Ethics & Behavior

ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

Academic Dishonesty at the Graduate Level

Valerie A. Wajda-Johnston , Paul J. Handal , Peter A. Brawer & Anthony N.

Fabricatore

To cite this article: Valerie A. Wajda-Johnston , Paul J. Handal , Peter A. Brawer & Anthony N.
Fabricatore (2001) Academic Dishonesty at the Graduate Level, Ethics & Behavior, 11:3, 287-305,
DOI: 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_7

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327019EB1103_7

Published online: 08 Jan 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 221

Citing articles: 28 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20
ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 11(3), 287–305
Copyright © 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Academic Dishonesty
at the Graduate Level
Valerie A. Wajda-Johnston, Paul J. Handal, Peter A. Brawer,
and Anthony N. Fabricatore
Department of Psychology
Saint Louis University

We investigated the definition, prevalence, perceived prevalence and severity of, as

well as justifications for and expected responses to, academic dishonesty at the gradu-
ate level in a sample of 246 graduate students, 49 faculty, and 20 administrators. Be-
tween 2.5% and 55.1% of students self-reported engaging in academically dishonest
behaviors, depending on the nature of the behavior. Students and faculty rated 40 ex-
amples of academically dishonest behaviors similarly in terms of severity, but faculty
tended to underestimate the prevalence of academic dishonesty. Students and faculty
also reported how they would idealistically and realistically expect themselves to re-
spond to cheating situations. Students rated 21 behaviors in terms of their likeliness to
increase or decrease academically dishonest behavior. Suggestions are given for de-
veloping a climate or culture of academic integrity to address academic dishonesty.

Key words: academic dishonesty, academic integrity, cheating

Academic dishonesty has long been an area of concern in higher education (Davis,
Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; McCabe & Bowers, 1994). Undergraduate
students have most often been the focus of research on academic dishonesty, with
the studies usually using surveys that solicit student’s self-report of cheating be-
haviors, perceptions, experiences, and attitudes. Rarely have researchers focused
on graduate students. Consequently, there is a lack of research on academic dishon-
esty at the graduate and professional school level that compares the behaviors, per-
ceptions, experiences, and attitudes of students, administrators, and professors
across disciplines.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul J. Handal, Saint Louis University, 221 North Grand Bou-
levard, St. Louis, MO 63103. E-mail: handalpj@slu.edu
288 WAJDA-JOHNSTON ET AL.

Research using undergraduate samples has indicated a wide range of preva-

lence rates for cheating (based on self-report), from 20% to over 90% (Sims,
1995). One issue associated with prevalence rates is the matter of defining aca-
demic dishonesty. Studies that narrowly define cheating as occurring only on
in-class examinations may report a lower percentage of cheating, whereas studies
using broader definitions may report higher rates of cheating. For example,
LaGrange (1992) reported that when asked generally if they had cheated, 56% re-
ported that they had, but when asked if they had performed any of 33 specific aca-
demically dishonest behaviors, 86% to 92% reported having done so.
In addition to the prevalence of academic dishonesty, researchers have exam-
ined the perceived degree of severity of different dishonest acts from the perspec-
tives of both faculty and students. Sims (1995) compared severity ratings made by
students and professors for different dishonest behaviors and found that they held
similar views and were able to predict how the other group would rate the behav-
iors. However, professors expected students to be more tolerant of cheating than
the students actually were, whereas students more accurately predicted their pro-
fessors’ harsher judgments of dishonest acts.
Typically, research on academic dishonesty has been conducted at one school,
frequently within one department, and investigating one issue (e.g., prevalence).
Consequently, there have been few studies that have systematically investigated
the definition, prevalence, perceived severity, tolerance, and justification of aca-
demic dishonesty. LaGrange (1992) is an exception. Using an undergraduate sam-
ple from a large university and a small college, LaGrange investigated students’,
faculty members’, and administrators’ definitions, perceived severity, and preva-
lence of academically dishonest behavior, as well as justifications for engaging in
academically dishonest behavior. His findings indicated that although students,
faculty, and administrators all identified 33 behaviors as dishonest, students gave
more lenient ratings to the behaviors than did the professors, and students en-
dorsed external reasons for cheating. Such external reasons included reactions to
stress, certain courses requiring high grades, and needing high grades to acquire
good jobs or to be accepted to graduate school (LaGrange, 1992).
An example of multisite research is the work of McCabe, Treviño, and
Butterfield (1999). They took a qualitative approach to investigating whether differ-
ences existed between students at schools with honor codes and students at schools
without honor codes in terms of their behavior and approaches to academic integrity.
McCabe et al. sampled students from 31 institutions and found that at both types of
schools students related pressure to succeed (e.g., by family, employers, and gradu-
ate schools) to cheating behavior. McCabe and Treviño (1997) examined individual
contextual factors related to undergraduate academic dishonesty at nine medium to
large state universities. They found that individual factors, such as age and gender,
were associated with academic dishonesty, but contextual factors were more
strongly related. The contextual factors most strongly related to student academic
 GRADUATE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 289

dishonesty were peer related: Peer disapproval of cheating was related to lower rates
of cheating, whereas peer cheating and membership in fraternities and sororities
were related to higher rates of cheating.
Demographic variables, such as age, gender, and grade point average, have
been examined in relation to undergraduate academic dishonesty. Whitley (1998)
performed a meta-analysis of the academic dishonesty literature, which included
eight studies with graduate student samples. Whitley found that research using un-
dergraduate samples indicated that male students cheated more than female stu-
dents, younger students cheated more than older students, and students who
worked or were engaged in extracurricular studies cheated more than those with
fewer hours spent working or participating in extracurricular activities.
Rates of cheating at the undergraduate level have been reported in the moderate
to high range, and there is evidence that at least a portion of students who cheat do
so with the aim of obtaining admission to graduate schools. What research that has
been done at the graduate level is fragmented and has been limited to an examina-
tion of one discipline, either across several universities or more commonly within
one institution (Anderson & Obenshain, 1994; Baldwin, Daugherty, Rowley, &
Schwarz, 1996). The fields of medicine and nursing have contributed the most to
the existing research. In both fields, academic dishonesty is considered to be a seri-
ous problem regardless of how small a percentage of the student body participates.
The repercussions of a dishonest student becoming a practicing doctor or nurse
who is not adequately trained to perform medical procedures are potentially very
severe (Daniel, Adams, & Smith, 1994; Dans, 1996; Gaberson, 1997; Simpson,
Yindra, Towne, & Rosenfeld, 1989).
In survey research with medical students, Simpson et al. (1989) observed that
perceptions of severity of dishonest behaviors were inconsistent across year levels.
Regarding cheating concerning clinical behaviors, such as changing diagnoses to
get longer hospital stays and covering for a friend’s mistake, 1st-year students saw
themselves as less tolerant than 4th-year students saw themselves. Fourth-year stu-
dents, however, endorsed items that indicated that they were more likely to con-
front someone they observed cheating more so than did 1st-year students. Baldwin
et al. (1996) sampled 2nd-year students in 31 medical schools regarding academic
dishonesty. Approximately 5% students answered yes when asked whether they
had ever cheated in medical school. In addition, of the students who reported
cheating, 16.5% reported having cheated in college, and 40.5% reported having
cheated in high school. Baldwin et al. noted a further problem: Students appeared
to be uncertain as to how to respond when witnessing other students’ cheating.
In the area of nursing, Daniel et al. (1994) examined variables that might influ-
ence cheating behavior, such as age, marital status, and seriousness of student. Al-
though such variables were not found to be significantly related to academic
dishonesty, the ability to gain maximum rewards with minimum effort was
strongly related to cheating behavior.
290 WAJDA-JOHNSTON ET AL.

A study of 207 graduate business students found that 80% had engaged in at
least one of 15 unethical academic practices as a graduate student (Brown, 1995).
These students also perceived themselves as more ethical than their undergraduate
counterparts, although they had similar rates of academic dishonesty.
Because the research conducted among various graduate schools has been lim-
ited in scope, we systematically investigated the definition, prevalence, perceived
prevalence, and severity of, as well as justifications for and expected responses to,
academic dishonesty at the graduate level using the same approach as LaGrange
(1992). These issues were assessed and compared from the perspectives of students
and faculty representing multiple disciplines within the university. Students’, fac-
ulty members’, and administrators’ ideal and realistic expectations of how cheating
would be handled were also examined. Finally, the relation between academically
dishonest behavior and student demographic variables was examined.

METHOD

Procedure

A sample of students, faculty, and administrators at the graduate and professional

school level was obtained from a large, private, religiously affiliated Midwestern
university. All programs were invited to participate in this research, and 22 pro-
grams agreed to participate. Students, faculty, and administrators all received pack-
ets that contained a recruitment letter, a survey, two answer sheets, and an envelope
for returning the survey via intercampus mail. Respondents were asked to return the
surveys unmarked if they did not want to complete them.
Surveys were placed in the campus mailboxes of 2,669 graduate students. One
department did not have mailboxes and consequently 83 surveys were distributed
via U.S. mail. Surveys were distributed to 387 faculty and 50 administrators via
intercampus mail.

Participants

Survey instruments were sent to 2,752 students, with 246 students returning com-
pleted surveys for a return rate of 8.9%. The student group is made up of students
representing all year levels, working toward a variety of graduate degrees (MA,
MS, JD, MD, and PhD), and representing the social sciences, natural sciences, hu-
manities, health sciences, nursing, law, and medicine.
Survey instruments were sent to 387 faculty, with 49 faculty returning com-
pleted surveys for a return rate of 12.6%. The faculty sample was 61.2% men, and
included 34 (69.4%) tenured faculty and 15 (30.6%) nontenure-track faculty. Sev-
enty-seven percent of the faculty were either associate or full professors. The ma-
 GRADUATE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 291

jority of the sample had taught between 11 and 26 or more years (73.5%), with the
remainder of the faculty sample having taught for 1 to 10 years.
Survey instruments were sent to 50 administrators, with 20 administrators re-
turning completed surveys for a return rate of 40%. The administration sample
comprised 14 department chairs, 4 department deans or assistant deans, and 2 uni-
versity-wide administrators (chancellors, president, etc.). All of the administrators
had taught at one point in time, with 70% currently teaching a graduate course.

Instrument

A modified version of The Cheating/Academic Dishonesty Survey (LaGrange,

1992) was used. Modifications to the original survey were made to update items,
such as inclusion of items referring to the use of the Internet and computers. The
wording of items was changed such that they were appropriate for graduate stu-
dents rather than undergraduates.
The student measure had 216 items divided into 10 sections. Section 1 con-
tained 17 items requesting demographic information, such as age and sex, as well
as information about their graduate program and experience (e.g., has the respon-
dent ever been a teaching assistant). Section 2 listed 40 academically dishonest be-
haviors and requested the respondent to estimate percentage of students in that
respondent’s program that have engaged in those behaviors. Section 3 included 62
items. It listed the same 40 behaviors and asked if the respondent had engaged in
the behaviors in graduate school. The additional 12 items asked if the respondent
had ever cheated at the graduate or undergraduate level, and, if so, what year. Sec-
tion 4 asked the respondent to rate the severity of each of the 40 behaviors. Section
5, consisting of 2 items, asked the respondent to estimate the percentage of individ-
uals in that respondent’s program that participate in academically dishonest be-
havior and the number of times the respondent had witnessed some type of
academically dishonest behavior.
Section 6 listed 21 justifications for cheating that a student might use and re-
quested the respondent to rate the strength of the excuses. Section 7 listed 25 situa-
tions that may influence the student’s decision to cheat, and asked the participant
to rate the likeliness that the situation would have an effect on the participant. Sec-
tion 8, consisting of 7 items, surveyed the respondent’s realistic and idealistic ex-
pectations of how students, faculty, and administrators would handle a case of
academic dishonesty. Section 9 contained 7 questions regarding the perceived
concern that all three participant groups have about academic dishonesty. Finally,
Section 10 contained 5 questions regarding the participant’s opinion and aware-
ness of a policy on academic dishonesty at the graduate level.
The faculty measure had 173 items divided into nine content areas. The differ-
ence between the faculty measure and the student measure was the omission of
292 WAJDA-JOHNSTON ET AL.

Section 3 and the number of demographic variables. The administrator version of

the measure had 210 items divided into nine content areas. For the administrator
version, Section 3 of the student version was replaced with the list of 40 academi-
cally dishonest behaviors and asked the respondent if those behaviors were at issue
in cases that the respondent adjudicated. Additionally, the number of demographic
variables was larger on the administrator version than on the student version.

RESULTS

Prevalence and Severity of Academic Dishonesty

Using a broad definition of cheating (i.e., “Have you cheated in graduate school?”),
69 students, or 28.7% of the student sample reported that they had cheated in gradu-
ate school. It appears that cheating is most frequent at the beginning of graduate
school and diminishes with each succeeding year. Of those students who reported
cheating in graduate school, 23.4% did so in the 1st year, 11.5% in the 2nd year,
5.0% in the 3rd year, 2.5% in the 4th year, 1.2% in the 5th year, and 0.8% in each of
the 6th and 7th years.
Table 1 presents results of academic dishonesty based on a narrow definition of
the term. For each of the 40 academically dishonest behaviors, Table 1 presents the
percentage of students who reported engaging in the behaviors, the item means of
severity ratings by students and faculty, and the item means for perceived preva-
lence of the behaviors rated by students and faculty. Data from faculty and admin-
istrators were collapsed into one group (faculty) after multivariate analyses of
variance (MANOVAs) yielded no significant differences between the groups for
either severity ratings, Wilks’s Λ = .45, F(31, 25) = 0.99, p = .52, or the perceived
prevalence ratings of the behaviors, Wilks’s Λ = .41, F(38, 20) = 7.54, p = .78.
Subsequent analyses were computed between students and faculty to determine
whether significant differences existed between their severity ratings or perceived
prevalence ratings. Significant differences are designated in Table 1 by one or
more asterisk.
As can be seen in Table 1, students self-reported engaging in each of the 40 aca-
demically dishonest behaviors, but with considerable variance in the percentage of
students who engaged in each behavior. Endorsement rates ranged from a low of
2.5% to a high of 55.1%.
With regard to severity ratings, each of the 40 items was viewed as academi-
cally dishonest in terms of mean scores. With the exception of 7 items, all items
were rated from 3 (moderately dishonest) to 4 (severely dishonest). Additionally,
there was little variance in the ratings as reflected by standard deviations typically
below 1.0. A MANOVA was significant, Wilks’s Λ = .58, F(40, 252) = 4.58, p <
.0001, indicating a significant difference between severity ratings of students and
 TABLE 1
Faculty and Student Mean Ratings of Severity and Perceived Percentage of Academically Dishonest Behaviors

Severity Ratinga Perceived %b

Academically Dishonest Behaviors in Order

of Self-Reported Prevalence % Students Endorsed Student Faculty Student Faculty

Not copying word for word but changing the wording slightly 55.1 2.59** 2.98 4.18** 3.00
from an original source while writing a paper
Padding a bibliography with references not used 30.7 2.84 2.91 3.35** 2.36
Working with other students on an assignment that is supposed 25.9 2.70** 3.05 3.69** 2.00
to be done individually
After taking an exam, telling another student who has not taken it 22.6 3.08 3.30 2.79** 1.78
yet what is on the exam
Not reporting to a teacher that cheating is occurring in class 21.4 2.64 2.68 3.37 2.78
Finding out what is on a test from another student who has 20.2 3.11* 3.36 2.81** 1.75
already taken it
Submitting the same paper in more than one class 19.3 2.26** 2.71 2.89** 1.71
Allowing another student to copy a homework assignment 19.3 3.09** 3.54 2.78** 1.76
Studying from old versions or previously given exams 16.0 2.75** 1.64 2.65** 4.27
Copying word for word from an original source in a paper and 15.6 3.42 3.54 2.98** 2.08
not using quotation marks
Copying another student’s homework assignment 14.8 3.14** 3.55 2.73** 1.76
Copying from another student’s exam paper without his or her 11.1 3.67 3.77 1.66** 1.37
knowledge
Allowing another student to copy answers from your exam paper 9.0 3.55 3.68 1.71** 1.32
Deliberately missing an exam so you can have more time to 7.4 3.08 3.13 1.96* 1.59
study
Allowing another student to copy his/her data or results in a lab 7.4 3.41 3.59 1.96 1.54
report
293

(Continued)
294

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Severity Ratinga Perceived %b

Academically Dishonest Behaviors in Order

of Self-Reported Prevalence % Students Endorsed Student Faculty Student Faculty

Copying from another student’s exam paper with his or her 6.6 3.89 3.79 1.79** 1.39
knowledge
Copying another student’s data or results in a lab report 5.8 3.52 3.66 1.93* 1.46
Giving another student answers during a test through signals 4.9 3.74 3.73 1.35 1.22
Obtaining a copy of the test before it is given 4.9 3.83 3.68 1.39 1.27
Using unauthorized materials (e.g. crib notes, preloaded 4.9 3.77 3.71 1.55* 1.34
computer disks, calculators) during a test
Falsely reporting that a computer malfunctioned to get a deadline 4.9 3.25 3.27 2.30* 1.73
extended
Copying another student’s paper with his or her knowledge and 4.5 3.86 3.79 1.71* 1.34
submitting it as one’s own
Removing reference materials (e.g., reserved books) necessary 4.5 3.35 3.36 2.41* 1.90
for a course
Writing in bluebooks prior to an exam 3.7 3.73 3.59 1.24 1.22
Obtaining a copy of the instructor’s manual, which contains test 3.7 3.53** 2.91 1.27 1.34
items
 Having another student write a paper for him or her 3.7 3.83 3.82 1.82* 1.44
Writing a paper for another student as a favor 3.3 3.60 3.66 1.58 1.32
Taking a paper off of the internet and submitting it as his or her 2.9 3.85 3.80 1.58 1.36
own
Paying another student to write a paper for him or her 2.9 3.73 3.75 1.71* 1.27
Tampering with someone else’s lab work or data 2.9 3.91 3.82 1.30 1.14
Offering money to an instructor for a good or raised grade 2.9 3.98** 3.84 1.10 1.05
Offering money to a teaching assistant for a good or raised grade 2.9 3.97* 3.84 1.13 1.07
Exchanging sexual favors for a good or better grade 2.9 3.98** 3.84 1.20 1.10
Having another student take a test for him or her 2.5 3.97** 3.84 1.07 1.07
Taking a test for another student 2.5 3.97** 3.84 1.05 1.07
Purchasing a paper from a company and submitting it as his or 2.5 3.85 3.82 1.41 1.25
her own
Copying another student’s paper without his or her knowledge 2.5 3.95* 3.82 1.38 1.31
and submitting it as one’s own
Being paid to write a paper for another student 2.5 3.69 3.70 1.63* 1.27
Making up or faking data or results in a thesis 2.5 3.84 3.84 1.66* 1.27
Making up or faking data or results in a dissertation 2.5 3.84 3.84 1.52 1.24
a1= not at all dishonest; 2 = mildly dishonest; 3 = moderately dishonest; 4 = severely dishonest. b1 = 0%; 2 = 1–10%; 3 = 11–20%; 4 = 21–30%; 5 = 31–40%; 6 =

41–50%; 7 = 51–70%; 8 = 71–80%; 9 = 81–90%; 10 = 91–100%.

295
296 WAJDA-JOHNSTON ET AL.

faculty. Follow-up univariate F tests revealed 14 items that differed significantly

at the 0.05 level using the Scheffé test. For a number of the items, it appears that
there is statistical significance and not necessarily meaningful differences. For ex-
ample, the item concerning taking a test for another student was rated 3.97 and
3.84 by students and faculty, respectively, yet was different in statistical signifi-
cance. Of the items that are significantly different, 3 stand out as being meaning-
ful. Items pertaining to studying from old versions of exams and having the
instructors manual that contains test items were rated more severe by students (Ms
= 2.75 and 3.53, respectively) than faculty (Ms = 1.64 and 2.91, respectively),
whereas faculty rated collaborating on work that was supposed to be done individ-
ually as more severe (M = 3.05) than did students (M = 2.70).
A broad definition of perceived prevalence of cheating was established by ask-
ing faculty and students to rate the percentage of students they believed cheat using
a Likert scale with 1 being 0% and 10 being 90% to 100%. Faculty perceived that
between 0% to 10% of students cheat (M = 1.89), whereas students perceived be-
tween 10% to 20% of students cheat (M = 2.32), a difference that is significant,
t(271) = 4.27, p < .001.
Table 1 presents the perceived prevalence results using a narrow definition of
the term based on the 40 academically dishonest items. As can be seen from Table
1, both faculty and students perceive that the prevalence of cheating is quite low,
with most item ratings having means below 2.00, indicating that 1% to 10% of stu-
dents are perceived as engaging in the behaviors. The behaviors perceived to be
most prevalent by faculty were students using old tests without permission,
whereas students perceived changing words slightly from an original source as the
most prevalent. Although the perception of these behaviors is relatively low, there
is greater variance (standard deviations typically above 1.0) in the ratings of per-
ceived prevalence when compared to the severity ratings. In general, students have
greater variance than faculty in their perceived prevalence ratings.
A MANOVA was computed to determine whether significant differences ex-
isted between student and faculty ratings of perceived prevalence. Results re-
vealed a significant MANOVA, Wilks’s Λ = .70, F(40, 247) = 2.69, p < .001.
Follow-up univariate F tests revealed 23 items that differed significantly at the .05
level. Students had higher perceived prevalence ratings on 22 of the 23 items, with
faculty rating the use of old tests without permission as more prevalent than stu-
dents. Similar to the results regarding severity ratings, many of the significant dif-
ferences obtained on perceived prevalence ratings, although statistically
significant, do not appear to be meaningful differences. For example, although the
item concerning using unauthorized materials such as crib notes is statistically sig-
nificant with a student mean of 1.55 and a faculty mean of 1.34, this difference is
not a meaningful one.
 GRADUATE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 297

Justifications for Academic Dishonesty

Students and faculty were asked to rate the strength of 21 statements as justifica-
tions for cheating, with the response set ranging from 1 (not at all a justification) to
4 (a strong justification). Both faculty and students rated all but two statements as
not at all or weak justifications, with most item ratings having means below 2.00,
and standard deviations typically below 1.0. To determine whether significant dif-
ferences existed between student and faculty ratings of the statements as justifica-
tions, a MANOVA was computed. Results revealed a significant MANOVA,
Wilks’s Λ = .83, F(21, 286) = 2.70, p < .001. Follow-up univariate F tests revealed
that each of the 21 items differed significantly at the .05 level. Students had higher
justification ratings on all of the 21 items. Similar to the results regarding severity
ratings, many of the significant differences obtained on the justification ratings, al-
though statistically significant, do not appear to be meaningful differences. For ex-
ample, although the item concerning having many opportunities to cheat is statisti-
cally significant with a student mean of 1.59 and a faculty mean of 1.15, this
difference is not a meaningful one. Of the items that are significantly different, two
stand out as being meaningful. Items pertaining to needing high grades to get a good
job or into further postgraduate programs and cheating due to panic, pressure, or
stress were rated as weak to moderately strong justifications (Ms = 2.03 and 2.39,
respectively) by the students as opposed to not at all a justification to a weak justifi-
cation by the faculty (Ms = 1.24 and 1.55, respectively).
Students rated the degree to which 25 situations would influence their decision
to cheat, with the response set being more likely, less likely, or no effect. As can be
seen in Table 2, at least 50% of students indicated that 13 situations would de-
crease the likelihood of cheating, and another 11 situations would have no effect.
Seven situations were identified by at least 30% of the students as increasing the
likelihood of academic dishonesty.

Ideal and Real Responses to Academic Dishonesty

Students and faculty were asked how they would both idealistically and realisti-
cally respond to academic dishonesty. The responses to these questions are summa-
rized in Table 3.
As can be seen in Table 3, with faculty there is congruency between their real
and ideal response to dishonest behavior, with the majority saying they would ide-
ally and realistically expect to confront the cheater. With students, however, there
is not a real or ideal response that a majority of students endorse, nor is there a con-
gruency between their real and ideal responses. Realistically, confronting a
cheater is unlikely, whereas ignoring the behavior or warning an authority that aca-
demic dishonesty is occurring appears to be more probable.
298

TABLE 2
Percentage of Students Who Endorsed Factors That Facilitate and Inhibit Academic Dishonesty

Facilitating and Inhibiting Factors Decrease Likelihood of Cheating No Effect Increase Likelihood of Cheating

My university deals with academically dishonest behaviors 70.0 26.7 3.3

severely.
Students are afraid to be caught cheating. 68.7 28.4 2.9
A student would feel guilty if he or she were to cheat. 67.8 26.0 6.2
Teacher has reputation for catching and punishing cheaters. 67.5 29.2 3.3
Other students would report a student if he or she cheated. 65.4 30.0 4.5
The teacher provides the opportunity to drop the lowest 65.4 30.9 3.7
exam grade.
Students are monitored carefully during tests to make sure 65.0 32.1 2.9
they are not cheating.
The teacher clearly states a definition of, procedures to 64.6 30.5 4.9
detect, and consequences for cheating.
An opportunity is provided to raise or replace low grades 63.4 32.9 3.7
with extra credit or make-up tests.
Your family would think poorly of a student who is 57.4 39.7 2.9
cheating.
 Other students would think poorly of a student who is 53.9 42.8 3.3
cheating.
None of the other students are engaging in cheating 53.1 44.0 2.9
behaviors.
There is an institutional policy on cheating. 52.7 44.4 2.9
Seats are assigned during tests to make it hard for students 49.4 48.6 2.1
to copy answers.
Tests are changed frequently. 36.6 58.8 4.5
Teacher is perceived as requiring a much greater than 10.0 60.2 29.9
average amount of work from students.
Other students in the class are cheating. 9.9 56.6 33.5
If a student is caught cheating, the punishment is usually 9.5 54.3 36.2
very light or nonexistent.
Sometimes students cheat without knowing it because they 7.9 60.2 32.0
haven’t been told exactly what cheating is.
The probability of getting caught is extremely low. 7.8 55.6 36.6
The teacher’s grading system is considered to be unfair or 7.4 57.4 35.1
too hard.
Some classes are so hard that many students can’t pass 7.4 56.4 36.2
them without cheating.
Most of what is taught in class is irrelevant to the students’ 7.0 74.1 18.9
careers.
299
300 WAJDA-JOHNSTON ET AL.

TABLE 3
Expected Faculty and Student Realistic and Ideal Responses to Academic Dishonesty (%)

Ideal Realistic
Response Response

Faculty
1. Immediately confront cheater. 66.7 53.0
2. Warn the class that he or she is aware that dishonest behavior is 6.1 9.1
occurring in class but not mention the cheater’s name.
3. Threaten the cheater with being reported to the chair, dean, other 7.6 9.1
administrator, or student government if the cheating does not stop.
4. Tell the cheater, “I saw you cheating and I want it to stop.” 6.1 10.6
5. Mention to the cheater that he or she was seen cheating. 1.5 6.1
6. Ignore the cheating and do nothing. 0 1.5
7. Tell another faculty member that the behavior is occurring. 0 3.0
8. Immediately report the cheater to a dean, chair, other 10.6 6.1
administrator, or student government.
9. Notify the chair, dean, other administrator, or student government 1.5 1.5
that the behavior is occurring but not mention the cheater’s name.
Students
1. Immediately report the cheater to teacher, chair, dean, other 28.2 5.8
administrator, or student government.
2. Warn the teacher, chair, dean, other administrator, or student 35.7 23.6
government that academic dishonesty is occurring in the class but
not mention the cheater’s name.
3. Threaten the cheater with being reported to the teacher if the 5.4 2.5
cheating does not stop.
4. Tell the cheater, “I saw you cheating and I want it to stop.” 13.3 6.6
5. Mention to the cheater that he or she was seen cheating. 7.9 7.0
6. Ignore the cheating and do nothing. 6.6 23.1
7. Tell another student that the behavior is occurring. 2.9 31.4

In terms of the how concerned faculty are about academic dishonesty, 7.5% re-
sponded as not at all concerned, 22.4% as minimally concerned, 11.9% as somewhat
concerned, 16.4% as concerned a good deal, and 41.8% as concerned a great deal.
They tended to see other faculty as somewhat concerned or concerned a good deal
(23.1% and 38.5%, respectively), and perceived students as minimally concerned
(35.4%) and administrators as falling mostly in the somewhat, a good deal, and a
great deal categories (27.7%, 23.1%, and 24.6%, respectively). Faculty found stu-
dents, professors, and administrators as needing to have about the same level of con-
cern about academic dishonesty as they currently do (47.7%, 67.7%, and 73.8%,
respectively). Additionally, faculty were asked if they addressed academic dishon-
esty in their syllabi, on the 1st day of class, and on exam days. Fewer than half of the
faculty respondents addressed cheating in any way, with 32.8% including a state-
 GRADUATE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 301

ment about cheating in their syllabi, 24.6% addressing cheating on the day of exams,
and 35.9% discussing academic dishonesty on the 1st day of class.
In terms of how concerned students are about academic dishonesty, 16.5% re-
sponded as not at all concerned, 41.2% as minimally concerned, 21% as somewhat
concerned, 13.2% as concerned a good deal, and 8.2% as concerned a great deal.
They tended to see faculty as somewhat concerned (31%), other students as mini-
mally concerned (47.9%), and administrators as ranging from somewhat con-
cerned to concerned a good deal (26.9% and 25.6%, respectively). Students
additionally found students, professors, and administrators as needing to have
about the same level of concern about academic dishonesty as they currently do
(64.9%, 72.7%, and 69.0%, respectively).
A t test was performed to ascertain whether students who claimed that their pro-
gram has a policy on academic dishonesty self-reported engaging in fewer aca-
demically dishonest behaviors than students who said that they were not aware of a
policy or that their program did not have a policy. The t test was not significant,
t(233) = –0.75, p > .05.

Demographic Variables

To examine the relation between academically dishonest behavior and student de-
mographic variables, the student group was divided into two groups: cheaters and
noncheaters. Noncheaters reported not having engaged in any of the 40 dishonest
behaviors, whereas cheaters reported engaging in at least one dishonest behavior.
Chi-square tests were performed using the type of degree being sought, gender,
full-time or part-time status, transfer or nontransfer status, and age group with
cheating status. Significance was found with degree being sought, χ2(4, 234) =
12.13, p < .05. More students in the terminal masters programs reported having
cheated (90.6%) than students in masters continuing to doctoral (63.6%), doctoral
(52.9%), law (75.5%), or medical degree programs (66.7%). The chi-square values
for gender, χ2(1, 237) = 1.07, p = .30; full-time or part-time status, χ2(1, 237) = 0.08,
p = .77; transfer or nontransfer status, χ2(1, 237) = 0.84, p = .36; and age group, χ2(6,
237) = 9.69, p = .14, were not significant.

DISCUSSION

When graduate students were asked broadly if they had ever cheated in graduate
school, the majority (73.1%) responded that they had not. However, when asked if
they had engaged in specific dishonest acts, only 24.8% reported that they had not
engaged in anything dishonest at some point during graduate school. This indicates
that when academic dishonesty is studied, the use of specific definitions may be
302 WAJDA-JOHNSTON ET AL.

more likely to accurately detect the presence of academic dishonesty. More impor-
tant, perhaps, is the fact that this study yielded evidence that academic dishonesty
occurs in many different ways in graduate school. Estimates of academic dishon-
esty at the undergraduate level have ranged from 20% to over 90% (Sims, 1995). It
appears that the percentage of students in this sample who have behaved academi-
cally dishonest falls within the same range.
Students appear to be closer in their estimates of the prevalence rates of dishon-
est acts than are faculty members. Faculty members appear to believe that less than
10%—and closer to zero—of graduate students cheat. This belief does not appear
to be realistic, as more than half of the student sample reported engaging in behav-
iors that range from less severe to very severe types of infractions.
Given that a certain number of students do engage in academically dishonest
behaviors at the graduate level, one may ask if the students believe that the acts are
cheating and if they feel justified in their behavior. It appears that students are able
to recognize dishonesty when they see it as evidenced by the fact that they rated all
of the specific acts as dishonest. Additionally, the student and faculty ratings of the
severity of different acts were very close. In that way, graduate students seem to be
in agreement with faculty in terms of the seriousness of academic dishonesty: Ev-
eryone agrees that it is wrong. In addition, students and faculty appear to agree that
academic dishonesty is not justified, although students seem to be more lenient
when it comes to students cheating in response to panic, stress, and the pressure to
get high grades needed to continue their graduate careers and to get a good job.
Therefore, although students and faculty agree on what is academically dishonest
behavior and that there is no justification for dishonesty, cheating still occurs to
some degree in graduate school. This gives rise to the question of why it occurs.
It appears that there may be several factors contributing to the occurrence of ac-
ademically dishonest behavior among graduate students. At the level of faculty, it
appears that only a slight majority (57.2%) are a good deal or greatly concerned
about academic dishonesty. Fewer faculty (53%) would realistically confront a
cheater, and fewer still address academic dishonesty in their syllabi (32.8%), on
exam days (24.6%), or on the 1st day of classes (35.9%). In terms of the graduate
students, the data are even less encouraging. A slight majority (57.7%) are not at
all or minimally concerned about academic dishonesty, and fewer than 6% would
realistically confront a cheater. The pattern of responses to cheating typically is to
warn someone that cheating occurred without identifying the offender. Neither
faculty nor students perceive a need for additional concern on their parts regarding
academic dishonesty. This finding is notable because faculty underestimate the
prevalence of academically dishonest behavior. It may be that the faculty belief
that academic dishonesty does not occur at the graduate level has resulted in a
mind-set that concern is not needed. Additionally, it does not appear that knowl-
edge of the institutional policy regarding academic honesty or integrity deters the
rate of academically dishonest behavior.
 GRADUATE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 303

An examination of student demographic variables indicated that a higher per-

centage of students in terminal masters programs engage in academically dishon-
est behavior than students in programs in which a doctorate, law degree, or
medical degree will be earned. We also found that students are more likely to cheat
in the earlier years of their graduate programs than in their later years. It is possible
that as the students progress through longer programs, they become more invested
in the programs in terms of time, money, and academic integrity. They may feel
that the risk of cheating outweighs the benefits. Other factors that have been seen
as related to cheating behavior at the undergraduate level, such as gender and
transfer status, were not found to be similarly significant at the graduate level.
In summary, this research suggests that academically dishonest behavior oc-
curs with some frequency, faculty underestimate its occurrence, it is known to be
dishonest and without justification, students are unconcerned, and a slight major-
ity of faculty are concerned but feel that they are concerned enough about the issue
of cheating. As a result, it appears that the norms regarding academically dishonest
behavior yield a climate of status quo. If academically dishonest behavior is to be
reduced, it is likely that a systemic institutional intervention would be required to
establish a climate or culture of academic integrity. Such an intervention would fo-
cus on both attitudes and behaviors related to academic integrity and the establish-
ment and maintenance of norms of responsibility between and among students,
faculty, and administrators. To nurture an environment of academic integrity, the
subject must be discussed within the administration; among faculty; among stu-
dents; and among faculty, administrators, and students. The faculty could include
statements that clearly state a definition of and consequences for academic dishon-
esty in their syllabi. In addition, the majority of students reported that if academic
dishonesty were strongly handled by the university, teachers, and peers, they
would be less likely to cheat. Conversely, students identified a low risk of being
caught, little or no consequences for cheating, other students cheating, and not
having a clear understanding of what constitutes academic dishonesty as condi-
tions that would make them more likely to cheat. Taken together, this implies that
consequences outlined for academic dishonesty must be enforced after being
stated, and that the faculty should take into consideration the possibility of their
students cheating. The latter may be the biggest stumbling block, as many faculty
returned the survey without completing it but with comments such as “Graduate
students don’t cheat.” Yet another faculty member stated that if she were to think
that her students would cheat, she would be unable to teach.
There are some limitations to this study, the most important of which are the
sample size and low return rates. Although we had hoped that we could compare
departments in terms of severity ratings and perceived prevalence, this was not
possible due to low numbers of students in some categories and a generally small
sample size. The low return rates of the faculty and students casts doubt on
whether the sample is representative of the population of the graduate programs.
304 WAJDA-JOHNSTON ET AL.

Finally, the sample was collected from one Midwestern, religiously affiliated uni-
versity. It is possible that the students at that university may not be representative
of graduate students in general. The academic culture of graduate programs vary
from school to school and region to region, especially in terms of competition
within the programs and size of programs, which may influence the integrity of
students behavior.
Further research in the area of academic dishonesty in graduate schools is
needed. The prevalence of academic dishonesty at the graduate level appears to be
much lower than it is at the undergraduate level, but the consequences may be
more costly. Students who cheat at the graduate level may be compromising the
degree to which they are proficient in their areas of expertise, which could have se-
rious implications for consumers of their services.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project was completed in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a doctoral
degree at Saint Louis University.
We are grateful for the assistance of James H. Korn and Edward Sabin in the de-
velopment of the project.

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. E., & Obenshain, S. S. (1994). Cheating by students: Findings, reflections, and remedies.
Academic Medicine, 69, 323–332.
Baldwin, D. C., Daugherty, S. R., Rowley, B. D., & Schwarz, M. R. (1996). Cheating in medical school:
A survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Academic Medicine, 71, 267–273.
Brown, B. S. (1995). The academic ethics of graduate business students: A survey. Journal of Education
for Business, 70, 151–156.
Daniel, L. G., Adams, B. N., & Smith, N. M. (1994). Academic misconduct among nursing students: A
multivariate investigation. Journal of Professional Nursing, 10, 278–288.
Dans, P. E. (1996). Self-reported cheating by students at one medical school. Academic Medicine,
71(Suppl.), S70–S72.
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Preva-
lence, determinants, techniques and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16–20.
Gaberson, K. B. (1997). Academic dishonesty among nursing students. Nursing Forum, 32(3), 14–20.
LaGrange, M. V. (1992). Student, faculty and administrator perceptions of academic dishonesty. Un-
published master’s thesis, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, Missouri.
McCabe, D. L., & Bowers, W. J. (1994). Academic dishonesty among males in college: A thirty year
perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 5–10.
McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences academic dishonesty: A
multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379–396.
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and
non-honor code environments. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 211–234.
 GRADUATE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY 305

Simpson, D. E, Yindra, K. J., Towne, J. B., & Rosenfeld, P. S. (1989). Medical students’ perceptions of
cheating. Academic Medicine, 64, 221–222.
Sims, R. L. (1995). The severity of academic dishonesty: A comparison of faculty and student views.
Psychology in the Schools, 32, 233–238.
Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in
Higher Education, 39, 235–274.