The Relationship of the Attitude to Cheating with Social Beliefs and the Supposed Attitude of Others in High School Students

Academic dishonesty is a widespread but dangerous phenomenon, as it forms tolerance for fraud in other areas, including through tolerance of the dishonesty of others. The article is devoted to the analysis of the correlation between the subjective assessment of the permissibility of academic dishonesty and belief in a competitive world (BCW), the supposed assessment of peers and adults among schoolchildren, loyal and not loyal to dishonesty. It is considered both the attitude towards cheating itself (active dishonesty), as well as the message about the dishonesty of others and the refusal to help in dishonesty (passive dishonesty). 507 people were recruited for the research, 296 of them girls, aged from 13 to 18 years, average age of 15,6 (±1,38), who completed the questionnaire online. The level of BCW was measured using the questionnaire "Scale of belief in a competitive world, short version" by J. Dakkit adapted by O.A. Gulevich and colleagues. To assess the permissibility of cheating, were used vignettes, which described dishonest behavior and judgments about this behavior. Participants were supposed to assess them on a Likert scale from 1 to 9. Each type of dishonesty (cheating itself, reporting cheating and refusing to help with cheating) was represented by 3 vignettes. The results showed that the assessments of the admissibility of certain aspects of cheating are not related to each other and have a different structure of links with the BCW and the intended assessment of others. The results confirm the data on the greater complexity of honesty compared to dishonesty. For the disloyal, the permissibility of cheating is associated with more factors than for the loyal. Active dishonesty in loyal people is associated with prevalence, in disloyal people – with BCW and the opinion of parents.

1. Gizhitskii V.V. Uchebnyi obman kak strategiya psevdoadaptivnogo povedeniya u starsheklassnikov [Educational deception as a strategy of pseudo-adaptive behavior in high school students]. Uchenye zapiski Orlovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Gumanitarnye i sotsial’nye nauki [Scientific notes of the Oryol State University. Series: Humanities and social sciences], 2014, no. 2(58), pp. 293—299. (In Russ.).
2. Gulevich, O.A., Anikeenok, O.A., Bezmenova I.K. Sotsial'nye verovaniya: adaptatsiya metodik Dzh. Dakkita [Social beliefs: adapting the methods of J. Bakkit].  Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2014, no. 11(2), pp. 68-89. DOI:10.17323/1813-8918-2014-2-68-89. (In Russ.).
3. Latova N.V., Latov Yu.V. Obman v uchebnom protsesse [Deception in the educational process]. Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost' [Social sciences and modernity], 2007, no. 1, pp. 31-46. DOI:21626/innova/2018.3/02. (In Russ.).
4. Ulybina, E. V., Tokareva, A. A. Svyaz' very v spravedlivyi mir s otnosheniem k akademicheskoi nechestnosti u shkol'nikov s vysokoi i nizkoi loyal'-nost'yu k chiterstvu [The connection of belief in a just world with the attitude to academic dishonesty among schoolchildren with high and low loyalty to cheating]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 2022, no. 27(4). pp. 59-67. DOI:10.17759/pse.2022270406. (In Russ.).
5. Cai W., Wu S. Greater death anxiety, greater dishonesty for self-benefit: The moderating role of social dominance orientation. Motivation and Emotion, 2021. Vol. 45, pp. 368-376. DOI:10.1007/s11031-021-09877-3
6. Daumiller M., Janke S. Effects of performance goals and social norms on academic dishonesty in a test. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 2020. Vol. 90(2), pp. 537-559. DOI:10.31234/osf.io/c8uzk
7. Duckitt, J., Wagner C., du Plessis I. The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: testing a dual process model. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2002. Vol. 83(1), pp. 75. –93. DOI:10.1037/ 0022-3514.83.1.75
8. Gächter S., Schulz J.F. Intrinsic honesty and the prevalence of rule violations across societies. Nature, 2016. 7595, pp. 496-499. DOI:10.1038/nature17160
9. Ho J.L., Powell D.M., Spence J.R. Willingness to fake: Examining the impact of competitive climate and hiring situations. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 2020. Vol. 28(3), pp. 247-263. DOI:10.1111/ijsa.12288
10. Ives B., Giukin L. Patterns and predictors of academic dishonesty in Moldovan university students. Journal of Academic Ethics, Vol. 18, pp. 71-88. DOI:10.1007/s10805-019-09347-z
11. Jiang Q., Zhang Y., Zhu Z. Is dishonesty normally distributed? Evidence from six behavioral experiments and a simulation study. Personality and Individual Differences, 2023. Vol. 205, P. 112105. DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2023.112105
12. Magnus J.R., Polterovich V.M., Danilov D.L. Tolerance of cheating: An analysis across countries. The Journal of Economic Education, 2002. Vol. 33(2), pp.125-135. DOI:10.1080/00220480209596462
13. Manning M. The effects of subjective norms on behaviour in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta‐analysis. British journal of social psychology, 2019. 48 (4), pp. 649-705. DOI:10.1348/014466608X393136
14. Matza D., Sykes G. Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 1957. Vol. 22(6), pp. 664-670. DOI:10.2307/2089195
15. McCabe D. L., Treviño L. K., Butterfield K. D. Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. Ethics &Behavior, 2001. Vol. 11(3), pp. 219 -232. DOI: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_2
16. Morris M.W., Hong Y.Y., Chiu C.Y. Normology: Integrating insights about social norms to understand cultural dynamics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2015. Vol. 129, pp. 1-13. DOI:10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.03.001
17. Mulisa F., Ebessa A.D. The carryover effects of college dishonesty on the professional workplace dishonest behaviors: A systematic review. Cogent Education, 2021. Vol 8(1), 1935408. DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2021.1935408
18. Murdock T.B., Anderman E.M. Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational psychologist, 2006. Vol. 41(3), 129–145. DOI:10.1207/s15326985ep4103_1
19. Murdock T.B., Stephens J.M. Is cheating wrong? Students' reasoning about academic dishonesty. Psychology of academic cheating. – Academic Press, 2007. pp. 229-251. DOI:10.1016/B978-012372541-7/50014-0
20. Ross L., Greene D., House P. The “false consensus effect”: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of experimental social psychology, Vol. 13(3), pp. 279-301. DOI:10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X
21. Serota K.B., Levine T.R., Zvi L. The ubiquity of long-tail lie distributions: seven studies from five continents. Journal of Communication, P. jqad040. DOI:10.1093/joc/jqad040
22. Simon C.A., Carr J.R., McCullough S.M. Gender, student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty: Who reports in academic dishonesty cases. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 29(1), pp. 75-90. DOI:10.1080/0260293032000158171
23. Stevenson S.M., Flannigan K., Willey A. Exploring Factors That Contribute to Nursing Students’ Willingness to Report Peer Academic Integrity Violations. Nursing Education Perspectives, Vol. 44(3), pp. 140-146. DOI:10.1097/01.NEP.0000000000001090
24. Tabares A.S.G., Arenas D.A.M., Duque M.C.C. Research trends on the relationship between parenting and prosocial behaviors in children and adolescents. Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 2023. Vol. 57(1), pp. e1378-e1378. DOI:10.30849/ripijp.v57i1.1378
25. Van’t Veer A.E., Stel M., van Beest I. Limited capacity to lie: Cognitive load interferes with being dishonest. Judgment and Decision Making, 2014. Vol 9(3), pp. 199-206. DOI:10.1017/S1930297500005751
26. Vilanova F., Milfont T.L., Costa A.B. A dual process social psychological model of corrupt intention and attitudes toward corrupt people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2022. 123(4), pp. 854–883. DOI:10.1037/pspp0000414
27. Waltzer T., Samuelson A., Dahl A. Students’ reasoning about whether to report when others cheat: Conflict, confusion, and consequences. Journal of Academic Ethics, 2021. pp. 1-23. DOI:10.1007/s10805-021-09414-4
28. Wu D., Loke Xu F., Lee, K. Neural correlates of evaluations of lying and truth-telling in different social contexts. Brain research, 2011. Vol.1389, pp. 115-124. DOI:10.1016/j.brainres.2011.02.084
29. Yachison S., Okoshken J., Talwar V. Students’ reactions to a peer’s cheating behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 2018. Vol. 110(6), pp. 747–763. DOI:10.1037/edu0000227
30. Zhao L., Mao H., Compton B.J. Academic dishonesty and its relations to peer cheating and culture: A meta-analysis of the perceived peer cheating effect. Educational Research Review, Vol. 36, P. 100455. DOI:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100455