1. Pressure, Stress and Academically Dishonest Behavior
Ashton D. Macaulay & Kristi M. Lemm
Western Washington University
METHOD
Participants
Participants were recruited from the Western Washington University
undergraduate psychology student research pool.
Study 1: N =233, 44 Men, 179 Women, Ages 18-50
(M = 20.98, SD = 4.22).
Materials and Design
Participants were first given one of four vignettes in which a college
student (Jim) was experiencing Stress (High/Low) and Pressure
(High/Low), and was in a position where he had the opportunity to
cheat. An example is given below.
Condition 3: Hi Academic Stress, Hi Job Stress
Jim is a sophomore in college. He is currently enrolled in an advanced
calculus class that is required for him to graduate. He is also working a
second job in order to help pay tuition and rent. The night before a Math
exam his manager asks him to work a double shift, and by the time he gets
home he is too tired to study. He falls asleep without having reviewed the
material. Jim has been having difficulty with the class all quarter and during
an exam is unable to complete several of the problems. He notices that
another student has already finished their exam and has left the answers
easily visible.
After reading the vignette, participants were asked to indicate how likely they
thought Jim would be to cheat in the given scenario. This was followed by a three-
item morality measure (If Jim took the note sheet it would be justified) as well as
scales on neutralizing attitudes, cheating attitudes, financial worry, current levels of
debt, and a demographics questionnaire.
DISCUSSION
We found that level of perceived academic stress in our
vignette target significantly increased their ratings of how
likely the target was to cheat. Those who perceived the target as
stressed rated the target as more likely to cheat on the
hypothetical exam. This effect was not present when examining
job-related stress. Students did not significantly vary their
ratings of the target based on the target’s level of job pressure.
However, we did find that both academic stress and job
pressure increased the moral ambiguity of the cheating act, in
that when participants perceived the target as having higher
academic stress and higher job pressure, they also rated the act
of cheating as less morally objectionable.
These findings go along with previous research that shows a
link between these justifications of unethical behavior and
cheating (Curasi, 2013). We did not find a significant effect of
compounding stress, as only academic stress significantly
predicted cheating behavior. This could potentially be a factor
of differences in how job-related pressure and academic stress
are seen by students. A sample of a wider range of economic
levels among students might give us a different perspective on
how students feel about these issues.
INTRODUCTION
A USC graduate and Wal-Mart heiress is asked to hand back her
diploma after it is discovered that she paid another student upwards
of $20,000 to do her homework (Los Angeles Times, 2014). Harvard
expels students for plagiarism on a take-home exam (The Boston
Globe, 2013). Why do students from such prestigious universities
choose to cheat? What mechanisms underlie the decisions to engage
in these unethical behaviors?
The present study addresses the potential cheating mechanism of
neutralizing attitudes. Neutralization behavior involves cognitions
intended to justify any sort of unethical behavior (Sykes & Matza,
1957). Curasi (2013) found that a variety of neutralizing attitudes
were correlated with cheating. We focused on the two that are the
most relevant to college students: Job-related pressures and academic
stress.
We hypothesized that students who read a story about a character
experiencing stress and/or job pressure would rate the character as
more likely to cheat relative to unstressed and unpressured
characters.
References
Associated Press (2005, October 20). Wal-Mart heiress accused of
cheating gives back USC degree. Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/
Curasi, C. F. (2013). The relative influences of neutralizing
behavior and subcultural values on academic dishonesty.
Journal of Education for Buisiness, 88(3), 167-175. doi:
10.1080/08832323.2012.668145
Macaulay, A. D. & Lemm, K. M. (2014). Socioeconomic status
and academically dishonest behavior. Presented in a poster
session at the Western Psychological Association conference,
Portland, OR
Powers, M. (2013, February 02). Harvard details suspensions in
massive cheating scandal. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from
http://www.bostonglobe.com/
Sykes, G. M. & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization. A
theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22,
664-670. doi: 10.2307/2089195
Future Research
We would like to follow up on this research by examining the
differences between academic and job related pressures.
Obtaining qualitative data on how students perceive job and
academic stress, as well as measures of their own stress levels
at the time of the survey could provide interesting results. All of
this could help us gain further insight into why rates of cheating
are so high, as well as why certain students cheat more than
others.
RESULTS
We found a significant main effect of stress condition on cheating likelihood F(1,219) = 6.27, p = .013, where those in the high
stress conditions rated the vignette character as more likely to cheat than in the low stress conditions. The Job pressure manipulation
failed to reach significance F(1,219) = .15, p = .70. There were also significant main effects of both stress and job pressure on the
morality of the cheating action F(1,219) = 8.23, p = .005 and F(1,219) = 9.19, p = .003 respectively. Those who were in the high
stress or high pressure conditions rated the hypothetical cheating act as more morally justified in comparison to those in the low
stress and pressure conditions.
Our manipulation of academic stress and job pressure was successful. Participants rated the target as significantly more stressed and
pressured in the manipulated conditions relative to the non manipulation conditions.
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
Low High
Manipulation Check
Perceived Stress
Perceived Pressure
Have Cheated in College at Least Once
Yes NoOur previous research has
demonstrated that levels of
cheating are very high among
college students, with 85%
saying they had engaged in
cheating behaviors at least once
(Macaulay & Lemm, 2014).
We have examined factors of
SES, but as of yet have found
no significant results.
We also found a series of significant correlations which can be seen in the table below.
3.7
3.8
3.9
4
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
Low Pressure High Pressure
Cheating Scores
Low Stress
High Stress
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Low Pressure High Pressure
Morality Scores
Low Stress
High Stress
Factors
Neutralizing Attitudes
Morality Score
Cheating Attitudes
Financial Difficulty
Cheating Perception
Cheating Scores
.363**
.297**
.329**
.046
.229*