for brilliant answer

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udbh20

Download by: [Washington State University Libraries ] Date: 18 December 2017, At: 12:19

Deviant Behavior

ISSN: 0163-9625 (Print) 1521-0456 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udbh20

College Cheating Thirty Years Later: The Role of Academic Entitlement

Beverly L. Stiles, Newman Chun Wai Wong & Emily E. LaBeff

To cite this article: Beverly L. Stiles, Newman Chun Wai Wong & Emily E. LaBeff (2017): College Cheating Thirty Years Later: The Role of Academic Entitlement, Deviant Behavior, DOI: 10.1080/01639625.2017.1335520

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1335520

Published online: 25 Jul 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 92

View related articles

View Crossmark data

College Cheating Thirty Years Later: The Role of Academic Entitlement Beverly L. Stiles, Newman Chun Wai Wong, and Emily E. LaBeff

Sociology Department, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, Texas, USA

ABSTRACT This research reports on a thirty-year follow-up study of academic dishon- esty, often referred to as college cheating. The present study examines the role of academic entitlement as a predictor of college cheating. A sense of entitlement is regarded as a primary characteristic of today’s millennial students, those born between 1980 and 2000. However, previous research has never investigated the role of academic entitlement on college cheat- ing. Instead, previous research has mostly favored neutralization as a the- oretical explanation for academic dishonesty. The results indicate that, even though reports of college cheating have decreased over time, academic entitlement is a significant predictor of cheating in college.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 28 February 2017 Accepted 7 April 2017

The purpose of this study is to broaden the understanding of the predictors of academic dishonesty among today’s college students. It is a continuation of a project that began in the early 1980s in an attempt to understand undergraduate cheating, and it reports on data collected in 1984, 1994, 2004, and 2014. We know of no other research on college cheating that has used the same, or modified, questionnaire to monitor academic dishonesty at the same institution over four decades (previous studies include: Diekhoff et al. 1996; Diekhoff, LaBeff, Shinohara, and Yasukawa 1999; Haines et al. 1986; LaBeff et al. 1990; Vandehey, Diekhoff, and LaBeff 2005). In this thirty-year follow-up, traditional explanatory variables, including neutralization, are exam- ined. However, the major purpose of this paper is to examine the role of academic dishonesty among millennial students who, as a cohort, possess generational characteristics likely to promote college cheating.

In 2004, 57.4% of students admitted to cheating during their time at the university. This compares to 54.1% in 1984 and 61.2% in 1994 (Diekhoff et al. 1996; Haines et al. 1986; Vandehey et al. 2005). In 1994, there was a significant increase in reported cheating which suggested that academic dishonesty was on the rise, but the numbers declined in 2004 (Vandehey et al. 2005). Similar fluctuations have been noted by McCabe (2012). In our first study in 1984, those students who reported cheating were found to be immature, lacking educational commitment, and used neutra- lization to lessen the stigma of dishonest behavior (Haines et al. 1986). In the subsequent studies, cheaters continued to neutralize more than noncheaters; however, both groups evidenced less neutralizing than the 1984 cohort.

Widespread concern for the moral, ethical, and pedagogical problems associated with cheating has led to a robust and growing body of literature on academic dishonesty, including Donald McCabe’s and colleagues’ work since 1990. McCabe is particularly noted for his multi-campus, multi-year reports (McCabe 1993; McCabe and Bowers 1994; McCabe and Trevino 1996, 2002; McCabe, Trevino, and Butterfield 1999, 2001; McCabe and Pavela 2000; McCabe, 2005). The major conclusions in McCabe’s work are that cheating behaviors develop most often before students get to

CONTACT Beverly L. Stiles [email protected] Sociology Department, Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA. © 2017 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1335520

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

college, that cheating is as common in professional schools as it is in colleges, that a major shift has occurred in attitudes toward cheating as students have become consumers more than scholars, that creating ethical college environments and honor codes matter, and that both individual and con- textual variables affect cheating (McCabe, Butterfield, and Trevino 2012).

In addition to McCabe’s book, at least three other notable books have been published on college student cheating: Academic Integrity in the twenty-first Century (Gallant 2008), Cheating in School (Davis, Drinan, and Gallant 2009), and Cheating Lessons (Lang 2013). All of them add significantly to the literature. The book by Davis et al. (2009) is particularly useful in providing a very thorough review of the literature, including a critical look at the nature and prevalence of student cheating as well a thorough review of various explanations for cheating.

Researchers continue to report concern for the high incidence of academic dishonesty. Even health-related disciplines that routinely emphasize ethical standards report concern over increasing rates of cheating behavior (Austin, Simpson, and Reynen 2005; Baldwin et al. 1996; Muhney et al. 2008). The predictors of academic dishonesty are numerous (for thorough reviews of the literature see Davis, Drinan, and Gallant 2009; Hsiao 2015). One persistent finding is that those who engage in cheating adopt neutralizing attitudes to justify their cheating behavior (McCabe 1992).

Sykes and Matza (1957) first developed the concept of neutralization to explain delinquent behavior in which behavior is situationally defined. Through various techniques of neutralization, individuals justify their violation of accepted norms to protect themselves from self-blame or the blame of others. Individuals may profess a conviction about a particular norm but argue that special circumstances existed which caused them to violate the norms in a specific instance. According to Sykes and Matza (1957), norm-violators use neutralization before, during, and after the act. Denial of responsibility, such as claiming there was too much work required, was found to be the most commonly used neutralization in several studies (LaBeff et al. 1990; McCabe 1992; Storch and Storch 2002). Neutralizing attitudes were employed because students still felt that cheating was wrong. Students placed emphasis on intrinsic values and the value of learning. That is, students emphasized academic achievements for the sake of achieving a valid and valued education.

Changes began to occur in the 1990s. According to Lang (2013), academics began placing an emphasis on testing in the 1990s. This meant that instead of intrinsic values of education, we began to see a shift toward the placement of values on extrinsic rewards; grades or an achievement focus (McCabe et al. 2012). Thus, a cultural shift has taken place in academics. Not surprisingly, findings on cheating behavior indicated that both cheaters and noncheaters evidenced less neutralizing over the years. Researchers have assumed that academic dishonesty has become so normative that it is no longer viewed by students as a deviant behavior that needs justification (Diekhoff et al. 2005; McCabe et al. 2012). An even more plausible explanation involves understanding cultural changes that involve age cohorts, or generations. This is important because age cohorts share similar cultural experiences and values based on their ages (Taylor 2016). One would expect that as education experiences a cultural shift, evidence of its effect on students would soon be apparent.

Millennials and academic entitlement

A significant number of students in college today are members of the millennial generation, those born between 1980 and 2000. At about 80 million strong, they have overtaken Baby Boomers as the largest generation in American history (Rickes 2009; Stein 2013; Taylor 2013). Much has been written about this generation’s digital connectedness, crisis of unmet expectations, and narcissism. Examine any list of recent non-fiction books and many will be about the millennial generation’s effects on education, business, politics, diversity, and jobs. Twenge (2013) described millennial college students as overconfident with unrealistically high expectations, having strong desires to achieve, having high self-esteem and reported narcissism, studying fewer hours, and being unwilling to read longer texts.

2 B. L. STILES ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

According to Stein (2013), the effect of narcissism is entitlement. “Academic entitlement is generally defined as preferring to receive more from one’s academic experience than one’s peers and preferring to get more from one’s academic experience than one gives to it” (Miller 2013:655– 656). In other words, academic entitlement (AE) is the perception that one is entitled to higher grades than earned, regardless of one’s ability or how much one studied or prepared for an exam or course requirement (Miller 2013). “Student entitlement, at its core, indicates that on some level students believe they are entitled to or deserving of certain goods and services to be provided by their institutions and professors, something that is outside of the students’ actual performance or responsibilities inside the classroom” (Singleton-Jackson, Jackson, and Reinhardt 2010:344). Students believe that they are entitled to a degree. Therefore, by its very definition, entitlement threatens the integrity of the educational process.

Singleton-Jackson et al. (2010) approached the understanding of entitlement by examining millennials as a cohort. While they did not examine cheating behavior among students, they did examine their impact on higher education and their entitled behaviors. They found that “accessi- bility” and “attention to the student” were perceived as more important characteristics of professors than actual teaching behaviors. Therefore, students operate from a consumer orientation model. “Academic entitlement is generally defined as preferring to receive more from one’s academic experience than one’s peers and preferring to get more from one’s academic experience than one gives to it” (Miller 2013:655–656).

Today’s millennial students insist more often than previous generations that they are rewarded unfairly regardless of their effort or contribution, and they are sometimes perceived by employers, co- workers, and teachers as more entitled than previous generations (Stout 2000; Twenge 2006; Twenge et al. 2008a, 2008b; Twenge et al. 2010). Stout (2000) suggested that the lowering of educational standards has given rise to an entire generation of young persons who demand high grades for low performance and who are unhappy when their expectations regarding grades are unmet.

The current study is informed both by the literature on academic dishonesty and by the literature on the characteristics of millennials as it pertains to AE. Specifically, we investigate the role that AE plays in predicting college cheating. We hypothesize that a sense of AE leads to cheating in college. We seek to test AE as an independent predictor while controlling on the many other variables associated with cheating in college, including neutralization. Prior research suggested that the use of neutralization techniques had decreased over the years, but remained a significant predictor. These studies suggested that academic dishonesty had basically become normative and was no longer viewed as a deviant behavior that needed justification (Diekhoff et al. 1996; Haines et al. 1986; McCabe et al. 2012; Vandehey et al. 2005). We hypothesize that neutralization will remain a significant predictor of college cheating.

Methodology

Sample

The sample of participants included 506 undergraduate students attending a southern, state-sup- ported college of approximately 6,000 students. Of the 506 students in the sample, 66.8% were female (n = 338), and 32.2% were male (n = 168). Ages ranged from 18 to 59, with a mean age of 22.3. The sample consisted of 47.2% freshmen (n = 239), 22.9% sophomores (n = 116), 14.2% juniors (n = 72), and 15.6% seniors (n = 79). The majority of respondents were Caucasian (53.3%, n = 280), with 20.8% African American (n = 105), 15.4% were Hispanic (n = 78), 4.3% were Caribbean (n = 22), and 4.2% were Native American and Asian (n = 21). The sample consisted of 12.5% who were members of a fraternity or sorority (n = 63) and 10.9% participated in varsity sports (n = 55). There were only 11.9% married (n = 60). The majority of respondents worked (53.2%, n = 269) as well as attended college fulltime (91.1%, n = 461).

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 3

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

Procedure

Lower-level classes in the university’s core curriculum were sampled and consisted of such classes as introductory sociology, history, and psychology. We also sampled some online classes. Therefore, participants were expected to be fairly representative of the campus. Data were collected through the use of an online survey. Participation was voluntary although some students received extra credit in their class for their participation. Data on cheating behavior and attitudes were collected using a modified survey on academic dishonesty developed by Haines et al. (1986). This survey has also been used, in whole or part, in many other college cheating investigations (Brent and Atkisson 2011; Curasi 2013; Diekhoff et al, 1996; May and Loyd 1993; McCrink 2010; Pulvers 1997; Smith, Davy, and Easterling 2004).

Variables

The models to be tested specified the effect of AE on a four-item cheating variable after controlling for a number of variables that might be related to both AE and cheating, and so might render the relationship spurious. The means and standard deviations of the study variables are reported in Appendix 1.

Dependent variable. College Cheating, also known as Academic Dishonesty, is measured by adding self-reported affirmative responses to the following questions, the responses of which reflect their experiences at the current university:

1. Have you ever cheated on a major exam? 2. Have you ever cheated on a daily or weekly quiz? 3. Have you ever cheated on a class assignment (i.e. term paper, lab assignment, homework

assignment, etc.)? 4. Have you ever helped someone else cheat?

Therefore, college cheating is measured as a continuous variable ranging from low to high cheating, with a range from 0 to 4; 0 = no, 1 = yes. The previous cheating scale did not include the last item, “Have you ever helped someone else cheat?” The inter-item reliability for the enhanced cheating variable is excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = .83). The frequencies and percentages for each item of the cheating variable are reported in Appendix 2.

Independent variables. The independent variable of interest is the presence of academic entitlement (AE). This is the tendency to believe that one should receive certain positive academic outcomes (e.g., high grades or a degree) without taking personal responsibility for one’s success and often independent of one’s performance (Kopp et al. 2011). AE has not previously been tested as a predictor of college cheating. AE is measured by using a six-item subset of a fifteen-item AE scale used by Greenberger et al. (2008). The following six-item subset of questions is used because these questions pertain specifically to course grades and testing:

1. If I have explained to my professor that I am trying hard, I think he/she should give me some consideration with respect to my course grade.

2. If I have completed most of the reading for a class, I deserve a B in the class. 3. If I have attended most classes of a course, I deserve at least a grade of B. 4. Teachers often give me lower grades than I deserve on paper assignments. 5. Professors who won’t let me take an exam at a different time because of my personal plans

are too strict. 6. Teachers often give me lower grades than I deserve on exams.

4 B. L. STILES ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

AE is measured as a continuous variable ranging from low to high entitlement, with a range from 0 to 6; 0 = no endorsement of AE attitudes (Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses), 1 = yes to AE attitudes (Strongly Agree and Agree responses). The inter-item reliability for the AE variable is good (Cronbach’s alpha = .64).

Control Variables. To test for possible spurious relationships between college cheating and AE, we controlled on several variables that either might be related to the present study or other causal variables that have previously been shown to be related to college cheating. First, we control on neutralization, that is, the tendency to justify or rationalize cheating. This is based on Sykes and Matza’s (1957) concept of neutralization as a cognitive strategy for reducing guilt and social stigma associated with deviant behavior. One persistent finding over the last four decades is that those who engage in cheating adopt neutralizing attitudes to justify their behavior. Neutralization is measured by an 11-item measure:

1. The course material is too hard; no matter how much he studies, he can’t understand it. 2. He is in danger of losing his scholarship due to low grades. 3. He doesn’t have time to study because he is working to pay for school. 4. The instructor doesn’t seem to care if he learns the material. 5. The instructor acts like his/her course is the only one he is taking; too much material is

assigned. 6. His cheating isn’t hurting anyone. 7. Everyone else in the room seems to be cheating. 8. The people sitting around him made no attempt to cover their papers and he could see the

answers. 9. His friend asked him to help him/her cheat and he couldn’t say no.

10. The instructor left the room to talk to someone during the test. 11. The course is required for his degree but the information seems useless. He is only

interested in the grade.

Neutralization is measured as a continuous variable ranging from low to high neutralization, with a range from 0 to 11; 0 = no endorsement of neutralization (Strongly Disagree and Disagree responses), 1 = yes to supporting neutralization (Strongly Agree and Agree responses). The inter- item reliability for the neutralization variable is excellent (Cronbach’s alpha = .84).

Second, a relationship between college cheating and AE might be affected by the fact that these are college students who may know how they are supposed to respond to be viewed favorably by others. This becomes problematic when the tendency is to over-report desirable or good behaviors/ attitudes or under-report bad or undesirable behaviors/attitudes, thus contaminating self-report data. The Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (shortened version) is measured by an eight- item measure reflecting the tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner (Crowne and Marlowe 1960). This is a continuous variable ranging from low to high social desirability, with a range from 0 to 8; 0 = no for each of the following items, 1 = yes for each of the following items:

1. Have there been occasions when you took advantage of someone? 2. Have you sometimes taken unfair advantage of another person? 3. Are you always willing to admit when you make a mistake? 4. Are you quick to admit making a mistake 5. Do you sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget? 6. Do you sometimes feel resentful when you don’t get your own way? 7. Are you always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable? 8. Are you always a good listener, no matter whom you are talking to?

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 5

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

Gender was coded as female = 0, male = 1. Previous research on the relationship between gender and cheating has yielded inconsistent results. Some studies have found that males are more likely to report cheating than are females (Davis et al. 1992; Hensley, Kirkpatrick, and Burgoon 2013; Michaels and Miethe 1989). Other researchers, however, report no gender effect on cheating per se, but point to gender differences in the variables that affect college cheating (Tibbetts 1999). Furthermore, gender is related to AE in that college males are higher on AE than are college females (Ciani, Summers, and Easter 2008). Race/ethnicity was measured in terms of four dummy variables: “black,” “Caribbean,” “Hispanic,” and “Native American and Asian,” with “White” as the omitted category. We have included Caribbean students as a category because International students have been found to engage in more academic dishonesty (Ercegovac and Richardson 2004; Park 2003), and we have a sizable percentage (4%) of students from the Caribbean, the largest percentage of international students on campus. Age was measured by asking students to fill in their age as of their last birthday. Age was therefore measured as a continuous variable from 18 to 59, with a mean of 22.3. Older, more mature, students have been found to report less college cheating than younger, less mature, students (Haines et al. 1986; Miller, Shoptaugh, and Parkerson 2008; Straw 2002). Marital status was coded nonmarried = 0, married = 1. Full-time status was coded as 0 = no, 1 = yes. Rank was measured in terms of three dummy variables: “Sophomore,” “Junior,” and “Senior,” with first- year as the omitted category. Some research has found Juniors to be less likely to cheat than first- or second-year students (Brown 2002; Szabo and Underwood 2004). Work status was coded as non- working = 0, working = 1. Fraternity and Sorority membership was coded as 0 = no, 1 = yes. Membership in Greek organizations has been positively related to college cheating (Vandehey et al. 2005). Athletic participation (varsity sports) was coded 0 = no, 1 = yes. Participation in athletics has also been positively related to college cheating (Storch and Storch 2002; Vandehey et al. 2005).

Analysis

We first ran the correlation between AE and neutralization. The correlation was .238. Therefore, the two measures were unique enough to be examined as separate measures. The model was estimated by Ordinary Least Squares Regression (OLS), because the dependent variable is con- tinuous. OLS provides an indication of how well the model fits the data. The analysis was conducted by using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). The model was estimated in which the independent variable of interest, a 6-item measure of AE, and the control variables predicted college cheating.

Results

Table 1 presents the results of the OLS regression results in which AE and the control variables predict college cheating. All are one-tailed tests for the maximum likelihood estimates. As the results indicate, AE, the independent variable of interest, is a significant predictor of cheating in college. As AE increases so does academic cheating in college.

As expected, several other variables were related to the dependent variable. For example, neu- tralization remains a significant predictor of college cheating. When compared to first-year students, those who are Juniors in college are significantly more likely to engage in academic cheating. While students ranking as Seniors in college did not reach the level of significance, Seniors did approach significance at .06. Those who participate in sororities and fraternities are significantly more likely to cheat in college. The same is true for those involved in varsity sports.

As age increases, the less likely one is to engage in college cheating. Caribbean students are less likely than the omitted category to engage in college cheating. Gender was not a significant predictor of college cheating, nor was being married, attending school part-time, or working.

As indicated in Appendix 2, students reported the highest percentage of cheating on class assignments such as term papers, lab assignments, or homework assignments (34.2%, n = 173).

6 B. L. STILES ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

This was closely followed by helping someone else cheat (31.4%, n = 159). On daily or weekly quizzes, 28.9% (n = 146) reported cheating. The least amount of cheating occurred on major exams (15.4%, n = 78). The percentage of student’s reporting cheating in the present study is 46.84%.

Discussion and conclusion

This article has attempted to contribute to research on college cheating by examining the relation- ship between characteristics of millennials and cheating in college. In particular, we have examined the relationship between AE as a characteristic of millennials and college cheating. Previous research on academic dishonesty has mostly favored neutralization as a theoretical explanation for college cheating and has not examined AE as an important indicator of academic dishonesty.

Our results support the hypothesized relationship between AE and college cheating. AE is significantly related to participants’ reports of cheating on major exams, weekly quizzes, class assignments (term papers, lab assignments, homework assignments), and helping others to cheat.

Entitlement is a primary characteristic associated with today’s millennial cohort, those born between 1980 and 2000 (Rickes 2009; Stein 2013; Taylor 2013). While never before examined in association with college cheating, a sense of entitlement, or “the expectation of special privileges over others and special exemptions from normal social demands” (Raskin and Terry 1988:890), along with the expectations of high rewards for modest effort (Stein 2013; Miller 2013), provides a theoretically sound explanation for cheating behavior among today’s millennial students. Although Greenberger et al. pondered the association between cheating and entitlement, “It would be inter- esting to know [. . .] whether academically-entitled students are more likely than others to engage in dishonest practices to enhance their GPAs” (2008:1194), she and her colleagues never tested the relationship.

Our research affirms the fact that academically-entitled students are indeed more likely than others to engage in such dishonest practices as cheating in college. Perhaps it is indeed an effort to enhance their GPAs or perhaps it goes even deeper. Millennials have been the center of attention by very involved parents and have consistently been told that they are special and can do anything they want. The school system reinforced the messages that parents were telling children. A consistent

Table 1. OLS regressions of academic entitlement on cheating.

Explanatory Variables B SE B β

Academic Entitlement 0.103 0.040 0.117* Neutralization 0.100 0.033 0.134** Age −0.036 0.012 −0.173** Male 0.024 0.132 0.008 Race1

African American −0.305 0.164 −0.086 Caribbean −1.063 0.311 −0.151** Hispanic 0.039 0.175 0.010 Native American and Asian 0.236 0.306 0.033

Married −0.136 0.228 −0.031 Classification2

Sophomore 0.083 0.157 0.024 Junior 0.398 0.198 0.097* Senior 0.368 0.200 0.093

Enrolled Part-Time −0.024 0.228 −0.005 Employed −0.053 0.131 −0.019 Greek Participation 0.551 0.189 0.127** Student Athlete 0.745 0.204 0.162*** Social Desirability 0.038 0.040 0.040 Intercept 1.254 0.348 R2 0.169 N 506

Reference groups: 1. White; 2. First-year. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 7

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

message was that achievement was paramount. Millennials knew they had to achieve and to be smart (Greenberger 2008; Raines 2015; Stein 2013). However, what happens when one’s rewards, or grades, do not measure up to expectations of oneself or parents, and one resorts to engaging in the deviant behavior of cheating to get the grade? What happens is that students engage in justifications, or neutralizations, to excuse their behavior.

Sykes and Matza (1957) are credited for the concept of techniques of neutralization to explain the various strategies that people employ to justify or excuse behavior considered deviant by the larger society. These justifications serve to protect the individual from self-blame or the blame of others. In addition to finding that AE is significantly related to participants’ reports of cheating, we also found support for the hypothesized relationship between neutralization and college cheating. Neutralization is significantly related to participants’ reports of cheating on major exams, weekly quizzes, class assignments (term papers, lab assignments, homework assignments), and helping others to cheat. This is not surprising given the persistent finding over the last four decades that those who engage in cheating adopt neutralizing attitudes to justify their behavior. What this means is that even millennials, who feel academically entitled, still perceive cheating to be wrong. Otherwise, there would be no need to engage in neutralizing behavior.

Several other control variables were also significantly related to cheating in college. Although previous research has found Juniors to be less likely to cheat than first- or second-year students (Brown 2002; Szabo and Underwood 2004), our findings indicate that Juniors are significantly more likely to cheat than the omitted category (first-year students). We can only speculate that it is at the third-year point when courses and requirements begin to become more difficult. Just as expected, as age increases, the less likely one is to engage in college cheating. Previous research has consistently found support for age and maturity as factors in cheating. The Young cheat more often than mature students (Diekhoff et al. 1994; Haines et al. 1986; Straw 2002). Caribbean students were significantly less likely than White students to report cheating in college. This is contrary to previous research that found a high level of academic dishonesty among international students (Amsberry 2010). Much of the explanation for this dishonesty surrounds differences in cultural expectations and deficiencies in language (Ercegovac and Richardson 2004; Flowerdew and Li 2007). Furthermore, there are variations between countries surveyed, including differences between beliefs about cheating between countries (Diekhoff et al. 1999; Lupton 2000). However, Caribbean students have been found to possess what is referred to as a more generalized self-efficacy. Those who possess this self-efficacy have a greater ability to see their academic achievement as challenging, as well as to stay focused and to maintain a supportive academic environment (Stubbs and Maynard 2017). Therefore, this may serve to protect against the likelihood of academic dishonesty. Caribbean students also do not arrive here with deficiencies in language skills, so they are not at an academic disadvantage in this respect. We can also speculate that Caribbean students, who are here on scholarships, do not want to risk losing those scholarships so might be less likely to report cheating. Furthermore, Caribbean students are held to high standards within their campus association, which may further prevent them from admitting to cheating.

Those who participate in sororities and fraternities were significantly more likely to report cheating. This finding has been supported in previous research (Diekhoff et al. 1996; Haines et al. 1986; McCabe and Bowers 1996; Storch and Storch 2002; Vandehey et al. 2007). There is research that indicates that students with active social lives and involved in additional outside activities are more likely to cheat (Straw 2002). This is perhaps explanatory of our finding that those who were involved in varsity sports were also more likely to report cheating.

Although some research finds that males tend to cheat more than females (Straw 2002; Szabo and Underwood 2004), we found no significant difference between males and females. McCabe (2005) contends that the gap once found between males and females has now disappeared. Although previous research (Diekhoff et al. 1996) found that those who cheat are more likely to be single, we found no significant relationship between one’s marital status and academic dishonesty. Like Diekhoff et al. (1996), we did not find a significant relationship between working full-time or part- time and cheating. We controlled on social desirability to make certain that our results were not due

8 B. L. STILES ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

to the tendency of respondents to over-report desirable or good behaviors/attitudes or under-report bad or undesirable behaviors/attitudes (Crowne and Marlowe 1960). According to The Marlow- Crowne Social Desirability Scale (1960) results, the desire to present oneself in a socially desirable manner was not significantly related to our findings.

The percentage of students reporting cheating for this fourth follow-up study is intriguing. Our current rate is 46.84% of students admitting to cheating. This is the lowest level of cheating reported over the four decades. The highest level of cheating was reported in 1994 (62.2%). This was thought to mean that academic dishonesty was on the rise, but then the numbers declined in 2004 (57.4%). Therefore, this is the second consecutive study with declining reports of cheating in college. This could actually mean that cheating is on the decline. However, as previously mentioned, similar fluctuations have been noted by McCabe (2012). Even if these findings are evidence of a decline in cheating, versus the “epidemic” as others define this phenomenon, 46.84% of students engaging in cheating in college remains a significant enough problem to threaten the very purpose of attending higher education.

As indicated in Appendix 2, students reported the highest percentage of cheating on class assignments such as term papers, lab assignments, or homework assignments (34.2%, n = 173). These types of assignments are projects that have a reduced risk of being caught. Previous research has found a link between the decision to cheat and the perception of little risk of being caught (McCabe and Trevino 1993, 1996; Buckley, Wiese, and Harvey 1998). Also, the copying or purchas- ing of online term papers is an increasing challenge for universities (Anderson 1999). In fact, online paper mills actually encourage students to purchase the papers they have for sale, as this is their business (DeVoss and Rosati 2002). Plagiarism, as a type of cheating, and also an act of deviance, is such a serious phenomenon that it has been referred to as a “college instructor’s nightmare” and an issue that “threatens the very heart of academia” (McLafferty and Foust 2004:186).

The second largest percentage of cheating involved helping someone else cheat (31.4%, n = 159). As with cheating on class assignments, helping another cheat has a reduced risk of being caught. The category with the third highest percentage of cheating involved cheating on daily or weekly quizzes (28.9%, n = 146). Cheating on daily or weekly quizzes carries a greater risk of being caught since this type of cheating does not involve activities outside of class, but may be perceived as not too risky in terms of embarrassment or punishment. Previous research has found a link between the decision to cheat and the deterrent effect of the possibility of embarrassment or punishment (Diekhoff et al. 1996). The least amount of cheating occurred on major exams (15.4%, n = 78). This makes sense given the importance placed on cheating on major exams and the deterrent effect of one’s perception of the weight of consequences of being caught, including embarrassment as well as the possibility of more stringent punishment (Buckley et al. 1998; Diekhoff et al. 1996; McCabe and Trevino 1993, 1996).

Our research is not without limitations. First, to capture the increased likelihood of millennials to engage in cheating, we tapped into only one characteristic associated with being a millennial, that of entitlement. Although this is a central characteristic of the millennial cohort, there are other important characteristics. The empirical findings reported in this article point to the need for future research on other characteristics associated with millennials. Our future research plans are to investigate those additional characteristics. Second, if as McCabe (2012) indicates, the reporting of cheating has decreased, but cheating remains a problem that students are increasingly reticent to talk about it, we need to find other ways to tap into cheating behavior. We have come so far in terms of exploring other types of deviant behavior that we should be able to further explore academic dishonesty in college in a more accurately measureable way.

Notes on contributors

BEVERLY L. STILES has a Ph.D. in Sociology from Texas A&M University, College Station. She teaches courses on deviant behavior, gender, family, consumerism, media, and social psychology at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas. Her current major research interests include sexual minorities, social psychology of deviance, physician-assisted suicide, and disability.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 9

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

NEWMAN CHUN WAI WONG has a M.A. in Sociology from the University of Oklahoma. He is an applied sociologist and works as a Research Analyst in the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas. He has taught courses on introductory sociology and racial and ethnic relations. His research interests include racial and ethnic identity, attitudes and perceptions, organization, culture, social stratification, and institutional effectiveness in higher education

EMILY E. LABEFF has a Ph.D. in Sociology from Texas Tech University. She teaches courses on human sexuality, death and dying, criminology, and sociological theory at Midwestern State University in Wichita Falls, Texas. Her major research interests include cheating in college, college student sexual knowledge, and the delivery of bad news.

References

Amsberry, Dawn. 2010. “Deconstructing Plagiarism: International Students and Textual Borrowing Practices.” The Reference Librarian 51(1):31–44.

Anderson, G.L. 1999. “Cyberplagiarism.” College and Research Libraries News 60(5):371–375. Austin, Zubin, Stephanie Simpson, and Emily Reynen. 2005. “The Lies Not in Our Students, but in Ourselves:

Academic Honesty and Moral Development in Health Professions Education—Results of a Pilot Study in a Canadian Pharmacy.” Teaching in Higher Education 10(2):143–156.

Baldwin, DeWitt C., Steven R. Daugherty, Beverley D. Rowley, and M. Roy Schwartz. 1996. “Cheating in Medical School: A Survey of Second-Year Students at 31 Schools.” Academic Medicine Mar. 7 1(3):267–273.

Brent, Edward, and Curtis Atkisson. 2011. “Accounting for Cheating: An Evolving Theory and Emergent Themes.” Research in Higher Education 52(6):640–658.

Brown, Daryle L. 2002. “Cheating Must Be Okay – Everybody Does It!” Nurse Educator 27(1):6–8. Buckley, M. Ronald, Danielle S. Wiese, and Michael G. Harvey. 1998. “An Investigation into the Dimensions of

Unethical Behavior.” Journal of Education for Business 73(5):284–290. Ciani, Keith D., Jessica J. Summers, and Matthew A. Easter. 2008. “Gender Differences in Academic Entitlement

Among College Students.” The Journal of Genetic Psychology 169(4):332–344. Crowne, Douglas P. and David Marlowe. 1960. “A New Scale of Social Desirability Independent of Psychopathology.”

Journal of Consulting Psychology 24(4):349–354. Curasi, Carolyn F. 2013. “The Relative Influences of Neutralizing Behavior and Subcultural Values on Academic

Dishonesty.” Journal of Education for Business 88:167–175. Davis, Stephen F., Patrick F. Drinan, and Tricia Bertram Gallant. 2009. Cheating in School: What We Know and What

We Can Do. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell. DeVoss, Danielle and Annette C. Rosati. 2002. “ ‘It Wasn’t me, was it?’ Plagiarism and the Web.” Computers and

Composition 19:191–203. Diekhoff, George M., Emily E. LaBeff, Robert E. Clark, Larry E. Williams, and Billy Francis. 1996. “College Cheating:

Ten Years Later.” Research in Higher Education 37(4):487–502. Diekhoff. George M., Emily E. LaBeff, Kohei Shinohara, and Hajime Yasukawa. 1999. “College Cheating in Japan and

The United States.” Research in Higher Education 49(3):343–353. Ercegovac, Zorana and John V. Richardson, Jr. 2004. “Academic Dishonesty, Plagiarism Included, in the Digital Age:

A Literature Review.” College and Research Libraries 65(4):301–318. Flowerdew, John and Yongyan Li. “Plagiarism and Second Language Writing in an Electronic Age.” Annual Review of

Applied Linguistics 27:161–183. Gallant, Tricia Bertram. 2008. Academic Integrity in the Twenty-First Century: A Teaching and Learning Imperative.

San Francisco: John Wiley and Sons. Greenberger, Ellen, Jared Lessard, Chen Chuansheng, and Susan P. Farruggia. 2008. “Self-Entitled College Students:

Contributions of Personality, Parenting, and Motivational Factors.” Journal of Youth Adolescence 37:1193–1204. Haines, Valerie J., George M. Diekhoff, Emily E. LaBeff, and Robert E. Clark. 1986. “College Cheating: Immaturity,

Lack of Commitment, and the Neutralizing Attitude.” Research in Higher Education 25:342–354. Hsiao, Chun-Hua. 2015. “Impact of Ethical and Affective Variables on Cheating: Comparison of Undergraduate

Students With and Without Jobs.” Higher Education 69:55–77. Hensley, L. C., K. M. Kirkpatrick, and J. M. Burgoon. 2013. “Relation of Gender, Course Enrollment, and Grades to

Distinct Forms of Academic Dishonesty.” Teaching in Higher Education 18(8):895–907. Kopp, Jason P., Tracy E. Zinn, Sara J. Finney, and Daniel P. Jurich. 2011. “The Development and Evaluation of the

Academic Entitlement Questionnaire.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 44 (2):105–129.

LaBeff, Emily E., Robert E. Clark, Valerie, J. Haines, and George M. Diekhoff. 1990. “Situational Ethics and College Cheating.” Sociological Inquiry 60(2):190–198.

Lang, James M. 2013. Cheating Lessons: Learning from Academic Dishonesty. New York: Harvard University Press.

10 B. L. STILES ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

Lupton, Robert A., Kenneth J. Chapman, and John E. Weiss. 2000. “A Cross-National Exploration of Business Students’ Attitudes, Perceptions and Tendencies Toward Academic Dishonesty.” Journal of Education for Business 75(4):231–235.

May, Kathleen and Brenda H. Loyd. 1993. “Academic Dishonesty: The Honor System and Students’ Attitudes. Journal of College Student Development 34:125–129.

McCabe, Donald L. 1992. “The Influence of Situational Ethics on Cheating Among College Students.” Sociological Inquiry 62:365–374.

McCabe, Donald L. 2002. “Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences on Academic Integrity: A Replication and Extension to Modified Honor Code Settings.” Research in Higher Education 43:357–378.

McCabe, Donald L. 2005. “Cheating Among College and University Students: A North American Perspective.” International Journal of Educational Integrity 1(1):1–11.

McCabe, Donald L., and Linda K. Trevino. 1993. “Academic Dishonesty: Honor Codes and Other Contextual Influences.” Journal of Higher Education 64:522–538.

McCabe, Donald L., and Linda K. Trevino. 1996. “What We Know About Cheating in College.” Change 28:28–35. McCabe, Donald L. and William J. Bowers. 1994. “Academic Dishonesty Among Males in College: A Thirty Year

Perspective.” Journal of College Student Development 35:5–10. McCabe, Donald L. and Patrick Drinan. 1999 (October 15). “Toward a Culture of Academic Integrity.” The Chronicle

of Higher Education 46(8), B7. McCabe, Donald L. and Gary Pavela. 2000. “Some Good News about Academic Integrity.” Change 33:32–38. McCabe, Donald, L., Linda K. Trevino, and Kenneth D. Butterfield. 2001. “Cheating in Academic Institutions: A

Decade of Research.” Ethics and Behavior 11:219–232. McCabe, Donald L., Kenneth D. Butterfield, and Linda K. Trevino. 2012. Cheating in College: Why Students Do it and

What Educators Can Do About it. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. McLafferty, Charles M. and Karen M. Foust. 2004. “Electronic Plagiarism as a College Instructor’s Nightmare—

Prevention and Detection.” Journal of Education for Business 79(3):186–189. McCrink, Andrea. 2010. “Academic Misconduct in Nursing Students: Behaviors, Attitudes, Rationalizations, and

Cultural Identity.” Journal of Nursing Education 49(1):653–659. Michaels, James W. and Terance D. Miethe. 1989. “Applying Theories of Deviance to Academic Cheating.” Social

Science Quarterly 70(4):870–885. Miller, Arden, Carol Shoptaugh, and Jessica Wooldridge. 2011. “Reasons Not to Cheat, Academic Integrity

Responsibility, and Frequency of Cheating.” The Journal of Experimental Education 79:169–184. Miller, Brian K. 2013. “Measurement of Academic Entitlement.” Psychological Reports: Sociocultural Issues in

Psychology 113(2):654–674. Muhney, Kelly A., Marylou E. Gutmann, Emet D. Schneiderman, and Patricia R. Campbell. 2008. “The Prevalence of

Academic Dishonesty in Texas Dental Hygiene Programs.” Journal of Dental Education 7(11):1247–1260. Park, Chris. 2003. “In Other (People’s) Words: Plagiarism by University Students—Literature and Lessons.”

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28(5):471–488. Pulvers, Kim. 1997. “The Relationship Between Academic Dishonesty and College Classroom Environment.”

Unpublished master’s thesis. Midwestern State University, Wichita Falls, TX. Raines, Claire. 2015 (March 27). “Millennials at Work.” Retrieved February 17, 2017 (http://www.generationsatwork.

com/?s=millennials). Raskin, Robert, and Howard Terry. 1988. “A Principal-Components Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory

and Further Evidence for its Construct Validity.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54:890–902. Rickes, Persis.C. 2009.“Make Way for Millennials!: How Today’s Students Are Shaping Higher Education Space.”

Planning for Higher Education 37:7–17. Singleton-Jackson, J.A., D.L. Jackson, J. Reinhardt. 2010. “Students as Consumers of Knowledge: Are They Buying

What We’re Selling?” Innovative Higher Education 35:343–358. Smith, Kenneth J., Jeanette A. Davy, and Debbie Easterling. 2004. “An Examination of Cheating and Its Antecedents

Among Marketing and Management Majors.” Journal of Business Ethics 50:63–80. Stein, Joel. 2013 May. “Millennials: The Me Me Me Generation.” Time Magazine 26–34. Storch, Eric A., and Jason B. Storch. 2002. “Fraternities, Sororities, and Academic Dishonesty.” College Student Journal

36(2):247–252. Stout, Moureen 2000. The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing Down of American’s Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem.

Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing. Straw, Deborah. 2002. “The Plagiarism of Generation “Why Not?” Community College Week 14(24):4–7. Stubbs, Nicora, and Donna-Maria Maynard. 2017. “Academic Self-Efficacy, School Engagement and Family

Functioning, Among Postsecondary Students in the Caribbean.” Journal of Child and Family Studies 26(3):792–799. Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza. 1957. “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.” American

Sociological Review 22(6):664–670. Szabo, Attila, and Jean Underwood. 2004. “Cybercheats: Is Information and Communication Technology Fueling

Academic Dishonesty?” Active Learning in Higher Education 5(2):180–199.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR 11

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17

Taylor, Paul. 2013. The Next America: Boomers, Millennials, and the Looming Generational Showdown. Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

Tibbets, Stephen G. 1999. “Differences Between Women and Men Regarding Decisions to Commit Test Cheating.” Research in Higher Education 40(3):323–342.

Twenge, Jean M. 2006. Generation Me: Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—And More Miserable Than Ever Before. New York: Free Press.

Twenge, Jean M., Sara Konrath, Joshua D. Foster, W. Keith Campbell, and Brad J. Bushman. 2008a. “Further Evidence of an Increase in Narcissism Among College Students.” Journal of Personality 76(4):919–928.

Twenge, Jean M. Sara Konrath, Joshua D. Foster, W. Keith Campbell, and Brad J. Bushman. 2008b. “Egos Inflating Over Time: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory.” Journal of Personality 76 (4):1467–1494.

Twenge, Jean M., Stacy M. Campbell, Brian J. Hoffman, Charles E. Lance. 2010. “Generational Differences in Work Values: Leisure and Extrinsic Values Increasing, Social and Instrinsic Values Decreasing.” Journal of Management 36(5):1117–1142.

Twenge, Jean M. 2013. “The Evidence for Generation Me and Against Generation We.” State of the Field 1(1):11–16. Vandehey, Michael A., George M. Diekhoff, and Emily E. LaBeff. 2007. “College Cheating: A Twenty-Year Follow-Up

and the Addition of an Honor Code.” Journal of College Student Development 48(4):462–480.

Appendix 1. Descriptive Statistics

Appendix 2. Descriptive Statistics of Dependent Variable Items (N = 506)

Explanatory Variables Mean Range SD

Cheating 1.099 0–4 1.434 Academic Entitlement 2.170 0–6 1.633 Neutralization 0.937 0–11 1.920 Age 22.322 18–59 6.896 Male 0.332 0–1 0.471 Race White 0.553 0–1 0.498 African American 0.208 0–1 0.406 Caribbean 0.044 0–1 0.204 Hispanic 0.154 0–1 0.362 Native American and Asian 0.042 0–1 0.200

Married 0.119 0–1 0.324 Classification First-year 0.472 0–1 0.500 Sophomore 0.229 0–1 0.421 Junior 0.142 0–1 0.350 Senior 0.156 0–1 0.363

Enrolled Part-Time 0.089 0–1 0.285 Employed 0.532 0–1 0.499 Greek Participation 0.125 0–1 0.330 Student Athlete 0.109 0–1 0.312 Social Desirability 4.763 0–8 1.507

Reported Yes to the following items Frequency Percentage

Have you ever cheated on a major exam? 78 15.4 Have you ever cheated on a daily or weekly quiz? 146 28.9 Have you ever cheated on a class assignment (i.e. term paper, lab assignment, homework assignment.)?

173 34.2

Have you ever helped someone else cheat? 159 31.4

12 B. L. STILES ET AL.

D ow

nl oa

de d

by [

W as

hi ng

to n

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y L

ib ra

ri es

] a

t 12

:1 9

18 D

ec em

be r

20 17