Academic Dishonesty at UNC: A Collaborative Study Part VIII
The Influence of Peer Pressure on the Reporting of Academic Dishonesty in a Survey Introduction: Report by Annie Peirce and Ben Allshouse
Research performed by Ben Allshouse, Lindsay Cannon, Marcus Jones, Jon Manekin, and Annie Peirce
In today’s collegiate world, there are a multitude of avenues for cheating. Professors frequently give take-home tests; some student organizations keep files on previously given exams; and online services practically beg students to download ready-to-submit term papers. Despite these convenient opportunities, about 85% of the faculty who responded to a 1996 faculty survey given at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reported that cheating was only a minor problem or not a problem at all at UNC (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1996).
In another questionnaire distributed by UNC administrators, about 89% of UNC freshmen in 1994 either "disagreed" or "strongly disagreed" with the statement that "Academic cheating in college courses is an acceptable behavior under certain circumstances" (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1994). However, in 1987, 28% of UNC students reported that it was relatively easy to get away with academic dishonesty (Iovacchini, Sharp, McIntire, and Cheek, 1989), and in the many studies that have been done concerning the number of students who cheat in college, the rate is always higher than the 11% implied by the answers to UNC's 1994 questionnaire.
Yet 89% of those UNC freshmen did indicate a belief that cheating is unacceptable. Also, a study at Behrend College showed that in some instances, students were actually more likely than faculty to identify a given act as academically dishonest (Livosky and Tauber, 1993). So if students are so sensitive to the wrongness of cheating, why does the practice continue? Part of the answer may lie in peer pressure. Sandlin-Sniffen (1999) thinks that "When kids cheat, it's usually because they're struggling with insecurity, striving for perfection, or suffering from peer pressure." Peer pressure does not have to be direct; it may also come in the indirect form of the belief by a student that other students are accepting of a certain behavior.
This study concentrates on the academic integrity of students as self-reported, and specifically on the influence that students' beliefs about common behavior or public opinion may have on their willingness to admit to cheating. The method used cannot directly find the relationship between peer pressure and cheating behaviors themselves, only the relationship between peer pressure and the admission of cheating. It was designed to answer the following questions: 1) Are students more likely to self-report cheating when they believe that most students cheat than when they believe that few students cheat? 2) Are students more likely to self-report cheating when they believe that most students feel strongly that cheating is always wrong than when they believe that most students feel strongly that cheating is sometimes justified?
Method:
Four different questionnaires were assembled. The questions on all four were exactly the same, but there was a different introductory statement at the top of each type of questionnaire. The four introductory statements read as follows:
(1) A recent study has indicated that only about 10% of college students have cheated on their academic work by the time they graduate. (2) A recent study has indicated that most college students (about 80%) cheat in some way on their academic work by the time they graduate. (3) A recent study has indicated that most college students (about 90%) feel very strongly that academic cheating is not justified under any circumstances. (4) A recent study has indicated that most college students (about 90%) feel very strongly that academic cheating is justified under certain circumstances.
The questionnaires with statements 1 and 2 were designed to answer the first part of this study, how likely students are to self-report cheating based on their beliefs about how many other students are cheating. The questionnaires with statements 3 and 4 were designed to answer the second aspect of this study, how likely students are to self-report based on their beliefs about how many other students consider cheating justifiable. The four different types of surveys will be referred to as surveys 1, 2, 3, and 4 as numbered above.
Following the introductory statement, students were asked to check the examples of cheating in which they have participated during their time at UNC. They were informed that their answers were anonymous, and that nobody would attempt to identify them. The questions were as follows:
Have you ever…
(1) Gotten an answer from someone else’s paper during a test? (2) Turned in the same paper in two different classes without making sure that it was all right with the second teacher? (3) Copied someone else’s paper (for instance, lab reports or group projects?) (4) Plagiarized parts or all of paper? (5) Known that someone else was cheating but not reported it? (6) Given or received unauthorized help but still signed the Honor Pledge? (7) Exceeded the specified time limit on a take-home exam? (8) Looked at the answers to a test beforehand? (9) Used unauthorized information sources during a take-home exam? (10) Turned in a paper that was written by somebody else? (11) Allowed someone else to cheat off of your exam paper? (12) Allowed someone else to turn in a paper you had written? (13) Taken a cheat sheet into a test? (14) Ordered or downloaded a paper from an online term paper service? (15) None of these
These questions encompassed nearly all methods for cheating according to UNC's Honor Code. Virtually any student who had ever cheated at UNC had an opportunity to indicate doing so. It should also be noted that filling out these surveys required that students merely check an answer if applicable. This was to give students an added sense of security that they would not be identified by their handwriting.
Each type of survey was randomly handed out to be completed at a different location: the Pit (a popular gathering place), Lenoir Dining Hall, the Student Recreation Center, and a dormitory. At each location, 52 students were surveyed. Additionally, 12 of each type of survey were handed out at a sorority meeting. Sixty-four copies of each type of questionnaire were handed out, so that 256 surveys were distributed in all. Of these, 252 were completed and returned. Each questionnaire was retrieved immedately after it had been distributed and completed.
Results:
To come up with measurable results, the number of checks on items 1 through 14 were totaled for each type of survey. Any questionnaire on which item 15, "none of these," had been checked was counted as zero. The total number of checks for each type of survey was then divided by the total number of completed questionnaires of each type to give an average.
The average number of checks for survey 1 was 3.8 out of 14 possibilities. The average number of checks for survey 2 was 5.1 out of 14 possibilities. This is a difference of 1.3 checks on average. For survey 3, there was an average of 4.2 checks, whereas survey 4 had an average of 5.6 checks. This is a difference of 1.4 checks on average.
A large number of students checked the fifth question, "have you ever known that someone else was cheating but not reported it?" The percentages of checks for question 5 were 48%, 75%, 77% and 68% on surveys 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Question 6, “have you ever given or received unauthorized help but still signed the Honor Pledge?” was also checked by many students. The percentages of checks for question 6 were 31%, 64%, 69%, and 53% on surveys 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively.
Discussion:
The results answer the initial questions to some extent. Are students more likely to self-report cheating when they believe that most students cheat than when they believe that few students cheat? Yes, these results say that students are 9% more likely to self-report cheating if they believe that more students are cheating along with them. However, 9% is not a huge percentage; the difference of 1.3 checks is not great. It is certainly not enough to give a solid and unquestionable conclusion to the survey. Similarly, the results of the survey that dealt with the justification of cheating did not produce overwhelming results. Are students more likely to self-report cheating than when they believe that most students consider cheating to be justified in certain situations than when they believe that most students feel strongly that cheating is wrong? Students were 10% more likely to self-report cheating after reading that 90% of other college students thought that cheating was justified under certain circumstances. Again, a difference of 1.4 checks does not lead to indisputable results. Yet, the results do show a corresponding relationship across the board, regardless of how minute that correlation may be.
In the future, if a researcher were to survey students in an attempt to answer the same question, it might be helpful to question more students. 252 students answered these surveys. This is a small number compared to the entire student body of UNC-Chapel Hill. Obviously, the larger any sample is, the more accurate the results will be. It is plausible that had we doubled our sample size, the survey would have yielded different results. It should also be noted that there is a possibility that not all students even read the statement at the top of their survey. This statement is, of course, the most crucial element to survey. Perhaps in a future survey, students should be told the statistic rather than being counted on to have read it.
Questions 5 and 6 bring up some interesting figures as well. These two questions were checked the most times of all the items on the list of dishonest behaviors. It is possible that most students see these two examples as lesser instances of cheating. One might argue that seeing someone else cheating and failing to report it (question 5) is hardly as terrible as taking a cheat sheet into an examination (question 13). It is also possible that students don’t take signing the Honor Pledge (question 6) all that seriously, and therefore many students do it when they should not. It should also be noted that question 6 is somewhat broad because it asks whether students have “given or received” unauthorized information and then falsified the Honor Pledge. Students who checked this question because they have “given” information may not agree that giving information is as wrong as receiving information. If in fact students do see questions 5 and 6 as less severe examples of cheating, that perception could explain why more students admit to those types of academic dishonesty.
On surveys 3 and 4, the distribution of the responses to questions 5 and 6 was not consistent with the overall results of the study. Those who were told that most students found cheating to be justified (survey 4) were actually less likely to check questions 5 and 6 than those who where told that most students thought cheating was unjustifiable (survey 3). However, when it came to students who answered surveys 1 and 2, the distribution was in agreement with the overall results: those who were told that most students cheat (survey 2) were more likely to check questions 5 and 6 as opposed to those who were told that few students cheat (survey 1). An average of nearly 50% of students checked question 5 on all the surveys. A correlation of confessions with survey type in this study depends on students having some hesitation about admitting that they have been academically dishonest. It may be that for questions 5 and 6, the offenses are so common or so accepted (this is implied by the high number of checks on those two questions) that there is no shame attached to admitting to those behaviors in the first place, and in that case, no consistent pattern would show up in the data.
References:
Iovachinni, E. V.; Sharp, B.; McIntire, D.; & Cheek, N. (1989). A comparative study of academic integrity at three different types of universities. College Student Affairs Journal, 9, 35-43. Livosky, M., & Tauber, R. (1993). Views of cheating among college students and faculty. Psychology in the Schools, 31, 72-82. Sandlin-Sniffen, C. (1999, January 13). Making the grade. St. Petersburg Times, p. 3D. Accessed online: Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, Major Newspapers, keyword "cheating." University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1994). [Results of a questionnaire, including questions about academic cheating, that was appended to the Cooperative Institute Research Program freshman survey]. Unpublished raw data. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1996). [Results of a survey of UNC faculty and teaching staff concerning academic cheating and the honor system at UNC]. Unpublished raw data.
Copyright 1999 Ben Allshouse, Lindsay Cannon, Marcus Jones, Jon Manekin, and Annie Peirce.
Forward to the next section of Academic Dishonesty at UNC: A Collaborative Study
Back to the front page of Academic Dishonesty at UNC: A Collaborative Study