. Results Midgley, 1997).
indicated that unfair treatment by the instructor was ranked Self-efficacy theorists argue that self-efficacy is highly
as one of the five most acceptable justifications for cheating. task specific (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996). Thus a student
In more recent research, high school students rated vi- may report feeling highly efficacious on a writing task but
gnettes in which the quality of teachers pedagogy was por- extremely inefficacious on a specific multiplication prob-
trayed as high versus low; in one study this manipulation was lem. In terms of cheating, the student would be more likely
crossed with a goal structure manipulation (classroom mas- to engage in cheating while completing the task for which
tery vs. performance); in another study it was crossed with a the student feels a sense of low self-efficacy. Nevertheless,
manipulation of the teacher interpersonal competence it is possible that low levels of self-efficacy within a partic-
(Murdock et al., 2004). Students ratings of the acceptability ular academic domain may yield a greater long-term likeli-
and likelihood of cheating were influenced by the quality of hood of the occurrence of cheating within that domain. Fu-
the portrayed pedagogy. These results were replicated with ture studies examining the long-term effects of low levels
undergraduate and graduate students (Murdock, Miller, & of task-specific self-efficacy on more generalized behaviors
Goetzinger, 2005). Moreover, in the latter studies, students should be examined.
136 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

Although data suggest that facets of the classroom context Costs of Detection: Nonexperimental Evidence
that potentially lower students’ self-efficacy and outcome ex-
Detection costs are largely controlled by two factors: the per-
pectations also increase rates of cheating, this literature has
ceived likelihood of being caught, or the ease of cheating,
many of the same limitations as does the body of work that
and the perceived punishment that will result if caught. In-
examines the relations of classroom goals structures to aca-
deed, it is easier to cheat on academic work in some situa-
demic cheating. Most of the data are not longitudinal, and
tions compared to others, and factors that make cheating
data on perceived classroom practices are almost always
more difficult also appear to lower rates of dishonesty. For
measured by the individual students’ perceptions. Studies are
example, students and faculty at two small private colleges
needed that incorporate other methods of measuring class-
indicated that the chance of getting caught and the penalties
room context and that analyze data at both the individual and
associated with getting caught were two of the top three rea-
classroom levels. Moreover, specific tests of the effects of
sons for not cheating (Graham, Monday, O’Brien, & Steffan,
contextual variables on cheating via their influence on
1994). In another study high school students from two demo-
self-efficacy or outcome expectations also are warranted.
graphically diverse schools rated the “fear of getting caught
Finally, social learning theory suggests that observational
and punished” as the second most frequent reason why they
learning may play an important yet understudied role in this
did not cheat, with the most frequent response being that they
area of research. Indeed, it is possible that students develop a
did not have any need to cheat (Stephens, 2004). Moreover,
sense of self-efficacy for particular tasks via observations of
students believe that making the act of cheating more diffi-
peers. In addition, students may develop actual self-efficacy
cult reduces its frequency. For example, two-thirds of the stu-
for cheating by viewing their peers successfully engaging in
dents in a large public university reported that scrambling
cheating behaviors.
test-items, providing alternate test forms, unique make up
tests, as well as small classes and additional proctors, would
reduce dishonest behavior (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce,
QUESTION #3: WHAT ARE THE COSTS? 1996). Finally, formal honor code statements that clearly
specify no tolerance for cheating have been found to increase
Theoretical Perspectives students’ perceptions of risk involved in trying to cheat
(Cummings & Romano, 2002) and decrease the actual preva-
Although it seems reasonable that students who have stron-
lence of cheating behavior (McCabe & Trevino, 1993;
ger performance goals combined with low self-efficacy or
McCabe et al., 2001; McCabe, Trevino, & Butterfield, 2002).
low outcome expectations would be more motivated to cheat
than their highly confident and mastery-focused peers, cheat-
ing is still one of many strategy choices for increasing one’s
Costs of Detection: Experimental Evidence
performance. For example, a student might obtain additional
help, try new approaches, or take a different class. From a Naturalistic and laboratory experiments demonstrate de-
motivational perspective, the decision of which strategy to clines in cheating when there is an increased risk of detec-
adopt will be influenced by the perceived potential cost asso- tion. For example, Houston (1976) examined the effects of
ciated with a given behavior. For example, the choice to spaced seating and alternate exam forms on cheating in un-
spend extra time studying for an exam might mean that a stu- dergraduate psychology classes. The dependent variable was
dent can get a better grade but not make extra money from a a cheating index on a multiple choice test, based on the ratio
part-time job, attend volleyball practice, or participate in re- of identical correct and incorrect answers shared by the stu-
cess (e.g., Watkinson, Dwyer, & Nielsen, 2005). Within an dent and a nearby target, as compared to the student and an-
expectancy-value framework (Eccles, 1983; Wigfield & other random student. Less copying occurred in spaced ver-
Eccles, 1992), these costs are weighed against the potential sus nonspaced seating conditions; however, having two
value of achieving one’s goal: When the costs outweigh the different question orders for an exam did not lead to less
perceived gain, the behavior is less likely to occur. cheating than having one version of the exam. The authors
Although cheating can reduce the amount of time spent speculated that item order was not a deterrent because it was
completing school work, it is not without its own potential relatively easy for students to find the matching question
costs. The most studied of these are the cost of being from someone seating near them.
caught, and the potential cost to one’s self-concept. Choices To test this hypothesis, Houston (1983) examined rates of
also communicate our priorities and therefore affect how cheating in three conditions: when the test items were scram-
others see and respond to us. The extant literature reviewed bled, when the question and answer choices within the ques-
below is consistent with predictions about the role of costs tions were scrambled, and when there was no scrambling.
in determining motivated behavior: Cheating is more likely Cheating only declined when both the questions and the an-
to occur when students can minimize the potential costs as- swers within the questions were scrambled. Moreover, stu-
sociated with detection and the costs of having to perceive dents cheat more when seating is chosen versus assigned be-
oneself as dishonest. cause they tend to sit near people who they know and with
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 137

whom they have studied (Houston, 1986). The cost of engag- dents produced small, but statistically significant, relations
ing in cheating behaviors may be perceived as higher when between self-reported cheating and students’ level of moral
students are randomly assigned to seats due to the unknown reasoning and their specific moral judgments about cheating
outcomes of cheating from unfamiliar classmates. (Stephens, 2004). Similarly, vignette studies of high school,
Laboratory studies also demonstrate the effects of poten- undergraduate, and graduate students confirm that students
tial detection on cheating. Students in an experimental labo- who perceive cheating as “wrong” in a given situation also pre-
ratory study were less likely to cheat in a high versus low sur- dict that less cheating will occur in that situation when com-
veillance condition (Covey et al., 2001). This main effect was pared to their peers who see it as more acceptable (Murdock,
modified by an interaction effect: The rates of cheating Miller, & Goetzinger, 2005; Murdock et al., 2004).
among students who were low in self monitoring, and who
presumably care less about the opinions of others, were less
affected by the amount of surveillance than were cheating Neutralizing attitudes. Academic cheating, like other
rates of their more impression-conscious peers. Experimen- deviant behaviors, is empirically related to students’ neutral-
tal studies of high school students with high and low surveil- izing, or explaining away the wrongness of the behavior,
lance conditions have yielded similar findings (see Corcoran among middle-school (Anderman et al., 1998), high school
& Rotter, 1987). (Stephens, 2004), and college students (Jordan, 2001;
Whitely, 1998). Neutralizing attitudes can take various forms
including externalizing blame onto others, pointing out the
Costs to One’s Self-Image:
normativeness of the behavior, and reframing the behavior as
Nonexperimental Evidence
a crime with no victim. In addition, neutralizing attitudes
Dishonesty is also more prevalent when a student can reduce may be related to individuals’ overall interest or valuing of
the potential costs of having to see him- or herself or fear that various academic courses or subjects.
others will see him or her as a “bad person.” Self-image suf- Nonexperimental studies suggest that assigning blame to
fers when people behave in ways that violate their own norms others and appealing to one’s peer norms are the most fre-
of acceptable behavior; as such, one would anticipate that the quent strategies used to justify dishonesty. When blame for
costs associated with cheating would be reduced, and thus cheating is shifted to others, the most common target is the
the prevalence of cheating would be higher, among students teacher and his or her instructional practices. For example,
who see cheating as acceptable. Indeed, a qualitative study of Pulvers and Diekhoff (1999) reported that among undergrad-
college students in Canada describes the numerous impres- uate students, self-reported cheaters rated the instructional
sion management strategies that some students use to ensure context as worse than the students who did not cheat (i.e., in-
that they are not perceived by others as cheaters, such as star- structor as less personally engaged, class as less interesting,
ing at the ceiling while thinking, dressing without pockets, activities as more poorly organized and having less clarity).
and making facial expressions that convey serious involve- Across all students, there was a positive relationship between
ment with the exam materials (Albas & Albas, 1996). the degree of neutralization and negative perceptions of the
Students’ judgments of the acceptability of cheating have instructional context. In another survey study of undergradu-
been conceptualized in two ways, including: moral beliefs ate students, “poor instruction” was rated as one of the most
about cheating and attitudes about the justifiability of cheat- acceptable motives for cheating (Jensen et al., 2002). Finally,
ing, which is often referred to as “neutralizing attitudes.” As the motivational climate created by teachers has also been as-
we show below, evidence suggests that students who engage sociated with cheating attitudes. Anderman and colleagues
in cheating behaviors typically view cheating as more justifi- (1998) found that middle school students rated cheating as
able and acceptable than those who are more honest, thereby more acceptable in classrooms where the perceived class-
lessening the impact of the behavior on one’s self-percep- room goal structure was one that focused on extrinsic recog-
tions (i.e., reduced cost of cheating). At the same time, it is nition and rewards for performance (performance goals) ver-
not clear that honest and dishonest students actually differ in sus the mastery of content (mastery goals).
their moral judgments of cheating. We turn first to the litera- Consistent with social learning theory (Bandura, 1986),
ture on morality and cheating, followed by the scholarship on students appear to normalize cheating when they see others
neutralizing attitudes. getting away with it. Evidence from a multi-campus study of
undergraduates confirms the important role of peer attitudes
Morality. When asked why they refrain from cheating, and behaviors: The frequency with which one’s peers were
high school students indicated that personal morality and the perceived to cheat and the perceived attitudes of peers toward
anticipated embarrassment of being caught were two of their cheating were two of the strongest predictors of personal
top five deterrents (Stephens, 2004). Moreover, when students cheating, among a range of variables that were studied
self-report their level of moral reasoning and their cheating be- (McCabe & Trevino, 1997). Similar results have been found
havior, there are consistent inverse correlations between the in other high school and college samples (McCabe &
two constructs. For example, recent data from high school stu- Trevino, 1993; Rodgers & Rowe, 1990).
138 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

Costs to One’s Self-Image: ciated with decreased dishonesty in the college sample. This
Experimental Evidence hypothesis could not be tested, however, because Bruggeman
and Hart measured moral reasoning on a continuous scale,
Morality. In contrast to the consistent correlations be-
rather than classifying individuals into moral stages.
tween moral reasoning and self-reported cheating, experi-
Finally, Malinkowski and Smith (1985) examined cheat-
mental studies that use actual cheating behavior as the de-
ing behavior in high and low temptation conditions. Al-
pendent variable have been less conclusive. For example, in
though higher levels of moral reasoning were associated with
one study, moral reasoning was examined in relation to actual
fewer cheating incidents, this finding occurred only when
cheating behavior among students attending religious and sec- temptation was low, suggesting that if the stakes are high
ular high schools (Bruggeman & Hart, 1996). After complet- enough, the incentives to cheat may outweigh the cost of vio-
ing a moral reasoning test, students were asked to memorize lating one’s moral code, even for those with mature levels of
the location of 10 circles of various sizes on a sheet of paper moral reasoning.
and then to reproduce the drawing with their eyes closed. Extra
credit points were offered for high performance on the repro- Neutralizing attitudes. One possible conclusion for
duction tasks. Students were coded as cheaters if they scored the inconsistent relations between morality and cheating is
more than three standard deviations above the mean score for that seeing oneself as an immoral person is not always
“blinded” performance, established prior to the study, or if af- enough of a cost to deter cheating. However, these incongru-
ter the test, they admitted to having cheated. Cheating was ous findings are typical of the totality of research on moral
equally frequent among students attending secular (79%) and cognition and moral behavior (Blasi, 1980, 1983). One com-
religious (70%) high schools, and dishonesty was unrelated to mon explanation for this discrepancy is people’s use of strat-
level of moral reasoning in either sample. egies to neutralize or justify their behavior, thereby protect-
Corcoran and Rotter (1987) examined moral correlates of ing their image of themselves as moral, decent individuals
cheating under high and low surveillance conditions. Under- (Blasi, 1980, 1983).
graduate women completed an assessment of their stated de- Experimental studies suggest that students justify or neu-
gree of morality and their level of self-punishment after vio- tralize their cheating by appealing to aspects of the classroom
lating their own moral standards. Subsequently, participants context. For example, Murdock et al. (2004) found that stu-
completed five mazes with their eyes closed after studying dents’ ratings of the justifiability of cheating were affected by
them for a few minutes. Half of the participants completed portrayed classroom context. Specifically, among high school
the task while the experimenter watched (high surveillance), students, cheating was seen as more justifiable in classrooms
whereas the other half were left alone (low surveillance). portrayed as having a performance versus a mastery goal
Among all students cheating was less frequent when some- structure, with poor versus good pedagogy, and where the
one monitored the students’ behavior. Across both surveil- teacher was interpersonally uncaring versus caring. Cheating
lance conditions there was not a significant correlation be- was also judged as more likely to occur in these settings, and
tween students’ self-punishment scores and their level of correlations between the justifiability and the likelihood rat-
cheating. However, cheating was inversely related to stu- ings were strong. These findings were replicated among un-
dents’ morality scores but only in the high surveillance con- dergraduate and graduate students (Murdock, Miller, &
dition, suggesting that morality may only matter when there Goetzinger, 2005). Moreover, although cheaters generally
is some public threat of being exposed. thought that academic dishonesty was more justifiable than
In contrast to these findings, undergraduate male students noncheaters, the context effects did not interact with cheating
at lower versus higher levels of moral reasoning were found status, suggesting that it is not only dishonest students who use
to cheat more frequently and more quickly on a laboratory situational aspects of the environment to justify dishonesty.
task. Participants completed 10 trials of a tracking task re-
quiring them to trace a moving triangular figure with a stylus
Costs: Summary and Questions for
light. They recorded their own time on the task, which was
Further Exploration
also recorded by a clock in another room. Students were left
alone to complete the task and were given falsely inflated Students’ cheating-related attitudes and behaviors are clearly
normative information about the results obtained from others affected by their perceptions of need, as well as an analysis of
on this task. Unlike the Corcoran and Rotter (1987) study, no the potential costs of dishonesty. These costs are not only the
tangible incentives were given for task performance, and no direct costs of being caught and punished, but the psycholog-
high surveillance condition was included, which may ac- ical costs that come from being seen, or seeing oneself, as a
count for the differential findings between the two studies. person who does something unethical. As with much of the
The presence of a morality effect in this study but not in the other scholarship in this area, one of the major limitations to
Bruggeman and Hart (1996) study also may be due to the age our understanding results from an almost exclusive reliance
differences of the participants: High school students proba- on one-time correlational studies using self-report data. A
bly do not attain the levels of moral reasoning that were asso- more thorough understanding of the ways in which specific
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 139

classroom practices actually deter cheating could be literature does not capture the complexity of these relations:
achieved by the inclusion of classroom observation data and Some studies consider individual characteristics (i.e., stu-
teacher reports of their classroom policies and behaviors. dents’ self-efficacy, goals) and characteristics of instructional
Understanding the role that assessed costs play in deter- contexts (i.e., teacher competence, goal structure), but few
mining cheating behavior could also be improved by begin- studies look at the interaction among these variables.
ning to look at moderating relations. For example, we might Second, there are no studies that simultaneously assess in-
ask how the variables that affect people’s need to cheat, such dicators of goals (mastery versus performance), expectations
as their level of academic self-efficacy, interact with the cost for accomplishing those goals (self-efficacy and outcomes
associated with dishonest behavior. In addition, whereas the expectations), and costs (perceived likelihood of being
literature on cheating offers strong evidence that less dishon- caught, attitudes, and morality about cheating). Our pro-
esty occurs when perceived costs are high, there are far fewer posed framework focuses on the cost-benefit analysis associ-
studies focusing on the other side of the equation: the incen- ated with cheating. A student would benefit from cheating
tive value of cheating. Students report that they cheat more most if he or she is performance-oriented and has a low
often when the stakes for failure are high (i.e., losing a schol- self-perception of ability. The student’s decision to cheat
arship, being placed on probation) (Sheard, Markham, & would be a function of the benefits and the perceived costs of
Dick, 2003), and they also are more forgiving of their dishon- dishonesty, but this relationship might be additive or multi-
est peers in these situations (Jensen et al., 2002; Sutton & plicative. The only way to tease these relations out would be
Huba,1995). Efforts to more fully integrate costs and benefits to include all of these constructs within one investigation.
associated with cheating are clearly needed. Currently, it is clear that no one study has accomplished this
feat, as the potential costs for cheating are complex, includ-
ing both aspects of the classroom (perceived level of punish-
OVERALL SUMMARY AND FUTURE ment), as well the person’s own moral and self-presentational
DIRECTIONS concerns. However, we could build evidence for a conceptual
model by beginning to conduct studies that include several
Our primary aim in this manuscript was to provide a frame- indictors of each of the proposed constructs.
work to organize the existing body of work on cheating, to In addition to the above limitations, we offer five sugges-
evaluate the quality of the experimental and nonexperimental tions for the advancement of future scholarship in this area:
evidence for the various components of the framework, and (a) Conduct studies using methodologies that allow for better
to offer some overarching suggestions for future research in identification of classroom effects; (b) Attend to develop-
this area. mental processes; (c) Attend to emotional processes; (d) At-
Several conclusions are apparent from this review. First, tend to macrocontextual influences and moderators, and (e)
despite numerous studies on academic cheating, in many Focus on teachers.
ways this literature is still nascent both conceptually and
methodologically. Nevertheless, academic cheating is by na-
Suggestions for Future Research
ture a motivational issue, and the evidence seems to suggest
that many of the motivational processes that are highlighted Improved testing of classroom effects. As this re-
in theories of achievement motivation are useful for explain- view has demonstrated, much of the research on academic
ing cheating behavior. Students must be motivated to cheat, cheating relies on one-time correlational studies, where stu-
and there must be a reason for cheating, whether that reason dents’self-reported cheating is associated with personality at-
is extrinsic (i.e., to earn a grade), social-comparative (i.e., to tributes or students’ perceptions of the classroom context. As
demonstrate one’s ability or to avoid appearing incompe- such, there is much stronger support for the relations between
tent), or social-cognitive (i.e., because a student does not feel individual variables and cheating than there is for the role of
efficacious at a particular task). In addition, the higher the contextual variables. Students who hold performance goals or
perceived cost of cheating, the less likely it is that students who are extrinsically motivated, who doubt their self-efficacy,
will cheat. and who hold beliefs that reduce the costs associated with dis-
Although the data support to a greater and lesser extent the honesty are more likely to cheat as compared to their peers.
various components of our proposed framework, as a whole it However, the role of classroom, peer, and family variables in
is limited in two main ways. First, the proposed motivational creating and sustaining those beliefs is more equivocal. We
relations are presumed to be functions of both the individual know that students who cheat perceive these environments dif-
and the context in which learning occurs. Although it would be ferently from those who do not cheat, but we have little evi-
nice to say that students with a specific set of characteristics dence suggesting that rates of cheating vary across classrooms
cheat, cheating behavior is much more complex. Students who in ways that be explained by characteristics of that classroom.
cheat in one class often do not do so in all of their classes. Yet, Although experimental studies in laboratory situations
in experimental studies where there are incentives to cheat but (Sherrill, Salisbury, Horowitz, & Friedman, 1971) or with hy-
few obvious costs, many students do so. To a large extent, the pothetical vignettes (Murdock, Miller, & Goetzinger, 2005;
140 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

Murdock et al., 2004) suggest that classroom context variables course credit, or potential expulsion, may have a different
are important, the external validity of these studies is limited meaning for students who are paying for their own education;
by the contrived context in which they are performed. A com- indeed, the act of cheating may be associated with greater
plete understanding of the role played by classroom factors in costs for those students. In addition, adult students may have
cheating will require studies that use the classroom and the in- families of their own, and they may be concerned about the
dividual as units of analysis simultaneously and that assess kind of role model they are providing for them (e.g.,
classroom contexts in alternate ways, such as through aggre- Anderman, Jensen, Haleman, & Goldstein, 2002).
gated student reports within classrooms, teacher reports, and Finally, the structure of schooling changes as students
classroom observations. However, there are HLM studies move from one grade level to another: There is a greater em-
(e.g., Turner et al., 2002; Urdan, Midgley, & Anderman, 1998) phasis on grades, less heterogeneous grouping, and more in-
linking classroom goal structures to students’self-efficacy be- dividual responsibility for learning (Anderman & Maehr,
liefs and students’ personal goals. Future studies should con- 1994; Eccles & Midgley, 1989). These changes are related to
sider classroom variables as both direct and indirect predictors an increased focus on grades and performance for children
of dishonesty and incorporate other aspects of the classroom (e.g., Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995), which may be re-
that have been suggested as causes of cheating (i.e., test fair- lated to engagement in cheating behaviors.
ness, teacher competence). In addition, future studies will Despite the many ways in which developmental and
need to more strategically disentangle the effects of personal age-related changes in context might logically impact cheat-
goals and classroom goal structures, given the potentially high ing, longitudinal studies over extended periods of time have
levels of multicollinearity between such measures. not been conducted. Although Anderman and Midgley
(2004) suggest that cheating changes as students move into
Attention to developmental processes. Until high more or less performance and mastery-oriented environ-
school older students cheat more than do younger students ments, studies that examine such shifts in context along with
(Evans & Craig, 1990). At that point cheating appears to be in- maturation over extended periods of time are warranted. In
versely related to age. College students cheat less than high addition, studies that examine the short- and long-term con-
school students, and within college students there is less cheat- sequences of cheating are needed. The dearth of longitudinal
ing by older versus younger students (Jensen et al., 2002). Al- studies on academic cheating precludes researchers from
though most of this research has been cross-sectional, some re- currently examining the long-term effects of persistent en-
cent longitudinal work supports these conclusions (Anderman gagement in academic cheating.
& Midgley, 2004; Anderman & Turner, 2004).
Within the conceptual framework that we have proposed, Affective processes and cheating. Emotions are an
there are at least four reasons to anticipate that developmen- important component of people’s motivated behavior, but, to
tal differences in cheating behavior exist. First, research sug- date, studies of cheating have focused almost extensively on
gests that as children move through elementary school, they cognitive correlates. As such, little is known about students’
are likely to shed their incremental views of intelligence and emotional reactions to cheating, or to the role of emotions in
increasingly endorse an entity or fixed view of intellectual their regulation of the decisions around dishonest behavior.
capacity (Nicholls & Miller, 1983). The entity view of intelli- Within an attributional model (Weiner, 1985), one might pre-
gence is associated with a higher likelihood of having a per- dict that students would experience several kinds of emotions
formance orientation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Second, and following cheating. For example, if the cheating results in
related to the previous point, across the early elementary success, students might experience some type of positive
years, students’ academic self-concepts become more differ- emotion. Ironically, since cheating might be considered an
entiated and show greater heterogeneity. Young children typ- internal and controllable cause of success, students might
ically rate themselves at the top of their class, regardless of even experience pride. In contrast, the negative emotion of
their actual levels of accomplishment (Nicholls, 1990; behaving in a dishonest manner might overtake the positive
Nicholls & Miller, 1983). Thus, cheating is likely to become affect associated with success. Further, students’ justifica-
more of a viable choice for students as they become aware tions for cheating might reduce negative feelings about them-
that they may not have the ability to accomplish their goals. selves. Moreover, whereas our model focuses on the aca-
The costs for cheating are probably different and are per- demic goals that students may pursue in the classroom, it is
ceived as being different for students at various developmen- also possible that students’ motivation to cheat is affected by
tal levels. At lower stages of moral reasoning, judgments goals that are not academic, such a desire to appear “cool”
about cheating have more of an external (i.e., right and (impression management) or for the thrill associated with en-
wrong, punishment and nonpunishment) frame of reference, gaging in risky behavior (sensation seeking).
whereas adults think about moral decisions using more com- Similarly, the affective experiences associated with be-
plex forms of thinking. Among college students, one’s per- longing may also be related to cheating. In recent years, there
sonal financial investments in college, as well as age, are in- has been a growing emphasis on the importance of experi-
versely related to cheating (Whitely, 1998). Being denied encing a sense of belonging or connectedness to one’s envi-
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 141

ronment (Anderman, 2003; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan Teachers’ responses to cheating. Teachers at all
& Deci, 2000) and linking psychological belonging to behav- levels concur that cheating is pervasive in today’s class-
iors indicative of positive motivation. Associations between rooms, and yet the amount of prosecution against cheaters is
cheating and belonging have only been minimally explored. minimal (Evans & Craig, 1990; Jendrek, 1989). Although lit-
For example, Calabrese and Cochran (1990) documented a tle research has explored factors underlying instructors’ deci-
positive relation between school alienation and cheating. sions to penalize cheaters, findings from a national sample of
From the vantage of self-determination theory, these rela- psychology professors found four main categories or reasons
tions seem logical, as one would expect that students would why faculty do not report cheating: increased anxiety associ-
be more likely to internalize positive school values when they ated with handling the situation, fear of retaliation or lawsuit,
feel like important members of the school community. Two unwillingness to expend the time needed to see the charge
recent studies have looked explicitly at school belonging in through, and belief that dishonest students will eventually
relation to cheating (Finn & Frone, 2004; Murdock et al., suffer some consequence from the behavior (Keith-Spiegel,
2001). Whereas Finn and Frone found higher rates of cheat- Tabachnick, Whitley, & Washburn, 1998). Another study
ing among those with lower school identification, these rela- found that faculty did not feel confident that they would re-
tions were not significant in Murdock and colleague’s study. ceive administrative support for enforcing academic honesty,
However, cheating has been linked to the quality of interper- and these perceptions were related to their willingness to fol-
sonal connection that students have with their teachers low the established school discipline procedures (Simon et
(Anderman & Midgley, 2004; Murdock et al., 2004), provid- al., 2003). Future studies examining teachers’ motivation for
ing ancillary support for the role of school identification or acknowledging or ignoring cheating and the kinds of social
belonging. On the other hand, if students’ sense of belonging context supports that are needed to encourage teachers to ef-
comes largely from dishonest peers, then these same rela- fectively deal with cheating are warranted.
tionships would not be expected. Future research might at-
tend to both the quality and sources of students’ connection
Implications for Practice
to schooling as it relates to student dishonesty.
Cheating is a motivated behavior, in that a student ultimately
Macrocontextual factors and cheating. Most of the must decide whether or not to cross the line and actually en-
psychological literature on cheating treats academic dishon- gage in that behavior. As noted by Wigfield and Eccles
esty as either contextual or as influenced solely by class- (2000), there is an important decision-making component to
room processes and the influence of immediate significant motivation. Indeed, individuals make different types of deci-
others (i.e., parents, peers) in students’ lives. However, as sions depending on the contextual information that is pre-
Callahan (2004) aptly points out, increases in dishonesty sented to them (see also Tverskey & Kahneman, 1981). Thus,
are present in many domains of our society, created by and one of the logical implications of the research on academic
contributing to the large milieu in which academic cheating cheating is that instructors can affect students’ decision-mak-
occurs. Future research might aim to specifically tease out ing process.
some of these more macro-level influences. For example, In this article we have examined students’ perceived pur-
given that students cheat more often when they perceive the poses for cheating, the relations between self-perceptions of
incentive system in the classroom as unfair, it may also be ability and cheating, and the relations of perceived costs as-
that the larger view of the relations between effort, achieve- sociated with cheating. As we have suggested, students must
ment, and advancement in our society also influence the de- answer questions that they pose to themselves at each stage.
gree to which they are willing to cheat. Some researchers If a student’s sole purpose for engaging in a task is to get a
have speculated that the growing numbers of middle-in- good grade, then the student may be more likely to engage in
come families barely holding ground or losing financial cheating behavior than a student whose primary goal is task
ground creates intense pressure by parents on their children mastery. If a student harbors low ability perceptions toward a
to succeed. Research examining the relations between eco- task, the student may choose to cheat, particularly if the task
nomic changes, parenting behavior, and cheating are war- is difficult or complex. In this final section, we offer instruc-
ranted. Similarly, repeated exposure to high level officials tional implications within each of these three components of
who have been found to have engaged in dishonest behav- our model.
ior may lower the perceived costs associated with such be-
havior. Finally, both costs and incentive values undoubtedly Question #1: What is my purpose? As reviewed,
are moderated by people’s place within our social system. students’ goals toward academic tasks are ultimately related
For students who are holding down jobs to help their fam- to their decisions about cheating. Although most of the re-
ily, constraints on their ability to study may be more critical search in this arena is based on correlational studies, results
than for others of higher socioecomic status. The role of generally indicate that cheating is associated with extrinsic
macrossytem influences such as social class is wide open and performance goals and is less likely to occur when stu-
for investigation. dents pursue mastery goals.
142 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

One obvious implication is that instructional environments is whether stricter penalties for engagement in cheating behav-
should focus more on mastery and less on performance and iors will lead some students to choose more sophisticated and
outcomes if fewer occurrences of cheating are desired. This technologically savvy methods of cheating.
task is of course complex and particularly difficult in today’s The literature clearly suggests that when students can shift
era of high-stakes assessment. Nevertheless, teachers and col- the blame away from themselves, cheating is more likely to oc-
lege faculty can focus their instruction on mastery and, in par- cur. As such, good instructional practices are a key to reducing
ticular, indicate to students that evaluation will be based on cheating. Clear learning objectives and fair assessment proce-
mastery rather than on demonstration of knowledge relative to dures reduce the likelihood that students will see the teacher as
others. A number of researchers have demonstrated that moti- creating conditions where cheating can be rationalized.
vational emphases in academic settings can be changed to fo- It also is possible to make students think about the poten-
cus on mastery and improvement rather than on performance tial costs to their self-concepts if they engage in cheating by
and extrinsic outcomes (e.g., Ames, 1990; Maehr & Midgley, making public expectations for honesty and violations of the
1996). Although these studies did not examine academic policy. This tactic is not used often in classrooms, but it cer-
cheating as an outcome, they did demonstrate that instruc- tainly could be, particularly in middle and high school class-
tional contexts can be altered successfullybased on motivation rooms. School counselors or school psychologists might play
theory to emphasize mastery and improvement. a role in this area (Gilman & Anderman, in press). Indeed,
Research suggests that the decision to cheat ultimately is school psychologists or counselors could work directly with
dependent upon students’ personal purposes for engagement teachers and students to help students to understand how the
in learning. Whereas most educational contexts are competi- act of cheating in the present might remain a salient problem
tive to some extent, instructors can work with students at all for them in their future.
levels to focus on individual progress and personal effort. In
particular, grading systems that are based on personal im-
CONCLUSION
provement and mastery, rather than on norm-referenced cri-
teria, are likely to reduce cheating.
Many of the individual and contextual factors that are related
to cheating can be subsumed under a motivational framework
Question #2: Can I do this? Students’ self-percep-
whereby students’ decisions to cheat or not cheat can be un-
tions of ability also are related to academic cheating. One in-
derstood as coming from their answers to three motivational
structional implication is that educators should work to build
questions: “What is my goal?”, “Can I do this?”, and “What
students’ self-efficacy beliefs. Whereas there is much re-
are the costs?” Framing dishonesty in this manner has impli-
search indicating that self-efficacy is an extremely important
cations not only for teaching practices, but also for theories
motivational variable (see Bandura, 1997), self-efficacy of-
of motivation. Students may respond to low self-efficacy or
ten is not considered during instructional planning by teach-
high needs for achievement by being dishonest, rather than
ers and college instructors.
simply by increasing or decreasing effort, changing their
One proven means of improving students’ self-efficacy be-
learning strategies, or self-handicapping. Thus, future moti-
liefs is to help students set proximal goals (Schunk, 1990).
vation research should more regularly recognize cheating as
When students focus on short-term attainable goals rather than
a potential method for achieving one’s classroom goals. Ac-
longer-term distal goals, they are more likely to feel a sense of
complishing this objective may push motivational research-
satisfaction and to experience task-mastery, which in turn helps
ers to expand their theories to include both moral develop-
to build their personal self-efficacy beliefs toward a task. When
ment and decision-making components.
students are confronted with difficult tasks and focus on distal
goals, they may be more likely to experience anxiety and ulti-
mately to view cheating as a viable means for achieving suc- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
cess. However, if a student sets short-term goals and experi-
ences success at those goals, the student’s efficacy beliefs will Partial support for this project was provided by a faculty
be enhanced, and the likelihood of cheating may be diminished. research grant from the University of Missouri Research
Board awarded to Tamera B. Murdock.
Question #3: What are the costs? The final question Thanks to Amy Goetzinger, Trisha James, Angela Miller,
that we examined concerned the costs facing students when and two anonymous reviewers for comments on previous
they choose to cheat. Various types of costs are associated with versions of this article.
cheating, including the possibility of being caught and the im-
pact to one’s self-image. One instructional implication is that
REFERENCES
educators should make the costs of cheating obvious, impor-
tant, and serious. When students know that punishments for Albas, C., & Albas, D. (1996). An invitation to the ethnographic study of
cheating are severe, they are less likely to cheat (Graham et al., university examination behavior: Concepts, methodology, and implica-
1994). An obvious question to be addressed in future research tions. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 26, 1–26.
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 143
Ames, C. (1990). The relationship of achievement goals to student motiva- Deci, E. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
tion in classroom settings. Paper presented at the American Educational Deci, E., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination
Research Association, Boston, MA, April. in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to moti-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271. vation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Anderman, L. H. (2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of Dweck, C. S., & Sorich, L. A. (1999). Mastery-oriented thinking. In C. R.
change in middle school students’ sense of school belonging. Journal of Snyder (Ed.), Coping (pp. 232–251). New York: Oxford University Press.
Experimental Education, 72, 5–22. Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J. T.
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San
in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Francisco: Freeman.
Psychology, 25, 21–37. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement
Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.
cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, Eison, J. A. (1981). A new instrument for assessing students’ orientations to-
90, 84–93. wards grades and learning. Psychological Reports, 48, 919–924.
Anderman, E. M., Jensen, J., Haleman, D., & Goldstein, B. (2002). Motiva- Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1990a). Adolescent cognitions for academic
tion to improve adult education in under-educated adults in rural commu- cheating as a function of grade level and achievement status. Journal of
nities. In D. McInierney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Sociocultural influences Adolescent Research, 5, 325–345.
on motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 183–206). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1990b). Teacher and student perceptions of aca-
Publishing. demic cheating in middle and senior high schools. Journal of Educational
Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the Research, 84, 44–52.
middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309. Finn, K. V., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating:
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (2004). Changes in self-reported academic Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. Journal of Edu-
cheating across the transition from middle school to high school. Contem- cational Research, 97, 115–122.
porary Educational Psychology, 29, 499–517. Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding
Anderman, E. M., & Turner, J. C. (2004, April). Changes in academic cheat- cheating: A questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher
ing across the transition to middle school. Paper presented at the Ameri- Education, 36, 687–704.
can Educational Research Association, San Diego. Gilman, R., & Anderman, E. M. (in press). Special issue on the role of moti-
Anderman, E. M., & Wolters, C. A. (2006). Goals, values, and affect: Influ- vation in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology.
ences on student motivation. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Hand- Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K., & Steffan, S. (1994). Cheating at
book of educational psychology (pp. 369–389). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and be-
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. haviors. Journal of College Student Development,35, 255–260.
Bandura, A., (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cog- Gross, J. (2003). Exposing the cheat sheet with students’ aid. New York
nitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Times, November 26, p. 1.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Free- Hollinger, R. C., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1996). Academic dishonesty and the
man. perceived effectiveness of countermeasures: An empirical survey of
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for in- cheating at a major public university. NASPA Journal, 33, 292–306.
terpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychologi- Houston, J. P. (1976). Learning and cheating as a function of study phase dis-
cal Bulletin, 117, 497–529. traction. Journal of Educational Research, 69, 247–249.
Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical re- Houston, J. P. (1983). Alternate test forms as a means of reducing multi-
view of the literture. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1–45. ple-choice answer copying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psy-
Blasi, A. (1983). Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspec- chology, 75, 572–575.
tive. Developmental Review, 3, 178–210. Houston, J. P. (1986). Classroom answer copying: Roles of acquaintance-
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experi- ship and free versus assigned seating. Journal of Educational Psychology,
ments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 78, 230–232.
Bruggeman, E. L., & Hart, K. J. (1996). Cheating, lying, and moral reason- Huss, M. T., Curnyn, J. P., Roberts, S. L., Davis, S. F., Yandell, L. &
ing by religious and secular high school students. Journal of Educational Giordano, P. (1993). Hard driven but not dishonest: Cheating and the Type
Research, 89, 340–344 A personality. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31, 429–430.
Calabrese, R. L., & Cochran, J. T. (1990). The relationship of alienation to Jendrek, M. P. (1989). Faculty reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of
cheating among a sample of American adolescents. Journal of Research College Student Development, 30, 401–406.
& Development in Education, 23, 65–72. Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S., & Cauffman, E. (2002). It’s
Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong, but everybody does it: Academic dishonesty among high school
wrong to get ahead. Orlando, FL: Hartcourt. and college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27,
Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. 209–228.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of motivation, per-
Corcoran, K. J., & Rotter, J. B. (1987). Morality-Conscience Guilt Scale as a ceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy. Ethics &
predictor of ethical behavior in a cheating situation among college fe- Behavior, 11, 233–247.
males. Journal of General Psychology, 114, 117–123. Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Washburn, J.
Covey, M. K., Saladin, S., & Killen, P. J. (2001). Self-monitoring, surveil- (1998). Why professors ignore cheating: Opinions of a national sample of
lance, and incentive effects on cheating. Journal of Social Psychology, psychology instructors. Ethics & Behavior 8, 215–227.
129, 673–679. Kerkvliet, J. (1994). Cheating by economics students: A comparison of sur-
Cummings, K., & Romano, J. (2002). Effect of an honor code on perceptions vey results. Journal of Economic Education, 25, 121–133.
of university instructor affinity-seeking behavior. Journal of College Stu- Levitt, S.D. & Dunbar, S. J. (2005). Freakanomics: A rogue economist ex-
dent Development, 43, 862–875. plores the hidden side of everything. New York: Morrow.
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Aca- Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs
demic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punish- in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writ-
ments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16–20. ing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19, 119–137.
144 MURDOCK AND ANDERMAN

Lobel, T. E., & Levanon, I. (1988). Self-esteem, need for approval, and Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Edu-
cheating behavior in children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, cational Research, 64, 543–578.
122–123 Perry, A. R., Kane, K. M., Bemesser, K. J., & Spicker, P. T. (1990). Type A
Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, behavior, achievement striving, and cheating among college students.
CO: Westview Press. Psychological Reports, 66, 459–465.
Malinowski, C. I., & Smith, C. P. (1985). Moral reasoning and moral con- Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, re-
duct: An investigation prompted by Kohlberg’s theory. Journal of Person- search, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
ality and Social Psychology, 49, 1016–1027. Prentice Hall.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes Pulvers, K., & Diekhoff, G. M. (1999). The relationship between academic
and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, dishonesty and college classroom environment. Research in Higher Edu-
522–538. cation, 40, 487–498.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influ- Rodgers, J. L., & Rowe, D. C. (1990). Adolescent sexual activity and mildly
ences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in deviant behavior: Sibling and friendship effects. Journal of Family Issues,
Higher Education, 38, 379–396. 11, 274–293.
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). Cheating in aca- Roig, M., & DeTommaso, L. (1995). Are college cheating and plagiarism
demic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219. related to academic procrastination? Psychological Reports, 77,
McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2002). Honor codes and 691–698.
other contextual influences on academic integrity: A replication and ex- Ryan, A. M., Hicks, L., & Midgley, C. (1997). Social goals, academic goals,
tension to modified honor code settings. Research in Higher Education, and avoiding seeking help in the classroom. Journal of Early Adoles-
43, 357–378. cence, 17, 152–171.
Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human
academic cheating. Social Science Quarterly, 70, 870–885. existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychologi-
Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack cal Inquiry, 11, 319–338.
of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Schab, F. (1991). Schooling without learning: Thirty years of cheating in
Psychology, 89, 710–718. high school. Adolescence, 26, 839–847.
Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive Schraw, G., Olafson, L., Kuch, F., Lehman, T. K., Lehman, S., &
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. McCrudden, M. T. (in press). Interest and academic cheating. In E. M.
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between ele- Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on aca-
mentary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory ap- demic cheating. San Diego: Elsevier.
proach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90–113. Schunk, D. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 71–86.
Anderman, L. H., et al. (1998). The development and validation of scales Sheard, J., Markham, S., & Dick, M. (2003). Investigating differences in
assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educa- cheating behaviours of IT undergraduate and graduate students: The ma-
tional Psychology, 23, 113–131. turity and motivation factors. Higher Education Research & Develop-
Murdock, T. B., Hale, N. M., & Weber, M. J. (2001). Predictors of cheating ment, 22(1), 91–108.
among early adolescents: Academic and social motivations. Contempo- Sherrill, D., Salisbury, J. L., Horowitz, B., & Friedman, S. T. (1971). Class-
rary Educational Psychology, 26, 96–115. room cheating, consistent attitude, perceptions and behavior. American
Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Anderman, E. M. (2005, April). Is cheating a Educational Research Journal, 8, 503–510.
function of classroom context? A reanalysis of two studies using HLM. Pa- Simon, C. A., Carr, J. R., McCullough, S. M., Morgan, S. J., Oleson, T., &
per presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Re- Ressel, M. (2003). The other side of academic dishonesty: The relation-
search Association, Montreal, Canada. ship between faculty skepticism, gender and strategies for managing stu-
Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Goetzinger, A. (2005). Effects of classroom dent academic dishonesty cases. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Ed-
context on college students’ attitudes towards academic dishonesty: Me- ucation, 28, 193–207.
diating and moderating influence. Under revised review. Smith, C. P., Ryan, E. R., & Diggins, D. R. (1972). Moral decision making:
Murdock, T. B., Miller, A., & Kohlhardt, J. (2004). Effects of classroom Cheating on examinations. Journal of Personality, 40, 640–660.
context variables on high school students’ judgments of the acceptabil- Stephens, J. M. (2004, April). Beyond reasoning: The role of moral
ity and likelihood of cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, identities, sociomoral regulation and social context in academic
765–777. cheating among high school adolescents. Paper presented at the an-
Newstead, S. E., Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Armstead, P. (1996). Individual dif- nual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
ferences in student cheating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, Diego.
229–241. Sutton, E. M., & Huba, M. E. (1995). Undergraduate student perceptions of
Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A devel- academic dishonesty as a function of ethnicity and religious participation.
opmental perspective. In R. Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence NASPA Journal, 33(1), 19–34.
considered (pp. 11–40). New Haven: Yale University Press. Taylor, L., Pogrebin, M., & Dodge, M. (2002). Advanced placement-ad-
Nicholls, J. G., & Miller, A. (1983). The differentiation of the concepts of vanced pressures: Academic dishonesty among elite high school students.
difficulty and ability. Child Development, 54, 951–959. Educational Studies: A Journal of the American Educational Studies As-
Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (in press). High-stakes testing and academic sociation, 33, 403–421.
cheating. In E. M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychological per- Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M.,
spectives on academic cheating. San Diego: Elsevier. Kang, Y., et al. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports
Norton, L. S., Tilley, A. J., Newstead, S. E., & Franklyn-Stokes, A. (2001). of avoidance strategies in mathematics: A multimethod study. Journal of
The pressures of assessment in undergraduate courses and their effect on Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106.
student behaviors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psy-
268–284. chology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
Nowell, C., & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate student cheating in the Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In
fields of business and economics. Journal of Economic Education, 28, M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achieve-
3–12. ment (Vol. 10, pp. 99–141). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
 ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 145
Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. M. (1998). Classroom influences Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school:
ones self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Jour- The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychol-
nal, 35, 101–122. ogy, 90, 202–209.
Urdan, T., Ryan, A. M., Anderman, E. M., & Gheen, M. (2002). Goals, goal Whitley, B. E. J. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college stu-
structures, and avoidance behaviors. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal dents: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235–274.
structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 55–83). Mahwah, NJ: Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. task values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12,
Watkinson, E. J., Dwyer, S. A., & Nielsen, A. B. (2005). Children theorize 265–310.
about reasons for recess engagement: Does expectancy-value theory ap- Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of
ply? Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 22, 179–197. achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25,
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and 68–81.
emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.). (2002). Development of achievement
Weiss, J., Gilbert, K., Giordano, P, & Davis, S. F. (1993). Academic dishon- motivation. San Diego: Academic Press.
esty, Type A behavior, and classroom orientation. Bulletin of the Wryobeck, J. M., & Whitley, B. E. J. (1999). Educational value orientaion
Psychonomic Society, 31, 101–102. and peer perceptions of cheaters. Ethics and Behavior, 9, 231–242.