Current Search: College discipline (x)
-
-
Title
-
Pluralistic ignorance and explicit attitudes on academic cheating in college students and faculty.
-
Creator
-
Hubertz, Martha J., Bjorklund, David F., Monson, Thomas C., Florida Atlantic University, Charles E. Schmidt College of Science, Department of Psychology
-
Abstract/Description
-
Academic integrity essentially centers on an individual’s ethical attitudes and behaviors as well as injunctive norms, or norms that dictate what is socially accepted and lauded. One key influence may be pluralistic ignorance; here arguments for cheating posit that students cheat because they perceive that others are “doing it” to a greater extent than is actually true and thus what they are doing is minimized in relation to others. Research indicates that students perceive cheating as more...
Show moreAcademic integrity essentially centers on an individual’s ethical attitudes and behaviors as well as injunctive norms, or norms that dictate what is socially accepted and lauded. One key influence may be pluralistic ignorance; here arguments for cheating posit that students cheat because they perceive that others are “doing it” to a greater extent than is actually true and thus what they are doing is minimized in relation to others. Research indicates that students perceive cheating as more widespread than it actually is (Hard, Conway, & Moran, 2006). A considerable gap in the research is noted when looking at definitions of what constitutes academic fraud, research has indicated that when students are asked if they have cheated and then given a definition of cheating, their self-reports of cheating increase (Burrus et al., 2007). This indicates that students’ definition of cheating and a universities’ definition of cheating may be incongruent. Participants were 507 members of the Florida Atlantic University community during the 2012-2013 academic year who completed a survey that consisted of items, which centered on self-reported cheating, perceptions of what cheating constitutes, and estimates of cheating prevalence. Results indicate that students reported peer cheating to be higher then self reported cheating, that participants distinguished between five different forms of cheating, and that faculty and students hold differing definitions of cheating. The findings suggest a disconnect between faculty perceptions and definitions of academic integrity and students. This would suggest that greater efforts should to be taken to bring a more uniform operational definition of what constitutes academic dishonesty that universities, faculty, and students can rely on. Second, as a pluralist model of cheating was supported, universities could develop campaigns like those aimed at reducing drinking, hooking up, and increasing women in STEM fields (Lambert, Kahn & Apple, 2003; Mattern & Neighbors, 2004; Muldoon, 2002; Schroder & Prentice, 1998). Research has suggested social norm campaigns targeting pluralistic ignorance can be effective on college campuses. In educating students about what actually happens and the discrepancy between reality and perception, cases of academic dishonesty could be reduced.
Show less
-
Date Issued
-
2015
-
PURL
-
http://purl.flvc.org/fau/fd/FA00004381
-
Subject Headings
-
Cheating (Education), College discipline, College students -- Attitudes, College students -- Conduct of life, Personality assessment, Plagarism, Professional ethics, Social ethics
-
Format
-
Document (PDF)
