Psychological Reports, 1972, 31, 629-630.

@ Psychological Reports 1972

ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION AND CHEATING

M. E. FAKOURI
Indiana State Ulziversity

Summry.-The Achievement Imagery Scale of Iowa Picture Interpretation

Test was administered to 154 undergraduate students. When an opportunity for
cheating on the examination was provided only 24 Ss cheated. The achievement
motivation scores of chraters and non-cheaters were not different. Propor-
tionally there were more male cheaters than female. The non-cheaters received
significantly higher grades than the cheaters. Achievement motivation was
related to academic performance.

A growing number of studies in recent years provide information on the relationships

between situational, attitudinal, and personality characteristics and academic cheating. For
example, the students who c h a t tend to be less condemning of cheating, consider cheating
as being due to environmental pressure (Knowlton & Hamerlynck, 1967), have a more
positive attitude toward cheating, exaggerate the number of cheaters and the extent of
cheating in a class within which they cheat, and express less concern about cheating as a
problem (Sherrill, Salisbury, Plorowitz, 8r Friedman, 1971). White, Zielonka, and Gaier
(1967) using the 16 PF Questionnaire have found that cheaters and non-cheaters differ
significantly on some of these factors. Hetherington and Feldman (1964) suggest that
cheating behavior is related to the situation and at least partially associated with the
characteristics of the cheaters.
The purpose oE the presect study was to investigate the relationship between achieve-
ment motivation and cheating. Ss were 49 male and 105 female undergraduate students in
a course in psychology of childhood and adolescence. At the beginning of the semester
the Achievement Imagery Scale of Iowa Picture Interpretation Test was administered. This
is a test of achievement motivation which integrates the objective and quantitative aspects
of the paper-and-pencil test with the "depth" of the projective test (Hurley, 1955). The
smdents were given 4 multiple-choice tests (about 65 items each) during the semester.
On the second test, the iastructor gave out the test booklet and told the students the
secretary had not ordered the answer sheets in time, and that therefore they should answer
each question on the test booklc itself, and he would hand-score them. On the next meeting
( 2 days later) the instructor rezurned the test booklets which he had already, unknown to
the students, hand scored. He provided the srudents with IBM answer sheets and said,
"I did not have time to hand-score the tests. Now that we have the answer sheets, I
want you to transfer your answers from the test booklet to the answer sheet. In the
meantime I will go over the itens with you for review. Remember, regardless of what the
right answer is, you are to transfer the answer you checked on the test booklet." For each
student 2 scores were thus obwined, the original score from the booklet and the score
from the answer sheet. A discrepanq score of 2 points or more was defined as cheating.
This information was kept in strict confidence and the identities of those who cheated
were not known to the instructor.
Of the 154 students who hrd an opportunity to cheat, only 24 (12 males, 12 females)
actually cheated. The percentage of cheaters in this study (15.6) is much less than the
percentage of cheaters reported j y Hetherington and Feldman ( 1964). One-way analysis
of variance of test scores gave no difference in achievement motivation of the cheaters and
630 M. E. FAKOURI

non-cheaters. The mean achievement motivation scores of male and female Ss were not
significantly different, but there were proportionally more males who cheated than females
<
( x 2= 4.35, p .05). Although the cheating did not affect the final grades of the stu-
dents in the course, only 3 of the 24 students who cheated received grades of C + or higher,
21 of them received lower grades. This finding is consistent with previous work (Hether-
ington & Feldman, 1964). Also, a significantly higher proportion of high achievement-
motivated Ss received higher grades in the course (C+ or higher) than low achievement-
motivated Ss (x2 = 39, p < .01). This finding is also consistent with the findings of
Kestenbaum and Weiner (1970) who found achievement motivation is related to
academic performance.

REFERENCES
HETHERINGTON, E. M., & FELDMAN, S. E. College cheating as a function of subject and
situational variables. Iournal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 212-218.
HURLEY,J. R. The Iowa Picture Interpretation Test: a multiple-choice variation of the
TAT. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1955, 19, 372-376.
KESTENBAUM, J. M., & WEINER,B. Achievement performance relaced to achievement
motivation and test anxiery. Journal o f Consuking and Clinical Psychology, 1970,
34. 343-344.
KNOWLTON, J . Q., & HAMERLYNCK, L. A. Perception of deviant behavior: a study of
cheating. ]ournal of Educational Psychology, 1967, 58, 379-385.
SHERRILL,
D., SALISBURY, J. L., HOROWITZ, B., & FRIEDMAN, S. T. Classroom cheating:
consistent attitude, perceptions and behavior. American Educational Rerearch
Journal, 1971, 8, 503-510.
WHITE,W. F., ZIELONKA, A. W., & GAIER,E. L. Personality correlates of cheating
among college women under stress of independent opportuni~ticbehavior. Journul
of Educational Research, 1967, 61, 68-70.

Accefited August 28, 1972.