Skip to main content

Factors Fuelling Academic Dishonesty

Originally Published January 2024  |  Research Note contributed by Elieen Wood & Judy Eaton, Psychology Department

What is the Pedagogical Challenge?

Academic integrity is a continuing, and some would argue increasing, challenge for those who teach in postsecondary institutions. Scholars who conduct empirical research in the area argue that cheating is growing in complexity and severity (Hughes and Eaton 2022). Given the rapid growth of third-party companies that provide course materials (“contract cheating”); generative AI (GenAI) tools that produce assignments in response to detailed prompts; and online teaching and learning environments where oversight is necessarily more limited, it has never been easier to get academic credit for work done by another person or through the use of technology.

Research Insights

What the Literature Says

There are several ‘models’ to explain who cheats and when cheating is likely to occur. Models typically overlap. Institutional and individual factors both contribute. It’s important to note that these models were created and researched prior to GenAI tools but that the concerns identified apply. However, additional refinements need further research for confirmation.

Institutional factors include: “cheating culture” (Bertram, 2008) (e.g., beliefs that everyone does it, everyone overlooks cheating, it is not a big concern), lax policies, lack of information/knowledge across sectors within the institution (Holden, Norris & Kuhlmeier, 2021).

Individual factors include: In the “fraud triangle” (Becker, 2006), three conditions must be present:

  • opportunity: perception of no reprisal, instructional context not controlled

  • incentive, pressure, or need: e.g., desire for high grades, time constraints, busy social life (Holden, Norris & Kuhlmeier, 2021)

  • rationalization or attitude: can reason that behaviours are okay for themselves; ambiguity about what constitutes cheating (Jordan, 2001)

Other personal variables include: 

  • gender: more males
  • grade point average: students with lower GPAs more than higher
  • age: younger more than mature (Birks et al., 2018)
  • education level
  • personality traits: lower conscientiousness means more cheating (Day et al., 2011), also see (Baetz et al., 2011) for more discussion of personal variables. 

What Students at Laurier Say

This table shows responses from Laurier students responding to questions about if they've engaged in academic dishonesty
Students who indicated they “Did it at least once in the previous term” Response on Scale Rating
Turning in work done by someone else 9.1%
Working on an assignment with others when the instructor asked for individual work 57.1%
Receiving unpermitted help on an assignment 51.9%
Writing or providing a paper for another student 13.1%
Providing a previously graded assignment to someone to submit as their own work 14.3%
Getting questions/answers from someone who has taken the test 40.6%
Helping someone cheat on a test 20.1%
Fabricating or falsifying research lab data 11.3%
Fabricating or falsifying a bibliography 12.6%
Copying from another student during a test/exam without their knowing it 5.1%
Copying from another student during a test/exam with their knowing it 11.6%
Copying a few sentences of material from a written source without footnoting them in a paper 15.5%
Copying a few sentences of material from an internet source without footnoting it in a paper 23.0%
Using unpermitted crib notes (condensed study notes) during a test 16.7%
Copying material almost word-for-word from a written source and turning it in as their own work 7.5%
Turning in a paper copied from another student 5.7%
Using a false excuse to obtain an extension on a due date 18.4%
Submitting the same piece of work for credit in more than one course without the permission of the instructors 6.9%

Source: Wood, E. & Eaton, J. (2023) Academic Integrity at Wilfrid Laurier University: An Institutional Self-Study. Please note that responses were collected from a sample of 193 students who participated in a study examining alternative modes of instruction for academic integrity. As in all research, samples may not be representative of all members of the population.

More Reading and Resources 

 

 

Unknown Spif - $key