College Cheating: A Twenty-Year Follow-Up and the Addition of an Honor Code

College Cheating:A Twenty-Year Follow-Up and the Addition of an Honor Code Michael A. Vandehey (bio), George M. Diekhoff (bio), and Emily E. LaBeff (bio) This study examines university students' behaviors, attitudes, and beliefs related to academic dishonesty using data collected in 1984, 1994, and 2004. We are unaware of any other research program that has used the same instrument to monitor academic dishonesty at the same institution over such a long period of time. Several authors have critiqued the academic dishonesty literature, questioning the validity of comparing historical and recent studies (Brown Graham, Monday, O'Brien, Whitley, 1998; Whitley, Nelson, however, both cheaters and noncheaters evidenced less neutralizing than the 1984 cohort. Even as cheating increased, neutralizing decreased, indicating to us that academic dishonesty had become so normative that it was no longer viewed by students as a deviant behavior that needed to be justified (Diekhoff et al., 1996). The recent literature has reported similarly high rates of overall academic dishonesty, with reports ranging from 52-90% (Genereux Graham et al., 1994; Lester McCabe Vowell and Chen, 2004). Academic dishonesty percentages are lower if one looks at behavior within a specific semester. For example, Jordan (2001) found that only 31% of students cheated on an exam or paper during one semester. In addition, 9% of the students in End Page 468 the Jordan study committed 75% of the cheating acts. These studies suggested that most students engage in cheating at some point during their academic career; however, a much smaller percent cheats in any given semester. External factors (e.g., fear of detection and punishment) appear to be more effective in deterring cheating than internal factors (e.g., guilt) (Diekhoff et al., 1996; Genereux Graham et al., 1994). In 1994, we found that external factors ranked as the top 4 out of 6 deterrents to cheating. First and foremost was the embarrassment of being caught by a faculty member. Being dropped by the instructor ranked second, followed by fear of the university's response, and receiving an 'F.' Guilt ranked fifth, and fear of disapproval by one's friends showed the least deterrent effect (Diekhoff et al., 1996). Genereux & McLeod, (1995) and Burns, Davis, Hoshino, and Miller (1998) also reported that the threat of punishment, such as fear of expulsion, was a top deterrent to cheating. Additional external deterrents included instructor vigilance and spacing in the exam room (Genereux & McLeod, 1995). Thus, the reduction of academic dishonesty depends primarily on faculty and institutional actions. Unfortunately, the literature is quite clear on how disengaged faculty and university administrators are from student cheating. Diekhoff, LaBeff, Shinohara, and Yasukawa (1999) reported that only 3% of cheaters reported having ever been caught, and Jendrek (1989) and McCabe (1993) found that most faculty members are reluctant to follow official university policies...