Cheating Perceptions and Prevalence Across Academic Settings

Kelly Honz
Ralston High School, Ralston, NE
Kenneth A. Kiewra
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Ya-Shu Yang
University of Connecticut

Abstract
This study investigated high school students’ perceptions of cheating and its prevalence. Students were
administered the Academic Honesty Survey to determine their perceptions and prevalence of cheating
across three academic settings: tests, homework, and report writing. Overall, students had traditional
perceptions of what constitutes cheating. Despite these perceptions, most students cheated. In addition,
cheating perceptions and prevalence varied across academic settings. Perceptions and prevalence declined
going from test to homework to report writing settings. Three other interesting patterns emerged. First,
cheating was tied to effort. Cheating actions that still required students to exert effort were viewed as
less dishonest than those that required little effort. Second, cheating was tied to giving versus receiving.
Giving information was viewed less harshly than receiving it. Last, cheating perceptions were tied to
environment. Cheating behaviors occurring outside the classroom were viewed less harshly than those
occurring inside the classroom.

“Just because you plagiarize, that’s not like cheating,” a The prevalence of cheating now seems particularly
freshman high school student informed his teacher, the first pervasive where digital technology is involved. The rapid
author of this article. The student could define plagiarism, and expansion and development of digital technology has trans-
he described various methods of cheating for tests and other formed academic cheating into “digital cheating.” In a recent
schoolwork, but he simply did not recognize that plagiarism New York Times article, educators and school administrators
is cheating. “Teachers don’t tell you plagiarism is cheating; spoke about how digital forms of academic dishonesty are on
they just tell you not to copy and paste,” he argued. This the rise (Glater, 2006). One possible reason for this increase
conversation led the teacher, in partnership with educational is the huge amount of information that is rapidly accessible
psychologists, to investigate high school students’ percep- via computers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), search
tions about and prevalence of cheating. How many other engines, instant messenger systems, cell phones, and MP3
students have misperceptions about academic dishonesty players/ iPods™. Students are now capable of using these
and how many students actually cheat? systems to plagiarize, take credit for work done by others,
Cheating is a pervasive problem within American high falsify data, and download articles to copy and paste on tests
schools. The topic of student cheating has been researched— and assignments.
both in terms of perceptions and prevalence. In terms of In terms of perceptions about what constitutes cheating
prevalence, most studies report that about 75 percent of and the origin of faulty perceptions, students often blame their
students cheat. Bruggeman (1996) compared prevalence cheating on teachers’ failure to explain cheating adequately
of cheating at secular and parochial schools. He found that (recall the student’s comments at the start) or to enforce aca-
cheating and lying were prevalent at both types of schools, demic honesty (McCabe 1999). Students might be right. Less
with between 70 percent and 80 percent of students engag- cheating occurs when students are taught ethical guidelines
ing in dishonest actions. Somewhat surprisingly, cheating (Ames & Eskridge, 1992; McCabe & Treviño, 1993). And,
was no more prevalent at one type of school than the other. McCabe and colleagues (McCabe, Treviño, & Buttefireld,
Similarly, Whitley (1998) reported that nearly three in four 2001) found that although teachers support academic honesty
students admitted to cheating on academic work. Moreover, policies, they are reluctant to punish cheating. As a result,
McCabe’s (2001) study of 4,500 U.S. schools reported that students witness their peers cheating and getting away with
74 percent of students admitted to cheating on exams and as it. Consequently, they come to perceive cheating as com-
many as 90 percent of students admitted to using the Internet monplace and acceptable.
to plagiarize. According to many commentators, educators, Educators, meanwhile, often attribute cheating to a
and researchers, the phenomenon of cheating has reached fault in students (Anderman & Midgley, 2004). Anderman
“epidemic” proportions (e.g., ABC News Productions, 2004; and Midgley conducted a longitudinal study investigating
McCabe & Stephens, 2006). changes in students’ perceptions of cheating behavior. Results

10 Mid-Western Educational Researcher Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010

showed that cheating increased as students’ transitioned from Instrumentation
middle school to high school and that students’ perceptions
of school and classroom environments were related to their The primary researcher developed the 18-item Academic
cheating behaviors. In particular, perceptions about cheating Honesty Survey (found in Appendix A) for this study in
changed in accordance with the goals that were emphasized conjunction with other high school teachers, an academic
in students’ classrooms and schools. Murdock and Ander- dishonesty researcher, and an expert in survey construction.
man (2006) confirmed that students’ goals are related to In addition, survey construction was guided by literature on
their decisions about cheating behaviors. For example, one academic dishonesty instruments and cheating behaviors
or more of the following goals might influence a student to (e.g., Anderman & Midgley, 2004; Stephens et al., 2007).
cheat: getting a good grade, avoiding looking incompetent, Three preliminary items gathered information about students’
or impressing the teacher or peers. Similarly, Jordan (2001) GPA, weekly employment hours, and weekly extracurricular
believes that students’ perceive cheating as wrong but do participation hours in order to determine if these factors re-
it anyway because they neutralize their moral standards. lated to cheating. These three factors were examined because
Common neutralizing techniques include diffusing respon- of their interrelationship and potential relationship with cheat-
sibility (e.g., “Everyone copies homework assignments ing. Academic achievement is somewhat negatively affected
from friends.”), minimizing consequences (e.g., “Teachers by part-time employment (Singh, 1998) and somewhat posi-
don’t even watch us during the test. I won’t get caught.”), tively affected by extracurricular activities (Marsh, 1992).
and euphemistic labeling (e.g., “It does not count as cheat- Previous research with college students found that cheating
ing because I copied just a few sentences from the Internet was mildly more prominent among those with lower GPAs
source.”) (Stephens, Young, & Calabrese, 2007). and those with greater nonacademic responsibilities (Mc-
Cabe & Treviño, 1997). The main items reflected three main
Although previous research confirms why perceptions facets of schoolwork: taking tests, completing homework,
about cheating might change or be at odds with behaviors, it and writing reports.
does not reveal students’ perceptions about what behaviors
actually constitute cheating. Moreover, existing research Each main item posed a specific scenario and asked two
investigates academic dishonesty as an all-or-nothing be- questions: a) Is this cheating, YES or NO; and b) Estimate
havior when it is possible that students might think and act the number of times you have performed this action as a high
differently about cheating in different academic settings. school student: (1) 0, (2) 1-2, (3) 3-4, or (4) 5+. The first five
For example, a student who believes sharing test answers is items asked students to determine if certain test-taking behav-
dishonest and not do it might believe that sharing homework iors are cheating: (1) glancing at a classmate’s answers, (2)
answers is okay and do it. Moreover, context-specific percep- providing answers, (3) using notes prepared outside class, (4)
tions and behavior might be at odds. For example, students sharing test questions following an exam with someone yet
who perceive that copying test answers is dishonest might to take the exam, and (5) sharing test answers following the
do so nonetheless. Therefore, it is important to measure exam with someone yet to take the exam. The next six items
both cheating perceptions and prevalence across academic related to homework assignments: (6) completing take-home
settings. The present study, then, examined cheating across tests with a partner, (7) copying take-home test answers from
three common academic settings. Students were asked to a classmate, (8) copying a classmate’s homework answers,
gauge their cheating beliefs and actions germane to settings (9) doing individual homework with a partner, (10) giving a
involving testing, homework, and report writing. By evalu- completed assignment to another student, and (11) submitting
ating students’ cheating beliefs and actions across settings, a classmate’s assignment as one’s own work. The last four
educators might better gauge students’ cheating perceptions items pertained to completing a report: (12) basing the paper
and actions, educate students about cheating, and control it. on a movie instead of reading the required text, (13) using
Cliff’s Notes or some other note service instead of reading the
required text, (14) downloading information from the Internet
Methodology
as your own, and (15) failing to credit a source in the report.

Participants Procedures
Participants were 100 high school juniors from four Participating students in four different English classes
25-student English classes in a large Midwestern high completed the Academic Honesty Survey at the start of the
school. This public high school enrolled students primarily class period in their respective classrooms on the same day.
from middle SES homes who, on average, had ACT com- The primary researcher administered the surveys to each
posite scores of 24. Juniors were included because they had class. The surveys were distributed and verbal instructions
sufficient opportunity to form perceptions about cheating for completing the survey were given. In particular, students
and to practice or counter those perceptions. On average, were asked to answer honestly, knowing that their answers
participants had a grade point average (GPA) of 3.0 on a would remain anonymous. Students had the opportunity
four-point scale, worked about eleven hours each week, and to ask questions before beginning the survey. All students
spent between one and ten hours per week participating in completed the survey within fifteen minutes.
extracurricular activities.

Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010 Mid-Western Educational Researcher 11

 Results is involved, such as when submitting someone’s work as
one’s own (93 percent) or copying someone’s answers for
Students’ responses were first analyzed with respect a take-home test (88 percent), the action was perceived as
to the demographic variables of GPA, work time, and ex- more dishonest than when students must still put forth effort,
tracurricular activity time. These variables did not affect such as when doing individual homework with a partner (23
significantly students’ perceptions of cheating or cheating percent) or when doing a take-home test with a partner (67
prevalence (all Fs < 1). Therefore, students’ responses were percent). Second, students’ perceptions of cheating depend
examined collectively with regard to cheating perceptions on whether information is given or gained. More students
and prevalence in each of the three academic settings: tests, believed “turning in someone else’s previous work as your
homework, and reports. Results from each academic setting own” to be cheating (93 percent) than “giving a completed
are described in turn, and all data are found in Table 1 in assignment from a previous class to another student” (68 per-
Appendix B. cent). They found “giving” less serious than “getting.” When
giving one’s work, it does not mean necessarily that the work
Tests will be used fraudulently, so the behavior was not commonly
Students’ responses to cheating in test situations are viewed as cheating. However, using someone else’s work by
presented in the upper portion of Table 1. The perception data submitting it as your own was clearly perceived as cheating.
down the left column indicated that most students had a strong Despite a strong indication that several homework
and traditional perception about cheating with regard to test practices were considered cheating, students admitted to
taking. In most cases, 85 percent to 95 percent of students performing these actions. For example, 93 percent of stu-
believed these test-taking behaviors constitute cheating. The dents declared submitting another student’s assignment as
lone exception is in how students responded to providing test their own to be dishonest, but 20 percent of students did this
questions to others yet to take the test. Surprisingly, only 47 at least once. Students seemed especially prone to ignoring
percent considered this action to be cheating. instructions to complete homework individually. Ninety-one
Two interesting patterns emerged from the perception percent completed individual homework with a partner and
data for tests. First, students’ perceptions of test honesty 60 percent gave their completed assignments to a partner.
seemed linked to effort. Students generally believed it is okay The prevalence of homework cheating might actually be
to supply test questions to other students yet to take the test underestimated because of lack of opportunity. For instance,
(47 percent thought this was cheating), but it is not okay to some students might not have ample opportunity to give a
supply answers (84 percent thought this was cheating). In completed assignment to another student or submit another
the supply questions case, the recipient must still expend student’s work.
effort to answer given test questions; in the supply answers Reports
case, the recipient need not expend effort. Second, students
perceived actions taken outside of the testing area as more In terms of report writing, students’ perceptions of
acceptable than if they occur during the test. For example, cheating are again linked to effort. Few students believed
94 percent thought that providing test answers during a test that consulting outside sources to write a report rather than
was cheating, whereas just 84 percent thought that providing reading the book is cheating. As shown in the bottom por-
test answers outside of class was wrong. tion of Table 1, just 39 percent believed that using a movie
There is discord between students’ test-taking percep- to write a book report is cheating, and 53 percent believed
tions and actions. Even though most students believed six using sources like Cliff’s Notes to write a book report is cheat-
of the seven actions to be cheating, the bulk of students ing. This kind of shortcut to writing a report is not viewed
admitted to cheating in these ways. The upper-right column as dishonest, perhaps because students must still put forth
of Table 1 confirms that 59 percent to 87 percent of students effort to write the report themselves.
cheated on tests in these ways at least once. Examining the Conversely, students perceive the less effortful direct use
test prevalence data in Table 1, the most prevalent behavior of someone else’s work as cheating. Table 1 shows that 83
is glancing at other students’ papers (87 percent). percent believed using Internet information as your own is
cheating, and 66 percent believed it is wrong to use someone’s
Homework ideas as your own. From the opposite—and more startling—
The middle section of Table 1 shows student perceptions perspective, however, one-third of students believed that it
and prevalence for cheating on homework. Note that the is acceptable to plagiarize.
perceptions for homework are lower than those for testing. In terms of behaviors, roughly 50 percent of students
In general, students condone dishonest homework practices engaged in these dishonest—or at least questionable—be-
more than dishonest test practices. haviors. These indices of behavior might again be somewhat
Two interesting patterns emerged from the perception restricted because of opportunity. For example, there are not
data on homework. First, students’ perceptions of homework always movies or Cliff’s Notes available for the required
honesty again seemed linked to effort. When little effort book. Moreover, movies might be quite different than the
book.

12 Mid-Western Educational Researcher Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010

 Discussion were perceived more dishonestly than more effortful actions
such as doing individual homework with a partner or doing
The results of this research revealed that most students a take-home test with a partner. For reports, less effortful
have traditional perceptions of academic dishonesty. The ma- plagiarizing actions were perceived more dishonestly than
jority recognized most traditional forms of cheating, though more effortful actions such as using movies or Cliff Notes
some maintained beliefs that strongly contradict most school to help write a report.
handbooks. It seems shocking that even 6 percent of students Second, cheating was defined, in part, by whether infor-
believed that providing answers during a test is not cheating, mation was given or received. And students clearly thought
or that 54 percent believed that plagiarism is not cheating. that it was better to give than receive. For example, just 68
Even though most students had a traditional view of what percent believed it was wrong to give a completed assignment
defines cheating, many still cheat. For instance, 85 percent to a classmate, but 93 percent believed it was wrong to receive
believed glancing at test answers during a test is wrong, yet and submit someone else’s work as your own.
87 percent did so.
Third, students perceived actions taken outside of the
The disconnection between cheating perceptions and classroom as more acceptable than similar actions taken
behaviors does not fit well with traditional moral reasoning inside the classroom. For example, more thought that pro-
theory (Kohlberg & Candee, 1984) that posits that people viding test answers during an in-class test was cheating than
will do what they believe is morally right. The disconnection, providing test answers outside of class. Moreover, students
though, fits with more contemporary theory (Turiel, 2006) generally perceived out-of-class misdeeds associated with
that posits that people do not always do what they believe is homework and report writing as more acceptable than such
morally right. Instead, they weigh other personal consider- in-class deeds during testing. The apparent relationship be-
ations that might run counter to moral beliefs. A high school tween environment and cheating perceptions might hinge on
student, for example, might believe that copying a test answer teacher monitoring. In the in-class test environment, versus
is wrong morally but do it anyway because attaining a high outside of class, students are monitored more closely and have
GPA and entering a selective college are personal consider- a greater chance of getting caught by their teachers. Perhaps
ations that outweigh and override moral ones. the added risk of getting caught makes the in-class offense
Perceptions and prevalence of cheating vary across seem more serious than the out-of-class offense.
academic tasks. Generally speaking, perceptions about what In terms of implications, students should a) expand their
constitutes cheating declines from test taking to homework perceptions of what constitutes cheating and b) behave more
completion to report writing contexts. Cheating behaviors ethically across academic settings. Teachers, of course, can
generally decline as well moving from test taking to home- be instrumental in changing students’ cheating perceptions
work completion to report writing contexts. This odd pattern and actions. In terms of perceptions, teachers can provide
means that students actually cheat more in academic contexts and discuss with students written policies or guidelines about
where they well recognize their behaviors as cheating. This what constitutes cheating. Students who are aware of cheating
pattern signifies that knowing what constitutes cheating is policies cheat less often than those who are unaware (Ames
certainly no deterrent to cheating. As to why cheating is & Eskridge, 1992; McCabe & Treviño, 1993). Our own
most prevalent in testing contexts, students might view tests informal Internet search of “academic honesty guidelines”
as high-stakes (Carnoy, Elmore, & Siskin, 2003) outcomes uncovered numerous published materials that teachers can
likely to influence academic and professional careers. And adapt for their students. In terms of actions, three teacher
research confirms that students face pressure to cheat in practices might reduce cheating: a mastery learning orienta-
high-stakes testing environments (Nichols & Berliner, 2007). tion, tougher sanctions for misdeeds, and better monitoring.
Alternatively, students might simply be more ill prepared to
answer test questions from memory than to complete home- Research has confirmed that students are less likely to
work or write reports using available resources. Inadequate cheat in mastery-oriented than performance-oriented settings
test preparation due to ineffective cognitive strategies (Gub- (Murdock & Anderman, 2006). In mastery-oriented settings,
bels, 1999; Rachal, Daigle, & Rachal, 2007) has been linked students perceive a task’s intrinsic value and seek to master
to cheating (Anderman & Murdock, 2007). it. The learning process is enjoyable, engaging, or rewarding.
In performance-oriented settings, students instead perceive
Three other trends emerged. First, cheating was related a task’s external benefits like high grades or a spot on the
to effort across academic tasks. Dishonest actions requiring Honor Roll. Students seek a certain product but are not
little effort were more likely perceived as cheating than those always concerned about the process for achieving it. Some
requiring greater effort. For tests, divulging test answers was take short cuts and even cheat to attain their goal. Teachers
perceived more dishonestly than divulging test questions, can raise the intrinsic value of academic tasks and reduce
perhaps because the latter still requires effort (to answer the cheating by making tasks more valuable in their own right
questions) on the part of the recipient. For homework, less and by minimizing evaluation procedures that stress high
effortful actions like submitting someone’s work as one’s performance over mastery (see Anderman, 2007).
own or copying someone’s answers for a take-home test

Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010 Mid-Western Educational Researcher 13

 In terms of sanctions, research shows that less cheating as well. Second, although we made some speculations about
occurs when schools establish, communicate, and enforce an why students do or do not perceive certain actions as cheating
honor code that includes serious penalties for cheating (Mc- or why they actually cheat, we did not directly investigate
Cabe, Treviño, &Butterfield, 2001). These researchers point these issues. Future research can add a qualitative component
out that when teacher reaction to failure is lax, students tend that hopefully uncovers the whys behind cheating percep-
to cheat more in those classes. One recent example of using tions and behaviors.
harsh sanctions to discourage cheating occurred at Simon Until such research is conducted, the present study offers
Fraser University in Canada (Gatzemeyer, 2009). Students these final conclusions for students, teachers, and researchers:
caught cheating received a final grade of “FD” (that meant
failure with dishonesty) on their permanent transcript. • Cheating is prevalent among high school students across
the academic settings of tests, homework, and report
Finally, teachers need to better monitor and control writing.
cheating across academic settings. Although teachers seem
to have considerable control over cheating in test situations • Students’ perceptions of what constitutes cheating are
where they can directly observe students, cheating actually often below ethical standards.
occurs there more often than in homework and report writing • Even when students perceive a behavior as cheating,
settings where direct observation is less likely. Therefore, they are still likely to do it.
teachers must be vigilant about controlling cheating on tests, Armed with this information, students, teachers, and re-
especially the casual peeking at someone’s answers that 87 searchers should seek ways to link students’ cheating per-
percent of students sometimes do. One way to reduce test ceptions with ethical guidelines and to diminish cheating
cheating is to make alternate versions of the test for students behaviors across academic tasks.
seated near each other. This is accomplished by rearranging
the order of the questions or answers. Another solution is to References
create different tests for each class period to prevent students
from passing along the test questions or answers outside ABC News Productions (2004). A cheating crisis in Amer-
of class. Better test supervision and test security practices ica’s schools—How it’s done and why it’s happening.
should help too. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from http://abcnews.
To decrease cheating on homework assignments, teach- go.com/Primetime/story?id=132376&page=1
ers might take one of two routes. One, they can assign work Ames, G. A., & Eskridge, C. W. (1992). The impact of eth-
that requires extended or subjective responses that are less ics courses on student attitudes and behavior regarding
likely copied than brief or objective responses. Two, they cheating. Journal of College Student Development, 33,
can minimize homework’s summative contribution to final 556-557.
grades and make it a more formative process. As previously
Anderman, E. M. (2007). The effects of personal, classroom,
mentioned, cheating is less likely when work is completed
and school goal structures on academic cheating. In E.
to attain mastery (Murdock & Anderman, 2006).
M. Anderman & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of
Teachers should also educate themselves regarding the academic cheating (pp. 87-106). Boston: Elsevier.
cheating tools available to students who are writing reports,
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (2004). Changes in self-
especially more recent and technological tools. For example,
reported academic cheating across the transition from
there are websites where research papers can be purchased.
middle school to high school. Contemporary Educational
Teachers should also alert students that they have the means
Psychology, 29, 499-517.
to identify cheating. For example, they could tell students that
they can identify a plagiarized paper by typing a sentence into Anderman, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). The psychol-
an Internet search engine and immediately locating the copied ogy of academic cheating. In E. M. Anderman & T. B.
source. Teachers should let students know that they have ac- Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating (pp.
cess to the same websites and literary notes that students do 1-5). Boston: Elsevier.
and will not be fooled by plagiarized work. These and other Bruggeman, E. L. (1996, July-August). Cheating, lying, and
suggestions for monitoring and controlling cheating appear moral reasoning by religious and secular high school
in an article by McCabe, Treviño, and Butterfield (2001). students [Electronic version]. Journal of Educational
The present study, of course, has limitations that future Research, 89(6), 340-344.
studies might address. Two limitations are most appar- Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Siskin, L. S. (2003). The new ac-
ent. First, our sample was limited to high school juniors countability: High schools and high-stakes testing. New
of relatively high academic and economic standing. The York: Routledge Falmer.
homogeneity of students might explain why student factors Gatzemeyer, J. (September 1, 2009). Hitting a new low. Daily
(GPA and outside activities) had no relationship to cheating. Nebraskan (Volume109, Issue 8), 1-2.
Future research can determine if the cheating perceptions and
behaviors chronicled here apply to other types of students Glater J. D. (2006, May 18). Colleges chase as cheats shift
to higher tech. The New York Times. Retrieved September

14 Mid-Western Educational Researcher Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010

 18, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/ Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). The pressure to cheat
education/18cheating.html?_r=1&oref=slogin in a high-stakes testing environment. In E. M. Anderman
Gubbels, P. S. (1999). College student studying: A collective & T. B. Murdock (Eds.), Psychology of academic cheating
case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University (pp. 289-312), Boston: Elsevier.
of Nebraska – Lincoln. Rachal, K. C., Daigle, S., & Rachal, W. S. (2007). Learning
Jordan, A. E. (2001). College student cheating: The role of problems reported by college students: Are they using
motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge learning strategies? Journal of Instructional Psychology,
of institutional policy. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 233-247. 34, 191-199.
Kohlberg, L., & Candee, D. (1984). The relationship of Singh, K. (1998). Part-time employment in high school and its
moral judgment to moral action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. effect on academic achievement. Journal of Educational
L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Morality, moral behavior, and moral Research, 91, 131-139.
development (pp. 52-73). New York: Wiley. Stephens, J. M., Young, M. F., & Calabrese, T. H. (2007).
McCabe, D. L. (1999). Academic dishonesty among high Does moral judgment go offline when students are online?
school students. [Electronic version]. Adolescence, A comparative analysis of undergraduates’ beliefs and
186(4), 681-687. Roslyn Heights, NY: Libra Publishers. behaviors related to conventional and digital cheating.
Ethics & Behavior, 17, 233-254.
McCabe, D. L. (2001). Cheating: Why students do it and how
we can help them stop. American Educator, 25, 38-43. Turiel, E. (2006). The development of morality. In W. Damon
& R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th
McCabe D. L., & Stephens, J. M. (2006). “Epidemic” ed.) Volume 3. N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Social, emotional, and
as opportunity: Internet plagiarism as a lever for cul- personality development. New York: Wiley.
tural change. Teachers College Record. Retrieved
October 6, 2007 from http://www.tcrecord.org/content. Whitley, B. E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating
asp?contentid=12860 among college students: A review. Research in Higher
Education, 39, 235-274.
McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1993). Honor codes and
other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, Kelly L. Honz is an English teacher at Ralston High School
64, 552-538. in Omaha, NE. Her research interests include media lit-
McCabe, D. L., & Treviño, L. K. (1997). Individual and con- eracy and culture shifts in secondary education. E-mail:
textual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus [email protected].
investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379-396. Kenneth A. Kiewra is professor of educational psychology at
McCabe, D. L., Treviño, L. K., & Butterfield, K. D. (2001). the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. His research interests
Cheating in academic institutions: A decade of research. include study strategies, such as note taking and graphic
Ethics & Behavior, 11, 219-232. organizers, and talent development. E-mail: kkiewra1@
Marsh, H. W. (1992). Extracurricular activities: Beneficial unl.edu.
extension of the traditional curriculum or subversion of Ya-Shu Yang is a doctoral candidate at the University of Con-
academic goals? Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, necticut. Her research interests include ecological psychol-
553-562. ogy and learning technology, including instructional design
Murdock, T. B., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). Motivational and digital cheating. E-mail: [email protected].
perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated
model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist,
41, 129-145.

Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010 Mid-Western Educational Researcher 15

 Appendix A

Academic Honesty Survey

Please answer all items thoughtfully and honestly. Remember that your responses are anonymous and will be combined
and averaged with others’ responses.
1. What is your current overall GPA?
2. Roughly how many hours do you spend working at a job each week?
3. Roughly how many hours do you spend participating in extracurricular activities like music, sports, and clubs outside
regular school hours?
For each scenario below, answer two questions by circling your choice: 1) Is the described behavior cheating? Yes or No,
and 2) Estimate the number of times you have performed this action as a high school student: 0, 1-2, 3-4, 5 or more.

Items 4-8 pertain to test taking. 12. Doing individual homework with a partner
4. Glancing at someone’s answers during the test Yes No
Yes No 0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more 13. Giving a completed homework assignment to
5. Providing answers to someone during the test another student
Yes No Yes No
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more 0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
6. Using outside notes during the test 14. Submitting someone’s homework as your own
Yes No Yes No
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more 0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
7. Providing test questions to someone yet to take Items 15-18 pertain to writing reports.
the test 15. Writing a report based on the movie instead of
Yes No reading the book
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more Yes No
8. Providing test answers to someone yet to take 0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
the test 16. Using outside resources to write a report without
Yes No reading the book
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more Yes No
Items 9-13 pertain to homework completion. 0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
9. Doing an individual take-home test with a partner 17. Using Internet information as your own
Yes No Yes No
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more 0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
10. Copying someone’s answers for a take-home test 18. Writing a report without crediting others for their
ideas
Yes No
Yes No
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more
11. Copying someone’s homework answers
Yes No
0 1-2 3-4 5 or more

16 Mid-Western Educational Researcher Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010

 Appendix B
Table 1
Percentage of students who perceived behaviors to be cheating and percentage of students who performed these actions
at least once in high school
Behavior Perception Prevalence

Tests
1. Glancing at someone’s answers during the test 89 87
2. Providing answers to someone during the test 94 74
3. Using outside notes 95 54
4. Providing test questions to someone yet to take the test 47 68
5. Providing test answers to someone yet to take the test 84 59

Homework
6. Doing individual take-home test with a partner 62 51
7. Copying someone’s answers for a take-home test 88 45
8. Copying someone’s homework answers 75 90
9. Doing individual homework with a partner 23 91
10. Giving a completed assignment to another student 68 60
11. Submitting someone’s homework as your own 93 20

Writing Reports
12. Writing a report based on the movie instead of reading the book 39 53
13. Using outside resources to write a report without reading the book 53 43
14. Using Internet information as your own 83 46
15. Writing a report without crediting others for their ideas 66 34

Volume 23, Number 2 · Spring 2010 Mid-Western Educational Researcher 17

Copyright of Mid-Western Educational Researcher is the property of Mid-Western Educational Research
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.