The "Deliberative Process" of Misconduct

Plus, Call of Duty. Plus, iPhone Cheating. Plus, International Quick Bites.

Issue 64

Research: Rationalization is Key to Cheating Behavior

New, outstanding research by scholars Kenneth J. Smith and David J. Emerson of Salisbury University (MD) and Shawn Mauldin of Mississippi State University found alarmingly high usage of inappropriate “homework help” sites (see Issue 62).

But the larger contribution of their work is in analyzing student mindsets and motivations for academic misconduct - specifically, accessing illicit homework assistance sites - and reviewing the decisions and rationalizations in the context of personality traits and fraud.

If you’re interested in why students cheat, the report is a must read.

The research is survey-based, gathering results from 209 accounting majors at public universities in the United States. Most notably, it provides more evidence that cheating is most often a calculated, considered and deliberative act rather than a misstep based on lack of awareness:

One's motivation to engage in academic misconduct is derived from a deliberative process that evaluates the potential benefits of the act against the probability of being detected, and the severity of the likely penalties.

Importantly, they add that:

The ability to rationalize academic misconduct is the critical piece linking opportunities and motivations

Further, the researchers find evidence that psychological makeup is a major factor in whether students decide to cheat:

efforts to deter scholastic cheating will have varying degrees of effectiveness depending on the students' psychological predisposition

Moreover, the researchers wrote:

It appears that the elements of the Dark Triad are immutable traits and, like other personality characteristics, are not susceptible to easy alteration (O'Boyle et al., 2012; Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Consequently, we cannot expect to reduce academic misconduct by changing the predisposition of the students but will instead need to alter perceptions related to the elements of the Fraud Diamond to affect the desired result.

Lay-person translation: it’s difficult to change how some students view misconduct, even when - especially when - they know it’s wrong. Therefore, the best results are likely to come from changing the dynamics of the risk/reward calculation.

The authors do not dismiss the power of education but are clear that consequences must be included:

a greater expectation that the misconduct will be detected, coupled with an assumption of a harsh penalty, will likely be reflected in a decrease in motivation to engage in the act

And:

all acts of misconduct should be promptly and severely punished. The failure to do so can establish an environment where students believe that cheating is not taken seriously thereby subtly encouraging it

Or finally:

Students expect that their professors will take active steps to curtail academic fraud, and if they fail to do so the students may feel that academic dishonesty is justifiable

If the idea that students use the absence of serious preventions to justify misconduct sounds familiar, it is. The Dyer, Pettyjohn, Saladin paper from May, 2020 found essentially the same thing:

Results of this study found that students are insistent that the responsibility for mitigating the opportunity for cheating be placed on the institution and the instructor. It is imperative that faculty, staff, and administrators understand that the perceived responsibility of an institution is that unless cheating is being prevented and discussed, the institution is essentially tacitly encouraging it.

More on this Smith, Emerson and Mauldin research to come.

Called Out in “Call of Duty”

According to multiple reports, the supremely popular video game “Call of Duty” has been plagued by cheaters, prompting the game makers to install anti-cheating, game-monitoring technologies.

Game designers dropped something known as kernel-level technology which essentially monitors players and any technologies that try to interact with the game while it’s on. It will “monitor analytics” to “identify cheating” and enhance the investigation process, according to the company.

Though not related to academic integrity directly, this “Call of Duty” development may, nonetheless offer two insights on academic misconduct.

The first is the conventional wisdom that reducing the stakes of assessments will reduce cheating - that high stakes exams equals high pressure and high cheating motivation. I’m not a gamer but it seems to me that any video game is pretty low stakes. And yet, cheating was rampant. The implication can be made that while low stakes situations may mean low pressure, they also mean low risk, low consequence.

The second is that, seeing fraud and cheating were making their game unfair, the company deployed technology - monitoring technology - to detect and stop it. Though different, it’s a similar problem-solution dynamic colleges and universities have taken - using technology to try to enforce fair conduct in an online environment. It will be interesting to see whether the gaming community protests.

New iPhone Feature Can be Used to Cheat

A new feature on the iPhone known as Live Text can be used to turn any photo into savable, shareable text, which multiple news outlets have reported, can be used for academic cheating. According to those news reports, a TikTok video with more than a million views shows iPhone users how to use it to cheat.

Honestly, though it’s “news,” this is not new.

This image-to-text technology is a staple of cheating sites such as Chegg and Photomath - allowing anyone to snap a photo of any problem or question and get a paid answer. Usually within minutes.

It’s a good reminder for teachers though. It does not matter whether your course is in person or online, if students have access to their phones, your lectures, notes, presentations and tests are as good as gone - shared, sold and resold online. Usually within minutes.

International Quick Bites

• The Star, in Malaysia, has a good and deep story about the use of paid essay mills there. “More tertiary students are turning to popular paid services costing as little as S$45 (RM140) to get their essay assignments and exam projects done for them by other people.” That’s about $34 US Dollars.

• Barbados Today has an opinion column about recent cheating incidents in Jamaica. It’s right about several points, saying, “The report suggests that both lecturers and students feel that the culture of cheating is now more widespread and that it extends beyond the actual exams to essay presentations and other work. This should not be surprising.”

• In India, two students were arrested for attempted impersonation during an exam. Yes, arrested. India takes cheating very seriously. Check out the link to see the photo - it’s something.

• Leaders in Wales are calling on the government to expand the forthcoming ban on essay mills in England to cover Wales as well.

Coming Up

Tomorrow - October 20 - is the “Day of Action” against contract cheating. In addition to encouraging institutions and leaders to sign up and spread the word, the International Center for Academic Integrity is hosting a panel on the topic. Details are at the link above.

Also tomorrow, a new podcast on academic intergrity will debut. Called, “The Score,” it’s hosted by education writer Kathryn Baron and the first two episodes - one of them an interview with me - are already online.

In the next “The Cheat Sheet” - a look at new cheating research in Australia. Plus, an American, right-leaning, open market group asks for government action on cheating. Plus, considering misconduct as a learning opportunity.

To share and subscribe: