Gender, Contingencies of Self-Worth, and Achievement Goals as Predictors of Academic Cheating in a Controlled Laboratory Setting

The test subjects failed to think critically and even act morally in the face of authority. The teachers often referred to the experimenter to continue when they knew the learner was in pain. Even after the learner had gone silent the test subjects continued. The test subject didn’t know if they were alive in the room or not and the majority continued regardlessly.

Over the years, cheating does not carry the same stigma it used to represent. Because of competition and expectations, students are doing whatever it takes to achieve an A average. There are students who are fighting for scholarships or for the position to be on the top. Also, parents and teachers are the root cause of this matter because they have advocated the idea that high GPAs will lead to more successful futures. As a result, grades have become the main focus for most students,

Although there are probably more pressures to succeed now more than ever due to the recession and economic uncertainty surrounding this country, I believe certain variables are better represented in academic dishonesty as it pertains to term papers. Upper-class white males cheat more because of their socioeconomic status which gives them the greatest opportunity to cheat. Opportunity alone is no indication of a deviance; however this “gateway” likely plays on their lack of inner motivation towards higher education. This group comes from a privileged socioeconomic background which provides them with the “good life” early on, and when they have to accomplish real tasks in order to maintain such a status, such as writing term papers, it is easier for them to have it written than do it themselves. Their resources also allow for them to be able to afford using such services on a regular basis, which can become as costly as a bad drug habit. On the inverse, lower-class minority males end up getting caught more, due to being relatively new to such an arena of dishonesty and their membership to a subservient social class.

Competition among individuals comes in a variety of forms: for mates, for resources, and for prestige and recognition. Such competitive pressure can lead individuals to engage in unethical behavior in an effort to get ahead. There are several forms of cheating in which individuals may engage to improve their own outcome: they may lie about their own performance in a task and they may lie about others ' performance in a task (Rigdon, M. L., & D 'Esterre, A. P., 2015, p.1).

There were two confederates one an experimenter and the other a learner. The participants were always the teacher. The teacher was placed with the psychologist in one room and the learner in

the main objective of the experiment was not only to see how obedient a person would be on killing someone else, but also to see if they took responsibility for killing a person or blaming it on the instructor, the person giving them the commands. For this experiment they needed 40 males at the ages of 20 and 50. Then they would be pared up with a partner. They would be given sticks to determine who would be the teacher and who would be the learner. This part of the experiment was always rigged, meaning that the learner was always one of Milgram’s lab assistants, and the teacher was always the participant (volunteer). After they found out who was who they would take the learner in one room, then proceed to strap the learner to a chair with

Each subject was then assigned to a group; high vulnerability, low vulnerability, the presence of a false incriminating witness, and the absence of a false incriminating witness. After the subject was given a group, they were introduced to a female confederate. The use of a confederate is a way to manipulate with control. To throw the subject off, they were asked to fill out a short questionnaire all about their typing capabilities. In a private room, in the experimenter sat down with the subject and confederate.

When asking a student do they think cheating is bad most will say yes and will even admit to cheating.Cheating doesn’t affect many students on a regular day basis until they have been caught red-handed.When it comes to cheating blame automatically goes to the student but what about the adult as well.Some teachers have admitted to seeing student cheat but haven't said anything because it was on homework.Some teachers have even gone to the depth of helping a student cheat on a test.There was a survey that was taken through all of the high schools asking students if they had ever cheated on a test, the results were that there were 64 percent who cheated,58 who plagiarised, and above all 95 percent of them admitted to cheating of some sort.(Academic Integrity Under Statistics paragraph 3 )Students cheat to make it through a semester and to make their parents proud.Students cheat simply because of lack of knowledge, pressure from the adult looking for them to do their best, and last lack of time.

In Cait Rohan’s article, “Cheating the System,” she argues that students will cheat because they believe it is the only way they can receive high grades and pass the course. Rohan states, “The root of the problem lies in the pressure they feel to succeed at any cost”(Rohan 2). She explains that students will do anything in order to pass and be

H1: The proportion of business students at Bay View University who were involved in some type of cheating is less than that of non-business students at other institutions.

Three individuals were involved in his experiment: The subject of the experiment (volunteer), a confederate pretending to be a volunteer, and

He asked a list of questions to help understand why the subject did what he did. Participants responded generally in one of three ways. One way that they explained their actions was by blaming the “experimenter” or the “student.” Either way they justified their actions by shifting the blame. Another way that participants responded to the experiment was by blaming themselves. They were harsh on themselves and felt badly about what they had done. The last response was given by those who rebelled against the “experimenter.” They claimed that there were obvious ethical issues at play and that they were not going to harm another for the needs of an experiment

As part of a class assignment, students were asked to be a part of an experiment. Fifty-nine females and thirteen males participated in this experiment. The students were taken and put in rooms by themselves and given headphones with a microphone and given instructions. The participants were told that they were to discuss problems that college kids face. They were told that the experimenter would not be listening to the discussion as it was happening. The microphones were set up so that only one was on at a time. They would switch participants every two minutes, so everyone would get a chance to speak and comment. Three different groups were used in this experiment. A group was either just the subject and the victim confederate or a group with either one or four other confederates other than the victim. The other confederates were actually just

While the problem of cheating has persisted in higher education, the perceived seriousness of cheating continues to change (McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Stephens, Young, & Calabrese, 2007). Notably, students with higher moral development levels view cheating more seriously than those with lower moral development levels (Leming, 1978; Semerci, 2006). While the process of going to college promotes students' moral development (King & Mayhew, 2002) and higher moral development levels correlate to lower incidences of cheating (Leming, 1978), determining the relationship between the two is necessary. Prior research has demonstrated a positive relationship between higher moral development levels and lower cheating incidences; however, most data is more than 30 years old (Leming, 1978).

Results of the analysis show that on average. Half of the students do cheat in some form (males appear to have a higher tendency to cheat than females.)To check this, the dean would do well to make the examination process stricter. The hypothesis results however show some encouraging news. The cheating episodes appear to be less at this university than at other institutions. The dean may therefore make an attempt to create awareness against cheating so that students can become more