The future of academic honesty.

Choong, Peggy ; Brown, Bob S.

ABSTRACT

Cheating has permeated many facets of American life. Reports on cheating are found in business, the media and on college campuses. Perhaps one of the more disturbing trends is reports on increasing cheating among grade and high school teachers and administrators. This makes the behavior, motivation and training of education students relevant for scrutiny. The paper examines academic dishonesty among college students training to be teachers. The study uncovers through factor analysis four salient dimensions of cheating, namely Flagrant Cheating, Insidious Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration. It also uncovers the key motivators of cheating, identifies relevant individual characteristics and demonstrates their relation to the salient dimensions of cheating Policy implications are also discussed to improve ethics education.

INTRODUCTION

Cheating in America used to be an aberration. Today, however, the culture of cheating in America has permeated many facets of our lives, from businesses engaging in dishonest practices to CEOs and politicians cheating and news reporters fabricating quotes and reporting fiction as fact. Schools have not been exempt from these kinds of behavior. High school and grade school students have been found to engage in dishonest behaviors (Green & Saxe, 1992; Meade, 1992; Sims, 1993; Brown & Abramson, 1999; Coverdale & Henning, 2000; Brown & McInerney, 2001) and there are studies which report increases over the years (McCabe & Trevino, 1993; Callahan, 2004). However, it is perhaps the reporting of cheating among school administrators and teachers of our young children that have brought home just how pervasive and serious this epidemic really is. School administrators and teachers have been caught cheating on standardized tests, in reporting inflated gains in student test scores and learning and in manipulating statistical information (Jacob & Levitt, 2003; Starnes, 2005).

Schools have always played a crucial role in preparing our youth to be responsible world citizens. While many will agree that guidance counselors and parents are the key players in providing a child's moral compass, the opportunity of the classroom teacher in his or her daily interaction with the student to provide positive influence should not be overlooked (Chaille, 2004; Halverson, 2004). As such, the conduct of students training to be teachers becomes relevant for scrutiny. More specifically, an investigation of the cheating behavior of education students as well as their motivation for engaging in these behaviors becomes pertinent.

While the literature offers good insights into the relationship between various specific acts of cheating and individual characteristics as well as into specific reasons for engaging in these deviant behaviors, it has generally omitted to uncover the underlying salient dimensions or commonalities among these behaviors and motivations that will help us understand more fully the practice and motivation of these behaviors.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate cheating among college students preparing to be teachers by uncovering the salient dimensions of cheating and the key determinants of these dimensions. The paper will also identify the key motivators for cheating and demonstrate their relationship to participating in the various dimensions of cheating.

METHODOLOGY

A questionnaire was constructed incorporating sixteen unethical academic practices which were selected based on a review of current literature. Respondents were asked to indicate their participation in each of these practices on a six-point Likert scale. The questionnaire also included twelve reasons students might engage in unethical academic practices. These were also taken from current literature. Respondents were asked to rate on a five-point scale the likelihood that each of these reasons was the impetus for a student's unethical behavior.

The sample consisted of 198 students in teacher education classes at a private university in the northeast. Each questionnaire was placed in an unmarked envelope. Completed questionnaires were replaced in these envelopes and sealed by the student. The questionnaires were voluntarily completed during class time. Students who declined to participate were encouraged to engage in other reading or writing activities. Respondents were assured that their responses were confidential and anonymous.

The average age of the respondents was 28 years. About 80% of the respondents were females and more than 80% were registered for more than twelve credits. The mean and the mode of salary expectations were between $30,001 and $35,000 with more than a quarter of the respondents (28%) expecting salaries between $35,001 to $40,000.

RESULTS

Uncovering the salient dimensions of academic dishonesty

In order to uncover the salient dimensions of academic dishonesty, the sixteen dishonest practices were submitted to factor analysis. Factor analysis is a procedure for summarizing the information ratings on the sixteen practices into a smaller number of salient dimensions which can then be identified as the dimension underlying the respondents' ratings. It is in this way that the commonalities in responses are effectively discerned. Four factors were extracted which had an eigenvalue more than one. The results of the factor analysis, after applying the varimax rotation, are summarized in Table 1.

The first factor relates to obvious and overt acts of cheating directly related to passing answers during an exam, copying off another student's exam, bringing unauthorized information into an exam situation, turning in work done by someone else as one's own and looking at a copy of an exam that was not supposed to be available prior to taking it. These practices pertain to common and obvious acts of unconscionable academic behavior and this dimension is labeled Flagrant Cheating.

The second factor pertains to more subtle but not less unconscionable academic behavior relating to not citing sources used, taking credit for group projects without putting in a fair share of the work, citing sources in a bibliography that were not read or used and using a false excuse to delay taking an exam or turning in a paper. This dimension is, therefore, labeled Insidious Cheating.

The third factor relates to the unprincipled sharing of examination information in the form of either asking about the content of an examination from someone who has taken it or giving information about the content of an examination to someone who has yet to take it. This dimension is labeled Collusion.

The fourth factor relates to working with other students on an individual assignment or project and having someone else check over a paper without the instructor's permission. This factor is labeled Illicit Collaboration. It is important to note that though this factor captures aspects of learning that are valued by educators as useful techniques of learning, the questionnaire does specify that the projects or papers are individual assignments and the checking of the paper by a third party was without the approval of the professor. In the light of the usefulness of collaboration as a learning tool, this will be discussed more extensively in the discussion section of the paper.

Uncovering Motivators of Cheating

Factor analysis was also applied to the twelve reasons cited for academic dishonesty. The analysis extracted three factors with eigenvalues greater than one. The results of the factor analysis after applying the varimax rotation procedure are summarized in Table 2.

The first factor relates to students safeguarding their self-interest, attempting to benefit themselves by obtaining a higher grade without putting in the requisite effort in the belief that no one will be hurt and there is little risk of getting caught or punished. This factor is labeled Grade Pressure.

The second factor relates to students being influenced by their environment or culture on campus and justifying the behavior by placing the blame elsewhere. This factor captures the variables pertaining to cheating because of peer pressure and the campus culture where everyone is perceived to do it, the thrill or challenge of cheating, perception of the material, assignment or task as being irrelevant and the instructor as being indifferent. This factor is labeled Campus Culture.

The third factor relates to difficulties faced by the student in the form of the limited amount of time they have left to devote to academic activities and to the inherent difficulty of the course material. This factor pertains to true difficulties students have and is therefore labeled Hardship.

Investigating key determinants of academic dishonesty

Separate regression models are specified for each of the salient dimensions of academic dishonesty. Independent variables were obtained from a review of the literature. The following hypotheses were developed in relation to each independent variable:

GPA: The literature indicates that better students tend to cheat less. In other words, a higher GPA varies inversely with the amount of cheating (Stern & Havleck, 1986; Graham et.al., 1994; Genereux & McLeod, 1995; Brown, 1995; Allmon, Page & Roberts, 2000). This leads to hypothesis 1:

H1: GPA will vary inversely with Flagrant Cheating, Insidious Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration.

WORK: The next independent variable (WORK) is a measure of the amount of time the student typically spends in a week during a typical semester in activities related to a paying job or jobs. Several studies have found that lack of time to devote to academics is a key reason for cheating (Brown, 1995; Davis & Ludvigson, 1998). As such, it is hypothesized that the more time a student allocates to working on paying jobs during the semester, the less he or she is able to devote to academic pursuits and leads us to the next hypothesis:

H2: WORK is positively related to Flagrant Cheating, Insidious Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration.

SALARY: The variable SALARY captures the salary expectations of the students upon graduation. Cheating has been linked to the need to get ahead (Roig & Ballew, 1994; Clement, 2001; Large, 2004). Using data drawn from the Chicago public schools, Jacob and Levitt (2003) found that the frequency of teacher cheating is strongly and positively sensitive to even small changes in incentives. This leads to the next hypothesis:

H3: SALARY is positively related to Flagrant Cheating, Insidious Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration.

AGE: The current literature shows that younger students tend to cheat more because they lack interest in some of their lower level classes (Lord & Chiodo, 1995) and are more immature and less committed to academia (Diekhoff et al., 1996). The next hypothesis investigates the relationship between age and each of the four different types of cheating:

H4: AGE is inversely related to Flagrant Cheating, Insidious Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration.

GRADE PRESSURE, CAMPUS CULTURE, HARDSHIP:

 GRADE PRESSURE is the desire of students to obtain a higher grade
 sometimes without the warranted effort and often with the
 misconception that the cheating behavior is hurtful to no one. It
 is therefore hypothesized that GRADE PRESSURE is positively related
 to all four forms of cheating. CAMPUS CULTURE captures the culture
 on campus and in the classroom that allows, facilitates or is used
 by students as justification of deviant behavior and is
 hypothesized to be positively related to all four dimensions of
 cheating. HARDSHIP captures the inherent difficulty the student
 faces in either understanding the material or having adequate time
 to devote to its study and is hypothesized to be positively related
 to cheating (Murdock, 1999). The hypotheses related to the three
 dimensions of motivation of cheating are summarized as follows:

 H5-H7: GRADE PRESSURE, CAMPUS CULTURE and HARDSHIP are
 positively related to Flagrant Cheating, Insidious Cheating,
 Collusion and Illicit Collaboration.

The results of the regression models are exhibited in Table 3.

The results indicate that students with higher GPAs and older students tend to engage in less Flagrant Cheating. The estimated parameter for Age indicates that there is a negative relationship between age and cheating. This suggests that older students engage in less cheating in each of the four different categories of cheating. The result is significant at the p=.05 level for Collusion and Illicit Collaboration.

The amount of time students commit to paid employment is positively related to the amount of Flagrant Cheating, Insidious Cheating and Illicit Collaboration. This result is not should not come as a surprise because students who tend to devote substantial time outside of school on paid employment tend to have less quality time to devote to school work and assignments. It is interesting to note that the results indicate there is no difference in the amounts of Collusion among students who work extensively in paid jobs compared to those with more time to devote to their studies if they choose.

GRADE PRESSURE directly and positively relates to greater amounts of Collusion and Illicit Collaboration. Students who feel the need for better grades often without wanting to put in the requisite amount of effort tend to engage in more Collusion and Illicit Collaboration. This fear of losing out by not cheating is evident not only in the area of obtaining higher GPAs but is also seen in their fear of losing out on future opportunities as measured by expected salaries. Results indicate that students who have higher expectations of future salaries engage in more Illicit Collaboration to boost their performance.

The results also show that HARDSHIP is related positively and significantly to more Collusion. This is significant at the p=0.05 level.

DISCUSSION

This study began with identifying the salient dimensions of cheating. By doing so, it was able to comb out more clearly how different forms or dimensions of cheating are related to student characteristics as well as to different forms or dimensions of motivations.

For example, the literature has shown that GPA is inversely related to cheating. The results of this study point clearly to the fact that it is only significantly related to Flagrant Cheating. Brighter students tend not to engage in Flagrant Cheating. However, there is no significant difference in the amounts of Insidious Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration among brighter students and their counterparts.

The literature has also shown that age is inversely related to cheating. The results show that younger students tend to engage in more Flagrant Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration. Interestingly, the study also indicates that there is no significant difference in the amount of Insidious Cheating among students of different ages. Included in the notion of Insidious Cheating are plagiarism and the blatant misrepresentation of their efforts in group assignments or projects submitted. The latter is the problem of "free-rider" prevalent in student group projects.

This study also highlights how different motivations of cheating are related to the dimensions of cheating. Collusion tends to be higher in situations where students feel pressured for higher grades and where they are experiencing hardship. Here students try to help each other either by the passing or receiving of unauthorized examination information. Illicit Collaboration tends to be higher where students feel a pressure for grade.

Included in the dimension of Illicit Collaboration are activities of working with fellow students on assignments that the instructor has identified as individual assignments and having someone check over a paper without the instructor's permission. In many papers and books promoting classroom learning, the first two activities have often been put forward as useful techniques that help students learn. This finding highlights how important it is for instructors to clearly articulate for each assignment or project, how much (if any) discussion is allowed among students and if editing or outside review of student papers is acceptable. This is especially pertinent among freshmen students whose high school definition of academic misconduct may differ in some respects from that in college. For example, Kate Kessler (2003 p60) writes that some students find that "(I)ts sometimes hard to tell if the teacher specifically wants you to not work with other people," and that they were often "afraid to ask."

The results also point to some policy implications. One of them is the need to nurture a college culture that teaches, supports and rewards honesty. Results show that younger students tend to engage in more Flagrant Cheating, Collusion and Illicit Collaboration. The literature often shows that ignorance is a common reason given for engaging in these behaviors. For example, Evans and Craig (1990) conducted research on middle and high school students and found that both groups were unclear about what constituted academic misconduct; more disturbing than this was their finding that teachers also exhibited some confusion about aspects of cheating especially in the area of plagiarism. This points to how important it is for the college teachers and administrators to focus on education rather than punitive measures in their attempt to eradicate cheating from their campus. Freshmen should be educated about it before they get tainted by the prevalent culture on campus. This could be conducted as part of a freshman symposium class. In addition, each class syllabus should include specific information about what constitutes academic dishonesty and the penalties. The education of students about academic honesty should stretch beyond the classroom to the areas where most of our young students tend to spend much of their time such as study halls and residence halls. These should be targeted as prime spots to inculcate the college culture of honesty.

This study was conducted in a private religious university. One disconcerting finding of the study is that despite exposures of college students to ethics and values education, cheating among teacher education students still persists. This finding is congruent with Brown and Choong (2003) who compared management students in the public and private Catholic universities and found little noticeable difference between the students despite considerably more emphasis being placed on ethics and values at the private Catholic university. As Bruggeman and Hart (1996, p. 340) stated, "It is generally assumed that religious schooling is connected in some way with the development of higher moral values and thus promotes a greater tendency to behave morally."

Determining the reasons why more exposure to ethics and values did not lead to more honest behavior among students was beyond the scope of this study. The absence of a relationship might be explained in several ways. One possibility is that a threshold level of exposure exists that has to be met before any noticeable change in behavior occurs. It is possible that the threshold has not been reached. Perhaps an even greater emphasis on ethics and values in existing courses, the addition of more courses to the curriculum, or different teaching methods would eventually bring about the desired behavioral change.

Bruggeman and Hart (1996) contend that moral reasoning, or the cognitive process used in reaching moral conclusions, can be differentiated from moral behavior, or overt actions in situations that call for moral judgment. Knowing what is right does not always lead to doing what is right. Factors in addition to moral reasoning capability influence behavior. Perhaps the students have highly developed moral reasoning, but their behavior is dominated by other factors. For example, the cost of attending the religious university is considerably high thus putting more pressure for success, or higher grades, on the students.

A third possible explanation is that the students have not made the connection between the ethics and values education they have received and their responsibilities as university students. The education might have been either too general or too situation specific for the students to relate it to their academic behavior.

This finding point to an important policy implication. As Bruggeman and Hart (1996) conclude, the inability of researcher to find a consistent relationship between ethics and values education and more honest behavior does not imply that religious education is ineffective or does not provide a basis for a strong moral commitment. They suggest that the results should compel educators to examine how they are going about teaching ethics and values so as to improve its effectiveness. This means that the curriculum, content and delivery of ethics and values education need to be scrutinized and overhauled if we are to hope for more moral behavior in our workplace.

The college culture of cheating has been found to be prevalent among students in business, engineering, medicine and the arts and science. The education department is not exempt from this problem. However, the education department prepares individuals who will teach our children; their graduates will be the teachers who have daily contact with our young children and have the ability through their interaction to exert a positive influence. They hold the key to breaking this troubling cycle of cheating in America. As such, teaching them about what constitutes dishonest academic practices and inculcating honesty among our future teachers is of paramount importance.

REFERENCES

Allmon, D.E., D. Page & R. Roberts (2000). Determinants of perceptions of cheating: Ethical orientation, personality and demographics. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(4), 411-422.

Athanasou, J.A. & O. Olasehinde (2002). Male and female differences in self-report cheating. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(5). Retrieved January 20, 2005, from http://ericae.net/pare/getvn.asp?v=8&n=5.

Baird, J.S. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the Schools, 17(4), 515-522.

Brown, B.S. & P. Choong (2003). A comparison of academic dishonesty among business students in a public and private catholic university. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 12(1).

Brown, B.S. (1995). The academic ethics of graduate business students: A survey. Journal of Education for Business, 70(3), 151-156.

Brown, B.S. & J. Abramson (1999). The academic ethics of undergraduate marketing majors. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 3(1), 62-71.

Brown, B.S. & M. McInerney (2001). The academic ethics of business management students: A lesson for professors. The International Journal of Business Disciplines, 11(3), 79-88.

Bruggeman, E. L. & K. Hart (1996). Cheating, lying, and moral reasoning by religious and secular high school students. Journal of Educational Research, 89(6), 340-349.

Calabrese, R.L. & J.T. Cochran (1990). The relationship of alienation to cheating among a sample of American adolescents. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 23(2), 65-72.

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Harcourt Publishers.

Chaille C. (2004) Teaching ethics: The role of the classroom teacher. Childhood Education, 80(3), 157-158.

Clement, M.J. (2001). Academic dishonesty: To be or not to be? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 12 (2), 253-270.

Coverdale J.H. & M.A. Henning (2000). An analysis of cheating behaviors during training by medical students. Medical Teacher, 22(6), 582-584.

Davis, S.F. & M.S. Ludvigson (1998). Additional data on academic dishonesty and a proposal for remediation. Teaching of Psychology, 22(2), 119-121.

Diekhoff, G.M., E.E. LaBeff, R.E. Clark, L.E. Williams, B. Francis & V.J. Haines (1996). College cheating: Ten years later. Research in Higher Education, 37, 487-503.

Evans, E.D. & D. Craig (1990). Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle and senior high schools. The Journal of Educational Research, 84, 44-45.

Genereux, R.L. & B.A. McLeod (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of college students. Research in Higher Education, 36(6), 687-704.

Graham, M., J. Monday, K. O'Brien & S. Steffen (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development, 35(4), 255-260.

Greene, A. S., & L. Saxe (1995). Everybody (else) does it: Academic cheating. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, April 3-5, Boston, MA, Eric Document No. 347931.

Halverson, S. (2004). Teaching ethics: The role of the classroom teacher. Childhood Education, Spring, 80(3), 157-158.

Hollinger, R.C. & L.L. Lanza-Kaduce (1996). Academic dishonesty and the perceived effectiveness of countermeasures: An empirical survey of cheating at a major public university. NASPA Journal, 33(4), 292-306.

Jacob, B.A. & S.D. Levitt (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3).

Kessler, K. (2003). Helping high school students understand academic integrity. English Journal, 96(6), 57-63.

Large, M. (2004, 29 April). National Better Business Bureau President to speak in Macon, Ga. Knight Ridder Tribune Bureau News.

Lord, T. & D. Chiodo (1995). A look at student cheating in college science classes. Journal of Science Education and Teaching, 4, 317-324.

McCabe, D. & L.K. Trevino (1996). What we know about cheating in college. Change, January/February 28(1), 25-32.

Meade, J. (1992). Cheating: Is academic dishonesty par for the course? Prism, 1(7), 30-32.

Murdock, T.B. (1999). Discouraging cheating in your classroom. The Mathematics Teacher, 92(7), 587-594.

Petress, K. (2003). Academic honesty: A plague on our profession. Education, 123(3), 624-627.

Rawwas, M.Y & H.R. Isakson (2000). Ethics of tomorrow's business managers: The influence of personal beliefs and values, individual characteristics, and situational factors. Journal of Education for Business, July/August.

Roig, M. & C. Ballew (1994). Attitudes toward cheating of self and others by college students and professors. The Psychological Record, 44(1).

Sims, R.L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 68(4), 207-211.

Singhal, A.C. (1982). Factors in student dishonesty. Psychological Reports. 51, 775-780.

Sisson, E. & W. Todd-McMancillas (1984). Cheating in engineering courses: Short and long term consequences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Section of the American Society of Engineering Education, March, Wichita, NE. Eric Document No. 242532.

Starnes, B.A. (2005). Cheaters never prosper. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(8), 635-637.

Stern, E. B. & L. Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate student surveys. Journal of Allied Health, 15(2), 129-142.

Tom, G. & N. Borin (1988). Cheating in academe. Journal of Education for Business, 63(January), 153-157.

Whitley, B.E., Jr.(1988). Factors associated with cheating among college students: A review. Research in Higher Education, 39, 235-274.

Peggy Choong, Niagara University Bob S. Brown, Marshall University Graduate College

Table 1: Factor Analysis Results of Frequency of Practice

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2

Passing answers during an exam 0.837 0.205

Copying off another student's exam 0.806 0.299

Having unauthorized information programmed 0.681 -0.032
into a calculator when taking an exam

Allowing another student to see one's own 0.666 0.294
answers during an exam

Using unauthorized crib notes 0.660 0.072
Turning in work done by someone else as one's 0.577 0.460
own

Before taking an exam, looking at a copy that 0.516 0.158
was not suppose to be available

Not citing sources used (plagiarism) 0.185 0.751

Taking credit for full participation in a 0.211 0.737
group project without putting in a fair share

Citing sources in a bibliography that were 0.091 0.721
not read or used

Using a false excuse to delay taking an 0.179 0.504
exam or turning in a paper

Giving information about the content of an 0.16 0.214
exam to someone who has yet to take it

Asking about the content of an exam from 0.184 0.193
someone who has taken it

Working with other students on an individual -0.007 0.149
paper or project

Without the permission of the instructor, 0.102 0.152
having someone check over a paper

Visiting a professor in his/her office to 0.268 0.084
influence a grade

Factor Labels Flagrant Insidious
 Cheating Cheating

Variable Factor 3 Factor 4

Passing answers during an exam 0.112 0.049

Copying off another student's exam 0.105 -0.032

Having unauthorized information programmed 0.079 0.107
into a calculator when taking an exam

Allowing another student to see one's own 0.291 0.012
answers during an exam

Using unauthorized crib notes -0.121 0.426

Turning in work done by someone else as one's 0.176 0.081
own

Before taking an exam, looking at a copy that 0.241 0.302
was not suppose to be available

Not citing sources used (plagiarism) 0.212 0.159

Taking credit for full participation in a -0.007 0.073
group project without putting in a fair share

Citing sources in a bibliography that were 0.244 0.153
not read or used

Using a false excuse to delay taking an 0.092 0.409
exam or turning in a paper

Giving information about the content of an 0.896 0.199
exam to someone who has yet to take it

Asking about the content of an exam from 0.871 0.235
someone who has taken it

Working with other students on an individual 0.072 0.759
paper or project

Without the permission of the instructor, 0.221 0.669
having someone check over a paper

Visiting a professor in his/her office to 0.306 0.457
influence a grade

Factor Labels Collusion Illicit
 Collabo-
 ration

Table 2: Factor Analysis Results of Motivations for Cheating

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2

Needs/wants a higher grade 0.759 0.046
No one is hurt by this behavior 0.752 0.234
Had the time but did not prepare adequately 0.692 0.095
Low risk of getting caught or punished 0.571 0.208
Peer pressure -0.011 0.800
Thrill or challenge 0.061 0.683
Material, assignment or task is irrelevant 0.324 0.617
Everyone does it 0.085 0.582
Instructor is poor or indifferent 0.275 0.581
Difficulty of material, course, exam 0.047 0.053
Time pressure 0.037 0.119
Factor Labels Grade Campus
 Pressure Culture

Variable Factor 3

Needs/wants a higher grade 0.412
No one is hurt by this behavior -0.077
Had the time but did not prepare adequately 0.052
Low risk of getting caught or punished -0.149
Peer pressure 0.022
Thrill or challenge -0.098
Material, assignment or task is irrelevant 0.039
Everyone does it 0.246
Instructor is poor or indifferent 0.141
Difficulty of material, course, exam 0.845
Time pressure 0.786
Factor Labels Hardship

Table 3: Regression Results

Variable Flagrant Cheating Insidious Cheating
 Parameter t-score Parameter t-score
 Estimate Estimate

GPA -0.214 -2.760 * -0.11 -1.389

Work 0.117 1.535 ** 0.162 2.075 *

Salary 0.018 0.235 -0.048 -0.624

Age -0.144 -1.800 ** -0.057 -0.695

Grade -0.095 -1.264 0.044 0.571
pressure

Campus 0.045 0.586 0.032 0.406
culture

Hardship -0.044 -0.57 0.104 1.312

Variable Collusion Illicit Collaboration
 Parameter t-score Parameter t-score
 Estimate Estimate

GPA 0.005 0.071 0.082 1.043

Work -0.007 -0.086 0.148 1.914 *

Salary -0.055 -0.73 0.115 1.497 **

Age -0.154 -1.948 * -0.161 -1.981 *

Grade 0.119 1.612 ** 0.12 1.584 **
pressure

Campus 0.026 0.346 0.055 0.709
culture

Hardship 0.29 3.777 * 0.049 0.62

* Significant at the p=0.05 level

** Significant at the p=0.10 level