1. Socioeconomic Status 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 =288, 166 Men, 123 Women, Ages 18-45
(M = 19.59, SD = 2.55).
Study 2: N = 234, 78 Men, 155 Women, Ages 18-44
(M = 20.18, SD = 2.82).
Materials and Design
Participants were given an online measure asking how many times
they had engaged in a list of academically dishonest behaviors
modeled after McCabe and Trevino (1993), as well as measures of
relative SES and financial difficulty. Study 1 used a free response
format whereas Study 2 gave participants a fixed format.
DISCUSSION
We did not find a correlation between SES and amount of
cheating behaviors. We did however find high levels of
cheating as well as a significant correlation between visibility
of cheating and cheating behavior. One of our main issues with
this study was our levels of reporting for student debt. We
hypothesize that part of this may be due to lack of
understanding, or possibly the sample we are using. Western
Washington University Students are likely not the most
representative sample for student debt.
There is also the factor that we used a university based survey
system, which could have led to inaccurate reporting of
academically dishonesty behavior. For this reason we will be
running future research studies through Amazon Mechanical
Turk.
The finding of cheating observation correlating positively with
academic dishonesty and cheating attitudes was very
interesting. Our future research aims to explore this idea in
greater depth, examining what part of this relationship is the
true mechanism behind cheating. We suspect that this result
may be the result of reduced immorality associated with
cheating in situations where it is commonplace.
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?
High socioeconomic status and unethical behavior have been shown
to be correlated (Piff et al., 2012). The present study attempted to
extend the connection of unethical behavior to the context of
academic dishonesty. Our hypothesis was that those who came from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds would show higher levels of
academic dishonesty.
We also aimed to explore whether or not financial difficulty could be
a factor in academic dishonesty. We hypothesized that the constructs
of debt and financial worry would predict higher levels of
academically dishonest behavior
Participants were asked to rate their
relative SES on a ladder from 1-10,
with 1 representing the lowest SES
and 10 the highest.
They also completed a survey to
assess financial worry (α = .90).
An overall rate of 53% of students reported student loans in study 2 (N = 234), with most participants falling into the category of no
debt. Contrary to predictions we did not find any significant correlates in either Study 1 or Study 2 between SES and cheating
behavior(r = -.12, ns; r = .065, ns).
Sample Items for Financial Worry Scale
1. Money is an everyday stressor for me.
2. When I think about my financial
situation I am worried.
References
McCabe, D. L. & Trevino, L. K., (1993). Academic dishonesty:
Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher
education, 64(5), 521-538.
Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Cote, S., Mendoza-Denton, R., &
Keltner, D. (2012). Higher social class predicts increased
unethical behavior. PNAS Early Edition, 1-6. doi:
10.1073/pnas.1118373109
Future Research
We currently have two studies planned to follow up on the
findings of the present research. We will conduct a series of two
studies using vignettes in which a character is given an
opportunity
Study 1: We will be manipulating participants to feel high or
low SES and assessing whether or not this will make them
more likely to engage in academic dishonesty.
Study 2: We will be examining whether or not participants find
cheating as less immoral when a vignette character is in a
stressful situation. We will also be examining whether not these
stress situations make participants more likely to cheat in
hypothetical scenarios.
Yes
53%
No
47%
Do you currently have any student loans?
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SES Ladder Scores
Study 1 Frequency
Study 2 Frequency
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Used an Uncited
Online Source
Work Together
on an Individual
Assignment
Copied
Homework
Given Info to an
Earlier Section
Received Info
From a Later
Section
Invented Data Falsified a
Bibliography
Take-Home
Exam
Allowed
Someone toCopy
Exam Answers
Copy In-Class
Exam Answers
Copy A Take
Home Exam
Used
Unauthorized
Notes
Plagiarism
Frequency of Cheating Behaviors
Study 1
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Collaborated
on an
individual
Assignment
Given Info to
Someone in a
Later Section
About an
Exam
Worked With
Other Students
on Individual
Online Exams
Received Info
About an
Exam from A
Previous
Seciton
Invented Data
on An
Assignment
Copied
Someone
Else's Exam
Copied Work
Without Citing
it
Copied
Someone
Else's Exam
(Without Their
Knowledge)
Helped
Someone Else
Cheat on an
Exam
Used Notes on
A Test
Received
Substantial and
Unpermitted
Help on an
Assignment
Copied
Material and
Turned in as
Own Work
Fabricated or
Falsified a
Bibliography
Turned in
Work by
Someone Else
Purchased a
Paper and
Turned in as
Own Work
Frequency of Cheating Behaviors
Study 2
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
None $1-$5,000 $5,000-$9,999 $10,000-$19,999 $20,000-$29,000 $30,000-$39,000 $40,000-$49,999 > $50,000
Frequency of Debt
RESULTS
We found very similar results regarding cheating behaviors in
both studies, regardless of the change in the way it was
measured. Our overall rate of cheating was similar to previous
studies, ranging from 80%-85% of student reporting they had
cheated at least once in their college career(McCabe & Trevino
1993). We found that cheating on homework as well as
unauthorized collaboration were some of the most frequent
behaviors. We also found a correlation between amount of
cheating observed and amount of cheating committed (r = .40,
p <.01). Students also tended to have a more positive view of
cheating when they saw more of it on campus (r =.32, p < .01).