Beasley 2016 Comparing the Demographics of Students Reported for Academic Dishonesty to Those of the Overall Student Population

8/18/2019 Beasley 2016 Comparing the Demographics of Students Reported for Academic Dishonesty to Those of the Overal…

1/19

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20

Download by: [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UAC] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 08:30

Ethics & Behavior

ISSN: 1050-8422 (Print) 1532-7019 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20

Comparing the Demographics of StudentsReported for Academic Dishonesty to Those of theOverall Student Population

Eric M. Beasley

To cite this article: Eric M. Beasley (2016) Comparing the Demographics of Students Reported

for Academic Dishonesty to Those of the Overall Student Population, Ethics & Behavior, 26:1,45-62, DOI: 10.1080/10508422.2014.978977

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.978977

Accepted author version posted online: 25Nov 2014.Published online: 25 Nov 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 179

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10508422.2014.978977#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/10508422.2014.978977#tabModulehttp://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10508422.2014.978977&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-11-25http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1080/10508422.2014.978977&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2014-11-25http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10508422.2014.978977http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/10508422.2014.978977http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=hebh20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.978977http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10508422.2014.978977http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hebh20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hebh20


2/19

ETHICS & BEHAVIOR, 26 (1), 45–62Copyright © 2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1050-8422 print / 1532-7019 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10508422.2014.978977

Comparing the Demographics of Students Reportedfor Academic Dishonesty to Those of the Overall

Student Population

Eric M. BeasleyOfce of the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education

Michigan State University

Only a small proportion of academically dishonest students ever receive an ofcial report of academicdishonesty, and the sociology of deviance literature is ripe with studies illustrating disproportionalitiesin detecting, policing, and prosecuting crimes. This study addresses the degree to which dispropor-tionalities exist in the application of relatively few ofcial sanctions levied upon students for academicdishonesty. I compared the demographics of those who have been reported for cheating with thoseof an entire undergraduate student body and of self-reported cheaters in the literature. I found thatinternational students are much more likely than domestic students to get reported.

Keywords: academic dishonesty, cheating, deviance, demographics, citizenship status

Most students cheat. In their new book Cheating in College, leading experts McCabe, Buttereld,and Trevino ( 2012 ) concluded that, based on the sum of extant research, “more than two-thirdsof college students are reporting that they have cheated” (p. 71). Most cheating goes undetected.McCabe et al. ( 2012 ) reported that a substantial number of faculty claim to have never observedcertain cheating acts (e.g., 62% of faculty say that they have never observed students sharinganswers to tests not yet taken by those with whom they are sharing), whereas students self-reportthe ubiquity of these very same acts.

Some instructors do observe cheating but choose to ignore it or to preemptively act as not tonotice it. Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley, and Washburn’s (1998 ) study on why instructorsignore cheating found that almost 80% of faculty agreed that handling cheating “is one of themost onerous aspects of the job.” Whitley and Keith-Spiegel ( 2002 ) argued that faculty membersdo not take action against cheating due to two primary factors: (a) denial of the problem and(b) action inhibitors. The researchers characterize how faculty members deny the existence of aproblem: “This denial seems to take three forms: (a) ‘Cheating doesn’t happen in my classes,’(b) ‘Cheating happens, but I’d rather not know about it,’ and (c) ‘Cheating happens, but it canimprove learning’” (Whitley & Keith-Spiegel, 2002 , p. 9). The researchers asserted a few primaryreasons that faculty do not act after observing an incident of academic dishonesty: anticipation

Correspondence should be addressed to Eric M. Beasley, Michigan State University, 2701 Novak, Midland, MI 48642.

E-mail: [email protected]

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


3/19

46 BEASLEY

of the emotional stress that can come as the result of the “onerous” task of confronting a stu-dent, a lack of information and training about prevention and / or sanctioning procedure, needingto appear as teaching a class in which students do not cheat, having a lack of time to devoteto preventing and / or sanctioning, and being concerned about pushback from students, legal orotherwise.

Even when a student is observed or caught cheating by a faculty member or a fellow student,and the faculty member decides to take action against the student despite the aforementioned fac-tors impeding him, we know that instructors often choose to handle the situation informally, evenwhen school policy requires them to submit a formal report. McCabe et al. ( 2012 ) summarizedwhat is known about faculty responses to cheating:

Research shows that faculty members respond to students’ cheating in many ways, some of whichcan undermine the broader ethical environment. Faculty members frequently disregard or circumvent

their institution’s formal policies, deal with cheating on their own, and / or fail to report cheating toa central authority, as many systems require (Graham, Monday, O’Brien, & Steffen, 1994 ; McCabe,1993 ). (p. 133)

In addition, the researchers characterize how many faculty use the possibility of a report asleverage in getting a confession, akin to plea bargaining in the criminal justice system. Studentssay that they have felt compelled to admit to some wrongdoing, even if they do not believe theydid anything wrong, just so the faculty member will not report the student to the central authorityon campus. This often occurs, even when ofcial policy requires the faculty to report any act of academic dishonesty observed or any act of academic dishonesty that garners any type of penaltygrade (McCabe et al., 2012 ).

Ultimately only a small proportion of cheaters end up receiving an ofcial report of academicdishonesty. Happel and Jennings ( 2008 ) reported that only 1.5% of college cheaters say theyhave ever been sanctioned for their malfeasance. Similarly, Davis, Drinan, and Bertram Gallant(2009 ) reported that each year at one of their institutions only 2% of students are reported forcheating. Studying faculty actions, Graham et al. ( 1994 ) found that most of the faculty had caughtstudents cheating but that only 10% of these faculty imposed any penalty on the student (onlysome of which were ofcial penalties ). Other students are probably even less likely than facultyto take action against a student they observe cheating. Students at Arizona State University hardlyever said that they would report another student’s academic dishonesty. One of these studentsremarked that “being a snitch is worse than being a cheat” (Happel & Jennings, 2008 ). This lack of reporting by students occurred at schools with honor codes that require students to speak upand at institutions without these requirements. McCabe et al. ( 2012 ) reported that of those whoreport having observed an incident of cheating, only around 7% of honor code students reportedthe cheating student, whereas around 4% did so at schools without honor codes.

We know that some reports are appealed or heard by an honor court and that certain types of students allegedly committing certain types of offenses seem more successful than others at thisstage of the process. Larwood and Rankin ( 2010 ) tracked all cases that were heard by the student-led honor court at a small liberal arts school over the course of 3 years. The researchers foundthat there was an inverse relationship between grade point average (GPA) and likelihood of beingfound guilty; the lower the GPA, the more likely it was that the student would be found guilty.In addition, non-Whites, students in fraternities or sororities, transfer students, and students who

were not varsity athletes were more likely than their contemporaries to be found guilty. Moreover,

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


4/19

COMPARING THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDENTS 47

less guilty verdicts were applied in the cases surrounding an alleged act of in-class cheating thanin the cases involving out-of-class cheating.

Even among those caught cheating, formally charged, and found guilty (or not contested),there are differences linked to demographic and contextual variables regarding academic behaviorafter the adjudication process. For example, Sacks ( 2008 ) found that, at a medium-sized pub-lic university, international students were less likely to be retained than were domestic studentsfollowing a formal penalty as the result of academic dishonesty.

But are certain types of students (a) more likely than others to be reported for academic dis-honesty, and, if so, (b) does this disproportionality seem to be the result of reporting biases?Although there is not much in the literature on who gets reported, Sacks (2008 ) did nd thatcertain types of students were more likely than others to get reported for academic dishonestyat Bowling Green State University in the mid-2000s: “Men, non-White students, international

students, students in the low ACT group, students who tested into developmental coursework,and student athletes, were all overrepresented” (p. 28). More recently at the 2013 InternationalCenter for Academic Integrity Conference, some scholars presented data indicating the typesof students reported at their respective institutions. Cronan (2013 ) noted that less than 1% of undergraduates get reported for academic dishonesty at the University of Arkansas and that under-classmen and those in English and / or history classes were the most likely to receive reports.Vanderpool and Cates ( 2013 ) presented that 1%–2% of Baylor University undergraduates getreported and that freshmen were the most likely to be reported, with seniors being second mostlikely.

In September 2013, the Chronicle of Higher Education published a call to administrators andfaculty in higher education to report some baseline statistics on reports of cheating at their insti-

tutions. The article highlights University of Texas at Austin’s practice of publishing data cheatingreports, a rarity. The story summarizes the university’s ndings:

At UT-Austin, an average of 350 incidents of cheating occurred annually from 2003 to 2011.In tallies that include graduate and professional students, senior undergraduates tended to accountfor more than a third of cases. Male students cheated at a rate disproportionate to their enrollment,and a third to a half of cheaters had GPAs greater than 3.0. The most common violation often wasplagiarism. (para. 8)

Despite a spike in all reported violations in 2009–10, cheating seemed far from widespread,given the university’s total enrollment of about 51,000. Over time, African American and AsianAmerican students—and often international students—were overrepresented in cheating statisticsrelative to their enrollment (Bi, 2013 ).

While the Chronicle ’s aim is laudable, treating reported cases as indicative of cheating occur-rences not only is inaccurate but also can create even more of a disincentive for instructors andinstitutions to report cheating. Instructors and schools may not wish to report cheaters for fear of creating the perception that they—both the teachers and the school—have a “cheating problem.”

Still, clearly more research and transparency is needed in this area if we wish to gauge thegeneralizability of the aforementioned ndings. However, we also need a robust measure of actual cheating rates among different types of students at the school in question and in tandemwith demographic information on the recipients of academic dishonesty reports at said school if

we are to truly assess if there are faculty-reporting biases (and, thus, if cheating reports are at

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


5/19

48 BEASLEY

all proportional with cheating occurrences). Even more methodological rigor will be needed todetermine the extent of reporting biases solely driven by discrimination based on demographiccharacteristics.

Disproportionalities between report characteristics and general enrollment characteristics mayexist due to actual behavioral differences, reporting differences based on moderating variables(e.g., type of class), and / or discrimination based on characteristics directly or indirectly relatedto demographic variables (e.g., directly = a teacher does not believe White kids cheat, so hedoesn’t look at their work trying to discern evidence of cheating like he does with those fromother races; indirectly = a teacher sees any deviation away from proper English academic writingas a likely case of academic dishonesty, and non-native English speakers are not sure what formsof verbs are appropriate more so than their native English-speaking counterparts).

To reiterate, a particular group of students may be more likely to get reported because the

members of this group actually cheat more often and / or more severely. In addition, even if thereare biases in reporting, these biases may be the result of ease of detection or some confound-ing variable like classes / majors people of a certain demographic variable are likely to enroll in.Thus, for many reasons, the presence of disproportionate reporting is not concrete evidence of discrimination based on race, gender, citizenship status, or some other feature.

Addressing this in the literature on behavioral deviance, scholars have aimed at gauging actualbehavior rates in addition to likelihood of punishment to provide a more robust evaluation asto whether discriminatory practices are being used by police, courts, juries, teachers, principals,and so on. For instance, Skiba, Shure, and Williams ( 2011 ), looking at the sum of studies thatindirectly test behavioral frequencies, concluded that the well-documented presence of racialdisparities in negative school sanctions like suspension and expulsion are not the cause of the

disproportionate acting out among students of color.Employing a variety of methodologies, studies have sought to identify which students cheat.

The bulk of this work has produced quantitative data via questionnaires (e.g., McCabe & Trevino,1997 ), although experiments (e.g., Karlins, Michaels, & Podlogar, 1988 ), interviews (e.g., Zito& McQuillan, 2010 ), and content analysis (McCabe, Trevino, & Buttereld, 1999 ), among othertypes of studies, have also been conducted. In her 2008 review of the literature, Wideman (2008 )reported the following generalities regarding who cheats:

Although research pertaining to why students cheat differs greatly, the research about who does mostof the cheating is fairly consistent. In a questionnaire-based study of 291 postsecondary students,Szabo and Underwood (2004) conrmed earlier studies when it was determined that more malescheat than females—68% compared to 39%. Third year students were less likely to cheat than rst orsecond year students (Szabo & Underwood, 2004; Brown, 2002). International students or studentsfrom different cultural backgrounds (i.e. not North American) have been identied as a group whodemonstrate a high level of academic dishonesty (Park, 2003; Ercegovac & Richardson, 2004 ). Thishas been attributed to differing cultural expectations around academic writing as well as a lack in lan-guage skills (Ercegovac & Richardson, 2004 ). Students who have an active social life are more likelyto cheat (Straw, 2002). Younger students cheat more often than mature students (Straw, 2002). Somestudies found that students with lower grades cheat more than those with higher grades (Cummingset al., 2002), but other studies refute this through data that suggest no correlation between grades andcheating. In a 1994 survey of 191 nursing students in the southern USA, researchers found there wasno correlation either between cheating and a student’s maturity and ability level (Daniel, Adams &

Smith, 1994). (p. 2)

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


6/19


In contrast to Wideman’s report, an earlier review by Whitley and Keith-Spiegel ( 2002 ) chal-lenges the notion that male students cheat more than female students, and McCabe et al. ( 2012 )believe that the previously found gender differences in cheating behavior have diminished tobeing virtually nonexistent in the second decade of the 21st century. In addition, Cohoon andRogers (2003 ) did not nd a correlation between cheating behavior and citizenship, althoughtheir focus groups did show that students believed that international students cheat more thandomestic students.

In hopes of shedding more light on which types of students, if any, are most / least likely tobe reported for academic dishonesty in modern academia, I compare the demographics of thosewho have been reported at Michigan State University (MSU) over several semesters to the overalldemographic characteristics of the student population. Specically, I investigate (a) whether menare more likely than women to be reported, (b) whether international students are more likely

than domestic students to be reported, and (c) whether class status is related to one’s likelihood of being reported. In addition, I cross-tabulate reported student demographic and contextual variable(e.g., type of misconduct) and assess reported students open-ended answers to a question onwhy they committed their act to gain some knowledge about why any disproportionalities mightexist.

METHODS

Under MSU policy adopted in the fall of 2009, instructors are required to submit an academic dis-honesty report for any student they penalize for a violation of academic integrity, which includes

plagiarism, test cheating, falsication of data, and other duplicities (see MSU, n.d.-e, for the of-cial university denition). Thus, not all detected acts are reported, and reported acts differ ingratuitousness. These reports are sent to the Ofce of the Associate Provost for UndergraduateEducation, and students are placed into a remediation class that they must successfully completein order to nish their undergraduate program.

For the main part of this study, I analyzed the differences between the demographics of instructor-reported undergraduate students at MSU and the demographic characteristics of theentire MSU undergraduate student body. I also assessed the presence of correlations betweencertain demographic characteristics and report characteristics (e.g., types of misconduct). Next,I synthesized my ndings with the bountiful extant literature on the demographic and contex-tual characteristics of cheaters to help assess the level of proportionality in academic dishonestyreports. Last, I examined instructor-reported student responses to a question from the remedia-tion course: “What, if anything, would have stopped you from committing your act of academicdishonesty?” The character of these responses was used to address whether the disproportional-ities uncovered were the result of differences illustrated in the existing literature regarding thefrequency of cheating behavior among various types of students.

For certain demographics, I was able to nd overall MSU undergraduate enrollment statis-tics for each of the semesters I had data for and, in those instances, the aggregate data from allsemesters (fall 2009 to fall 2011) is compared to my aggregate data from all reports submittedduring that period. However, in some instances I was able to procure MSU data for only certainsemesters. In these cases, I compared MSU data from certain semesters only to my data from the

same semesters.

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


7/19

50 BEASLEY

MSU is a big public school located in the American Midwest without a university-widehonor code, although a few smaller colleges on campus do have one. There were more than30,000 undergraduate students in each of the semesters from which reports were drawn. Someincoming freshmen participated in a pilot run of a proactive tutorial on academic integrity dur-ing orientation in the summer of 2013. As of this writing, it is unclear if this will become afull-edged feature of orientation, and it certainly was not part of the orientations of the stu-dent subjects in this study. There were more than 30,000 undergraduate students in each of thesemesters from which reports were drawn.

The MSU data on Gender and Race / Ethnicity was gathered from the Ofce of Planning andBudgets (see MSU, n.d.-b), and comparisons were made for each semester from fall 2009 tosummer 2011 as well as the aggregate of those semesters. I was able to obtain MSU internationalstudent enrollment characteristics for only fall 2009, fall 2010, and fall 2011, so those were the

semesters of reports that I used as a comparison. I gathered the international student data fromthe Ofce of International Students and Scholars (MSU, n.d.-d). The remaining data for eachsemester fall 2009–fall 2011 was taken from MSU’s Registrar’s Ofce (MSU, n.d.-a).

I used two sample tests of proportion to assess the presence of signicant differences betweenthe demographics of reported students and those of the overall undergraduate population. In addi-tion, to investigate whether disproportionalities might be associated with tendencies amongdifferent groups of reported students, I ran tests of proportion comparing the percentage of citizens versus noncitizens who were reported for plagiarism and who were male versus female.

To further investigate the reasons why demographic disproportionalities exist or do not existbetween reported students at MSU and those in MSU’s general population (or between reportedstudents and the extant data on which types of students are the most likely to cheat), I ana-

lyzed 312 student course responses to the question, “What, if anything, would have stopped youfrom committing your act of academic dishonesty?” This question was presented to students inthe module for the 3rd week of the class entitled Academic Integrity and Society. The previousmodules involved an introductory survey, vignette questions and readings, a video, and ques-tions about the denition of academic dishonesty. Specically this question comes after readingsand question sets that tell of the social implications of academic dishonesty. Student open-endedresponses to this question and my subsequent analysis were the subject of a previously publishedarticle (see Beasley, 2014 ). Note that the basic methodology for this portion of the current studyis the same as used previously.

I analyzed the answers that were submitted by students who were enrolled in the seven iter-ations of the course stretching from spring 2010 to summer 2011. Most students were added tothe course that started the semester after they were reported, but in special instances, studentsstarted earlier or later. There were some instances of nonresponse; 24 students, just 7% of thetotal number of students, enrolled in the course. The great majority of the students who did notanswer this question did not complete any coursework and, other than for this fact (which is cer-tainly noteworthy), did not seem to differ meaningfully from the sample of answerers in genderdistribution, penalty type, year in school, citizenship status, and so on.

As the instructor of the course, I had previously read the responses of the students to the mod-ule question “What, if anything, would have stopped you from committing your act of academicdishonesty?” and discussed the general characteristics with other academics, including the formerinstructor of the course, Dr. Shell Veenstra. Dr. Veenstra had also used some responses from this

question in her executive summary of the rst iteration of the course. Thus, I already had some

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


8/19


sense of what the data might show, specically that students were often espousing ignorance inresponse to this question.

I compiled all course responses independent of demographic characteristics or other identiers(besides those that may be present in the responses themselves) and read them, making note of any categories that might emerge following the grounded theory approach originally outlined byGlaser and Strauss in 1967 , although my previous interactions with the data certainly mitigatedthe pure applicability of this approach. I found some major themes: Students were pleading igno-rance of the rules constituting academic dishonesty and the consequences / seriousness associatedwith violating a code of academic integrity; students tended to deect blame, usually by sayingthat their professor could have done something differently; students did not feel they had enoughtime, resources, and / or skills to get the desired result without taking responsibility for this lack of time, resources, and / or skills; students felt they did not manage their time well with accepting

the blame for the poor time management; a bad grade was not an option; and their peers couldhave affected their actions.Then, I went through the responses again and coded them to see how many categories were

evidenced in each response. At this stage I placed the responses in which students deectedblame into a neutralization category as to provide a bridge to the extant research on the soci-ology of deviance; likewise, I placed the responses in which students expressed a lack of time,resources, and / or skills into a strain category. Almost all responses (88%) t into at least one of the aforementioned categories, and several t into multiple categories .1

Next, I looked at all the responses coded for a particular category and tried to nd subthemes.For example, within the ignorance of penalty category, some mention that they would have beenmotivated by knowing they would have to take my class if they cheated or have other extrin-

sic penalties exacted upon them, whereas others talked about how knowing that they would feelthe shame they do postincident would have motivated them to behave differently. After this, Iadded the appropriate demographic (year in school, race, gender, ethnic code, and citizenshipstatus) and contextual (class report originated from, category of report, and penalty type) vari-ables to each answer and attempted to locate any signicant relationships these variables hadwith the responses. In the end, I chose not to include race in my analysis, as I did not haveracial information for almost half of the students. For all other variables, demographic infor-mation was made available to me for 298 of the student respondents out of a total of 312 totalresponses.

RESULTS

Descriptive Statistics of Reported Students

Before assessing possible trends in disproportionate reporting of students by race, citizenshipstatus, gender, and so on, I present the basic characteristics of the 413 students and reports thatwere led from fall 2009 through summer 2011: men (49.4%), women (50.6%); citizens (62.7%),noncitizens (37.3%); freshman (25.2%), sophomores (22.3%), juniors (27.8%), seniors (24.7%).

1A detailed analysis of this analysis of open-ended responses by students has been published: Beasley (2014 ).

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


9/19

52 BEASLEY

To demarcate misconduct type, instructors were told to choose at least one type out of seven andwere allowed to check multiple boxes for the same report ( N = 514): “Plagiarism”—190 counts,“Academic Misconduct on a Quiz, Test, Midterm, or Final Exam”—99 counts, “AcademicMisconduct on any other Assignment”—127 counts, “Unauthorized Collaboration”—75 counts,“Falsication of Data or Results”—eight counts, “Falsication of Academic Records”—vecounts, “Other”—10 counts. Ofcial MSU policy states that instructors must report students thathave received a penalty grade of any type as the result of academic dishonesty. Although allreceived at least some penalty, 68 of the 413 students (16.5%) received a failing grade in course.

Disproportionality in Reporting

As stated, some studies on academic dishonesty show that men cheat more than women (e.g.,Wideman, 2008 ), although others did not nd any gender difference (e.g., McCabe et al., 2012 ;Whitley, 1998 ). More broadly, the literature on crime and deviance shows that men are muchmore likely to transgress societies laws and, perhaps less so, its norms (Akers & Sellers, 2004 ),although part of this could be a bias in the types of deviance and crime sociologists tend to study.Still, around 90% of all incarcerated individuals in the United States on any given day are male.A 2008 report by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that “of the 2.3 million inmatesin custody, 2.1 million were men and 208,300 were women” (Thomas & Ryan, 2008 , para. 3).Once again, some of this discrepancy could be due to a bias in reporting, policing, prosecuting,the judiciary process, and so on.

So, if I nd that men are more likely to be reported for academic dishonesty, there are many

different reasons why this might be occurring. It could be that men and women cheat the sameamount but men are more likely to get reported. Or perhaps men cheat more than women and allcheaters are equally likely to get reported. The ways in which the actual frequency of cheating andlikelihood of getting reported variables interact are virtually endless. Without a true sense of howlikely it is that members of each gender cheat, I cannot conclude that an individual cheater fromone group is more likely to get reported compared to a cheater from a different group. Conversely,I also cannot conclude that the groups exhibit different cheating behaviors just based on thenotion that members of one group get reported more often than members of another group. Thelikelihood of someone getting reported is most generally determined by two distinct variables:the student’s behavior and the faculty’s behavior.

Still, if comparing the demographic characteristics of those whom have been reported withthe demographics of the overall MSU population yields a signicant difference, I can comparethe difference to the mass stockpile of data on who cheats. Then I can assess whether any dis-proportionalities I discover match the disproportionalities in cheating behavior uncovered by thevast literature on cheating behavior. In addition, even if I nd that no disproportionalities existbetween the demographics of those that have been reported and those of the overall MSU under-graduate community, this might be evidence of a reporting bias, if the literature says that there isa difference in cheating behavior that I can infer is true at MSU as well.

Many studies have looked at the relationship between demographic characteristics and cheat-ing behavior. Scholars examining correlation between sex and cheating likelihood have foundmixed results. Some (e.g., Calabrese & Cochran, 1990 ; Michaels & Miethe, 1989 ; Whitley,

Nelson, & Jones, 1999 ) have found men to be more likely than women to self-report academic

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


10/19


dishonesty, whereas others found either no gender difference or one that was easily explained byconfounding variables (e.g., Anderman & Midgley, 2004 ; Genereux & McLeod, 1995 ). McCabeet al. (2012 ) argued that there may have been a gender difference in the past but that it nolonger exists. The same researchers (along with others like Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, 1995 ;Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2005 ) found an inverse relationship between year in school / age andlikelihood of being academically dishonest (e.g., seniors cheat less than freshmen). Elsewhere,scholars have posited that academic dishonesty occurs in every culture but that attitudes towardit, how it is dened, and the frequency of transgression vary (Anderman & Murdock, 2007 ; Daviset al., 2009 ; Hu & Grove, 1991 ).

In my sample, men were not signicantly ( p = .05) more likely than women to get reported.If there really is no sex difference in cheating behavior, like Whitley ( 1998 ) posited, or no sexdifferences anymore, which McCabe et al. ( 2012 ) assert, then my nding supports the idea that

there are not sex biases in instructor reporting behavior. However, if there really is a sex differencein cheating behavior, like Wideman ( 2008 ) contended, then my nding would be indicative of areporting a bias. This is, of course, assuming that the ndings from the aforementioned studiescan be generalized to my sample.

When looking at differences in reporting likelihood by class status, the only signicant differ-ence was that seniors are, at the p = .05 level, underrepresented in the academic integrity class.Seniors represented 24.8% of reported students and 33.6% of all students. This slight statisticaldifference is corroborated by the literature that usually nds that younger students cheat more(Wideman, 2008 ) but could also be the result of the different types of classes that earlier yearstudents take in comparison with older year students, or because older year students are moresavvy cheaters, or that earlier year cheaters tend to drop out or get kicked out prior to reach their

senior year, or many more explanations.Another potential reason for this discrepancy is that younger students are more ignorant

than older students. When all reported students were asked, “What, if anything, would havestopped you from committing your act of academic dishonesty?” the most frequent responsesindicated that the student felt he or she was ignorant (either of the rules that constitute academicintegrity / dishonesty or of the consequences of breaching these rules, or of both). To see if igno-rance could be a major mediating factor in facilitating the inverse relationship between year inschool and likelihood of getting reported for academic dishonesty, I looked at the percentage of responses that were coded for ignorance of rules within each class status. No signicant differ-ences between the likelihood that a reported student from each class level would respond to theaforementioned question citing ignorance of the rules were found.

The biggest difference between the characteristics of the sample of reported students andthe characteristics of the overall undergraduate population was that international students werearound 5 times more likely to be reported than would be expected by chance. I had reliable dataonly for the percentage of international students in the overall undergraduate population for thefall semesters of 2009, 2010, and 2011. So I compared data from only those three semesters (seeTable 1 ).

This nding is congruent with a wealth of literature that shows that international studentsare more likely to transgress the rules of academic integrity (e.g., Davis et al., 2009 ; Wideman,2008 ). The more specic reason for this difference is attributed to international students comingfrom collectivist cultures that do not have the same sense of individual private property, including

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


11/19

54 BEASLEY

TABLE 1The Percentage of Non-U.S. Citizens in the Overall MSU Undergraduate Community Compared to the

Percentage That Have Been Reported for Academic Dishonesty

Fall 2009 Fall 2010 Fall 2011

Total 33,180 32,628 32,919Non-U.S. 2, 636 (7.94%) ∗ 2, 992 (9.17%) ∗ 3, 627 (11.02%) ∗

Reported Fall 2009 Reported Fall 2010 Reported Fall 2011

Total 102 76 137Non-U.S. 44 (43.1%) ∗ 29 (38.2%) ∗ 73 (53.3%) ∗

Note . Michigan State University (MSU) data are from the Ofce of the Registrar and the Ofce for InternationalStudents and Scholars.

∗ p < .001.

TABLE 2The Proportion of MSU Students Reported for Only “Plagiarism” versus MSU Students Reported for Any

Other Type of Academic Dishonesty, Grouped by Citizenship Status

Fall 2009 a Fall 2010 b Fall 2011 c Total d

Citizens 58 45 63 166Noncitizens 44 31 74 149Reported for only “plagiarism”

Citizens 17 of 58 (29.3%) 19 of 45 (42.2%) 24 of 63 (38.1%) ∗ 60 of 166 (36.1%) ∗

Noncitizens 12 of 44 (27.2%) 10 of 31 (32.1%) 15 of 74 (20.3%) ∗ 37 of 149 (24.8%) ∗

Note . MSU = Michigan State University.an = 102. b n = 76. c n = 137. d N = 315.∗ Proportions for citizens and noncitizens signicantly different, p < .05.

intellectual property as the United States and U.S. academia. Thus, it is believed that internationalstudents are more likely to plagiarize, and there has been some evidence of this (e.g., Ercegovac& Richardson, 2004 ). To see if international students were more likely than domestic studentsto have plagiarized, I looked at the likelihood that each group of reported students were reportedfor plagiarism in the fall of 2009, 2010, and 2011. Surprisingly, among reported students, inter-national students were less likely to be reported for only plagiarism (i.e., instructors checked theplagiarism box only for the misconduct type category; see Table 2 ).

Another explanation for the overrepresentation of international undergraduates is that genderis a mediating variable: If a higher proportion of international students than domestic studentsare male and if men cheat more, then, international students would be more likely to cheat thandomestic students. I found some support for this hypothesis in Table 3 , where I uncovered thatreported international students were much more likely to be male than were reported domesticstudents.

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


12/19


TABLE 3Comparing Citizenship Status of Michigan State University Undergraduates Reported for Academic

Dishonesty by Gender

Citizenship Female Male Total Proportion Male

Citizen 139 120 259 120/259 (46.3%) ∗

Noncitizen 65 88 154 88/154 (57.1%) ∗

Grand total 204 209 413

Note . ∗ p < .05.

DISCUSSION

International undergraduates 2 were much more likely to get reported for academic dishonestythan were domestic students. This was the biggest demographic discrepancy between the indi-viduals receiving academic dishonesty reports and the entire population of undergraduates. Thisnding is not too surprising considering it is congruent with much of the literature presents andattempts to explain this disproportionately high likelihood of international students studying inthe United States to get reported for academic misconduct.

Cultural beliefs and norms surrounding academic integrity, intellectual property, rules of attri-bution, and even the very notion of private property are commonly and widely reported to varyacross time and space (e.g., Callahan, 2004 ; Ercegovac & Richardson, 2004 ; Payan, Reardon,& McCorkle, 2010 ; Rawwas, Al-Khatib, & Vitell, 2004 ). In line with this, people from collec-

tivist and / or non-Western cultures seem to violate, or be willing to violate, the conventions of Westernized academic integrity more often than students who have been primarily socializedinto the individualistic and attribution-heavy rules of the academies of the West .3 For exam-ple, Rawwas et al. ( 2004 ) reported that Chinese marketing students found cheating behaviors tobe more acceptable than did their American counterparts, and Grimes ( 2004 ) yielded a similarconclusion in comparing U.S. business undergraduates to those of students studying in EasternEurope and Central Asia. Grimes’s study reached the conclusion that American students valuedand expected more honesty in their academic lives than did the European and Asian students.This differential cultural conditioning seems to be associated with an individual’s propensity toact in academically dishonesty ways, with international students being more likely to cheat thanU.S. students (Ercegovac & Richardson, 2004 ). This idea is quite similar to Eve and Bromley’s(1981 ) culture conict theory and the social learning theory of deviance as conceptualized byAkers, Krohn, Lanza-Kaduce, and Radosevich (1979 ), who built on the shoulders of DonaldSutherland’s differential association theory (Michaels & Miethe, 1989 ).

2Although I do not have country-of-origin statistics for the international undergraduates reported for academic dis-honesty, I can relay country-of-origin statistics for the international student population at MSU. Here are some detailsabout the fall 2011 class (these are from the Ofce for International Students and Scholars Stats Report 2011): Total:5,989 students (undergraduate total = 3,341 students). Top ve sending countries: China (3,012 students), Republic of Korea (729), India (303), Saudi Arabia (203), and Taiwan (187).

3Whereas Payan et al. ( 2010 ) reported that students with collectivist values are less likely to cheat, Martin, Rao,and Sloan’s (2011 ) ndings indicate that the individualists cheat more than collectivists. Martin et al. also argued that

acculturation has an effect on cheating but that race / ethnicity (Caucasian or Asian) does not play a signicant role.

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


13/19

56 BEASLEY

However, not all scholars agree with this viewpoint. Some point to the high-stakes examina-tions used to set career trajectories of students in Asia as providing the main propulsion towardcheating—not more abstract cultural understandings. Miyazaki (1976 ) illustrated this notion andits deep historical roots in China’s Examination Hell . Speaking with an intimate knowledge of the Vietnamese education system, Phan Le Ha (2006 ) argued that the cultural differences asso-ciated with differential cheating rates and attitudes have been overemphasized. Ha told of severepunishments for Vietnamese children caught cheating and spoke of a culture that demands attri-bution, just attribution that might not be in complete congruence with that demanded by Westernacademics. For example, Vietnamese grade school kids might introduce a quote by Ho Chi Minhas something said by “Uncle Ho” and forgo formally connecting the quote to a certain book,speech, article, and so on, that was produced in a certain year and published by a certain com-pany in a certain location. Still, although Ha believes there are more factors inuencing students’

views on plagiarism, the author conceded that there may be some truth to the cultural conditioninghypothesis.Of course, U.S. students are part of their own cultures that mystify academic integrity and

foster blatant dishonesty and disrespect for the laws governing intellectual property. In her ethno-graphic study of some modern American undergraduates, Blum (2009 ) revealed a subculturewhere sharing and quoting without attribution are established norms of conduct. In this world,individuals regularly quote movies, songs, and TV shows in everyday speech, and part of thrivingin this culture rests on one’s ability to seamlessly integrate his or her thoughts with popularlyknown phrases and bits from the fashionable media of the time. In addition to this hypershar-ing reality that many of today’s college students live in, the students are also embedded in anoverarching American culture where honesty does not seem very valued, especially when being

dishonest can get one “ahead.” In David Callahan’s (2004) popular book The Cheating Culture ,he convincingly presents a portrait of contemporary American culture that not only passivelyaccepts cheating, corruption, and lying but also actively fosters it, through erce winner-take-allcompetitions for prestige, money, and inclusion, among other things.

However, as Callahan admitted, cheating also regularly occurs in cultures with economic andsocial systems different from the United States. The watchdog group Transparency Internationalreported that the greatest concentration of corruption across the globe occurs in the more com-munally structured, socialistic countries (Hodess & Wolkers, as cited in Crittenden, Hanna,& Peterson, 2009 ). Perhaps in this ever-globalizing world these cross-cultural differences willbecome a moot point in the future, as college students from all over the planet will havebeen exposed to the same worldwide hyperculture as everyone else. Supporting this hypothesis,Crittenden et al. (2009 ) did not nd any meaningful differences between how tolerant businessstudents from the United States—which has a relatively low corruption index—were of cheatingand how tolerant business students from countries with higher corruption indices were. Despitethis, the researchers did nd a signicant difference in student cheating tendencies between stu-dents from the United States and those from high corruption index countries (e.g., China, Bolivia,Turkey, Vietnam), with the former believing in less cheating and the latter in more.

Cohoon and Rogers’s ( 2003 ) mixed-methods study of computer science students offers somequalitative evidence of the association between corruption and cheating behavior. For example,an international student, studying in the United States, is quoted, “I’m from Ukraine . . . [wherecheating is] not a negative thing at all. People [there] expect students to want to ‘cheat.’” Note

that in 2011 Transparency International ranked Ukraine 152 out of 183 countries (“Transparency

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


14/19


International,” 2011 ). In addition to the reports garnered directly from international studentsabout the, at times, pro-cheating culture of their home countries, many U.S. domestic studentsalso espoused a belief that international students were prone to cheating behavior, especiallyorganized cheating behavior. Cohoon and Rogers quoted a U.S. citizen explaining why he felt hemust cheat:

The Russians had the Computer Science department on lock. And if anybody here who disagreeswith me (laughter), tell me because the Russians have all the tests, all the answers. . . . They haveeverything and they work as a good unit. Indians too, and the Asians. Everybody has their own niche.And like me, . . . I’m the only black guy in there , and it just leaves me out, you know. I have to joina circle . . . I joined up with the Russians in [an advanced programming class], and they helped methrough the class. They gave me all the exams from last semester. I’m not saying: I’m taking the fthon the cheating part, but they gave me all the exams from the last semester. They gave me all the notes.

They had everything, and they distribute it to all their friends, the whole circle.—And if you’re not ina niche or a group, or maybe you don’t cross the barrier [into a group], you’re going to fail. (p. 9)

Russia’s 2011 ranking by Transparency International was 143 out of 183 (“TransparencyInternational,” 2011 ).

In light of these qualitative ndings, Cohoon and Rogers (2003 ) reported something unex-pected: Their data, writ large, do not point to a relationship between citizenship and cheatingbehavior. To substantiate this, the authors stated that there was not a signicant relationshipbetween the proportion of international students in a department and that department’s self-reported problems with cheating. 4 Thus, it may not be that international students cheat morebut that their cheating behaviors are more salient to others and perhaps to themselves as well.

The large overrepresentation of international students in my class may not be an indicator of differences in the actual frequency and egregiousness of academically dishonest behaviors butrather may be an indication of differing perceptions about the cheating likelihood of various cate-gories of people. This hypothesis ts well with Howard Becker’s famous labeling theory and thevarious established tenets of social psychology that illustrate the powerful role of perception andperceptual salience in remembering, focusing, and deciding to act (e.g., see Cialdini & Goldstein,2004 ).

Of course, it can be both. Perhaps instructors, domestic students, and international studentsare all primed with the idea that international students cheat more than others. In this scenario,instructors are more likely to look for cheating behavior among international students and, due

to this disproportionate surveillance and sifting, a greater proportion of international students areturned in, which just substantiates the idea that they are more likely offenders, creating a sort of self-fullling prophecy. Adding to this, if, as Becker (1973) and others have thought, internationalstudents internalize the label given to them, they may be more likely to act out in accordance withthat label. In this case, they may cheat more. But do students and faculty have this perceptionabout international undergraduates?

4Of course, group-level data do not always predict individual behavior. For example, it may be that internationalstudents do cheat more but that domestic students in departments where there are higher concentrations of internationalstudents are less likely to cheat than their counterparts in departments with fewer international students. Invalid deduction

of this type is often referred to as the ecological fallacy .

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


15/19

58 BEASLEY

Cohoon and Rogers ( 2003 ) ran focus groups with undergraduates that yielded evidence thatstudents in general seem to think international students do cheat more than domestic students;however, these researchers also found that, despite the students’ identications that internationalstudents were especially prone to cheat, a larger overarching analysis does not corroborate thisperception. Cohoon and Rogers wrote,

Despite these student self-reports and complaints about cheating among international students, thedata for this study showed no measurable relationship between cheating and non-citizen groups of students. Departments with more international students were no more likely to report problems withcheating than were departments with few international students. It seems that many students cheat,but when international students are a visible group, students who were not a member of the groupbelieved that international students were doing the most cheating of anyone. Thus, it is possible thathaving a visible group of different students made their actions stand out, despite there being no real

difference between their behavior and the behavior of other students. (p. 10)

Another factor, other than actual cheating differences, that may account for some of the dif-ferences in reports by citizenship status is the ease of detection. Although it is difcult to nduntarnished data on the total number of acts of academic dishonesty occurring at any given time, 5

the bulk of self-report studies indicate that a much higher number of cheaters and cheating inci-dents exist than are ever ofcially reported for academic dishonesty. Although Crittenden et al.(2009 ) asserted that only 5% of cheaters had ever been caught, even fewer get caught and of-cially sanctioned. Happel and Jennings ( 2008 ) reported that just 1.5% of college cheaters saythey have ever been sanctioned for their malfeasance, whereas most studies assessing how manycollege students have cheated show around a 45-fold increase in that percentage (McCabe et al.,

2012 ). So, if the great majority of acts are never caught, and even fewer are reported, a key deter-mining factor in who gets caught could be how easy the person is to catch and / or how much proof an instructor has. It is certainly easier to notice a nonnative speaker writing in perfect English oneparagraph and very broken English in the next (this can also be true for domestic students withpoor writing skills) than it is to notice the copying and pasting of a native English speaker.

Extending this last thought, if ease of detection was a powerful inuencer of likelihood of reports and if it is generally easier to detect international students’ plagiarism, we could expectthat more international students than domestic students would be reported for plagiarism. Table 2 ,which was presented earlier in this section, shows the opposite: Of those reported, domesticstudents were more likely to have been reported for plagiarism. However, because internationalstudents are so much more likely to be reported than domestic students (around ve times aslikely), my ndings suggest that it is more likely that an international student in the generalpopulation will be reported for plagiarism than would a domestic student from the general under-graduate population. Thus, the widely reported notions that international students plagiarize morethan domestic students and get reported more often for plagiarism is partially supported bymy data. Furthermore, this is evidence that some of the reasons international students are sooverrepresented in the course are related to plagiarism.

Still, there may be many other variables mediating and / or moderating this relationship.As mentioned, the differences between the representations of international and domestic students

5 In experiments this number is easier to ascertain, but not many studies have used this methodology, and the studies

that have still have to deal with concerns about external validity.

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


16/19


may be due, in part, to the different gender compositions of each group (in the fall of 2009, 53%of international students were male [see MSU, 2010 ], whereas only 46% of all MSU studentswere male [see MSU, n.d.-c]). Religiosity has been found to inversely correlate with cheatinglikelihood (Lambert, Hogan, & Barton, 2003 ), and in the places where international students tendto come from (e.g., China, where 38% of international students enrolled at MSU in the fall of 2009 were from; see MSU, 2010 ), there is generally less religiosity than in the United States.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Most studies on collegiate academic dishonesty report relationships among demographic char-acteristics and self-reported cheating behavior. Some themes have emerged: Younger / earlier

year undergraduates cheat more than older / later year undergraduates, and international studentscheat more than domestic students (Wideman, 2008 ), men admit to cheating more than women(although often gender does not have a signicant effect on cheating [Lambert et al., 2003 ] reviewthis matter depicting which studies found a gender difference and which did not). However, thestudies producing the aforementioned conclusions are mostly based on self-reports of generalstudent samples .6 The results of these studies may be more at the mercy of skewing media-tion via memory, social desirability, and varying student perception of what constitutes academicdishonesty than demographic data describing students who have been reported for academicdishonesty.

In addition, there is a distinct conceptual difference between students who self-report engagingin academically dishonest behavior and those that get reported for it. Most notably, not everyonegets caught, not everyone who gets caught gets reported, not everyone who gets reported knewthey were cheating, and, even if aware, they may not self-report it to a researcher.

I compared the demographics of those who have been reported with those of the larger studentbody at MSU and of self-reported cheaters in the literature in order to discover trends regardingthe differences between those that self-report academically dishonest behavior to a researcher andthose who get reported for it.

The largest nding was that international students are much more likely than domestic studentsto get reported. My analysis also suggests that seniors are less likely than underclassmen to getreported, and that there is not a signicant disproportionality in reports according to gender. Muchof the extant literature shows that international students are more likely to cheat and / or more

likely to get caught cheating. It seems that they are also more likely to be reported. An analysisof the degree to which, if any, international students cheat more than domestic students will helpilluminate any biases in instructor reports.

Although the literature is vast in its assessments of who is cheating and how much they arecheating, a random sample study of the MSU undergraduate population that uncovers cheatingbehavior of different kinds of students can be directly compared to the demographics of theinstructor-report samples to attain a clearer gauge of reporting biases. I plan to undertake such astudy in the near future.

6 It is possible that these populations are skewed toward those who do not commit or get reported for academically

dishonest acts, as the type of student that get reported may be more likely to drop out of college.

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap


17/19

60 BEASLEY

REFERENCES

Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and deviant behavior: A specictest of a general theory. American Sociological Review , 44 , 636–655. doi :10.2307 / 2094592

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (4th ed.). LosAngeles, CA: Roxbury.

Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (2004). Changes in self-reported academic cheating across the transition from middleschool to high school. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 29 , 499–517. doi :10.1016 / j.cedpsych.2004.02.002

Anderman, E. M., & Murdock, T. B. (2007). Psychology of academic cheating . Burlington, MA: Elsevier AcademicPress.

Beasley, E. M. (2014). Students reported for cheating explain what they think would have stopped them. Ethics & Behavior , 24 , 229–252. doi :10.1080 / 10508422.2013.845533

Becker, H. (1973). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance . New York, NY: Free Press.Bi, F. (2013, September 9). Better data can help colleges ght cheating. The Chronicle of Higher Education .

Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid = cc&utm_source = cc&utm_medium = en

Blum, S. (2009). My word: Plagiarism and college culture . Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Calabrese, R. L., & Cochran, J. T. (1990). The relationship of alienation to cheating among a sample of American adoles-

cents. Journal of Research & Development in Education , Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-29264-001

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead . Orlando, FL: HoughtonMifin Harcourt.

Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social inuence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology , 55 ,591–621. doi :10.1146 / annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

Cohoon, J. M. G., & Rogers, A. E. (2003, March 29). A little too much help from their friends . Paper presented atthe North Central Sociological Association. Retrieved from http://people.virginia.edu/ ∼ jlc6j/Publications/NCSA/ A%20Little%20Too%20Much%2Help%20from%20Their%20Friends%20single.pdf

Crittenden, V. L., Hanna, R. C., & Peterson, R. A. (2009). The cheating culture: A global societal phenomenon. Business Horizons , 52 , 337–346. doi: 10.1016 / j.bushor.2009.02.004Cronan, P. (2013, February). Teachable moments: Using freshman attitudes and perceptions as a potential cultural inu-

ence . Paper presented at the International Center for Academic Integrity Annual Conference 2013, San Antonio,TX.

Davis, S. F., Drinan, P. F., & Bertram Gallant, P. (2009). Cheating in school [Summary]. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Retrievedfrom http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444310252.fmatter/summary

Ercegovac, Z., & Richardson, J. V. (2004). Academic dishonesty, plagiarism included, in the digital age: A literaturereview. College & Research Libraries , 65 , 301–318. doi :10.5860 / crl.65.4.301

Eve, R. A., & Bromley, D. G. (1981). Scholastic dishonesty among college undergraduates parallel tests of twosociological explanations. Youth & Society , 13 , 3–22.

Franklyn-Stokes, A., & Newstead, S. E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating: Who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education , 20 , 159–172. doi :10.1080 / 03075079512331381673

Genereux, R. L., & McLeod, B. A. (1995). Circumstances surrounding cheating: A questionnaire study of collegestudents. Research in Higher Education , 36 , 687–704. doi :10.1007 / BF02208251

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research . Chicago,IL: Aldine.

Graham, M. A., Monday, J., O’Brien, K., & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small colleges: An examination of studentand faculty attitudes and behaviors. Journal of College Student Development , 3, 255–260.

Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in academics and business: A cross-cultural evaluation of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics , 49 , 273–290. doi :10.1023 / B:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30

Ha, P. L. (2006). Plagiarism and overseas students: Stereotypes again? ELT Journal , 60 , 76–78. doi: 10.1093 / elt / cci085Happel, S. K., & Jennings, M. M. (2008). An economic analysis of academic dishonesty and its deterrence in higher

education. Journal of Legal Studies Education , 25 , 183–214. doi :10.1111 / j.1744-1722.2008.00051.xHodess, R., & Wolkers, M. (2004). Report of the transparency international global corruption barometer 2004 (p. 9).

Berlin, Germany: TI.

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap

http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D2094592http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094592http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094592http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094592http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dj.cedpsych.2004.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dj.cedpsych.2004.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D10508422.2013.845533http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.845533http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.845533http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.845533http://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-29264-001http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-29264-001http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dannurev.psych.55.090902.142015http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dannurev.psych.55.090902.142015http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.02.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.02.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.02.004http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444310252.fmatter/summaryhttp://dx.doi.org/10.5860/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dcrl.65.4.301http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dcrl.65.4.301http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.4.301http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.4.301http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.4.301http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D03075079512331381673http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D03075079512331381673http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079512331381673http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079512331381673http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079512331381673http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7DBF02208251http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7DBF02208251http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02208251http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02208251http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02208251http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7DB:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7DB:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci085http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci085http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci085http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci085http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci085http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dj.1744-1722.2008.00051.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1722.2008.00051.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1722.2008.00051.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1722.2008.00051.xhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444310252.fmatter/summaryhttp://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-29264-001http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-29264-001http://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1722.2008.00051.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci085http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02208251http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079512331381673http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crl.65.4.301http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.02.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.845533http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2094592http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444310252.fmatter/summaryhttp://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-29264-001http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1992-29264-001http://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://chronicle.com/article/Better-Data-Can-HelColleges/141485/?cid=cc&utm_source=cc&utm_medium=enhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dj.1744-1722.2008.00051.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Delt/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dcci085http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7DB:BUSI.0000017969.29461.30http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7DBF02208251http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D03075079512331381673http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dcrl.65.4.301http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dj.bushor.2009.02.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dannurev.psych.55.090902.142015http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D10508422.2013.845533http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Dj.cedpsych.2004.02.002http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D2094592


18/19


Hu, W., & Grove, C. (1991). Encountering the Chinese: A guide for Americans . New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.Karlins, M., Michaels, C., & Podlogar, S. (1988). An empirical investigation of actual cheating in a large sample of

undergraduates. Research in Higher Education , 29 , 359–364. doi: 10.1007 / BF00992776Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley, B., Jr., & Washburn, J. (1998). Why professors ignore cheating: Opinions

of a national sample of psychology instructors. Ethics & Behavior , 8, 215–227. doi :10.1207 / s15327019eb0803_3Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Barton, S. M. (2003). Collegiate academic dishonesty revisited: What have they done,

how often have they done it, who does it, and why did they do it. Electronic Journal of Sociology , 7 (4), 13–15.Larwood, Q., & Rankin, E. L. (2010). Guilty as charged! The determinants of honor court convictions. Atlantic Economic

Journal , 38 , 461–462. doi :10.1007 / s11293-010-9246-yMartin, D., Rao, A., & Sloan, L. (2011). Ethnicity, acculturation, and plagiarism: A criterion study of unethical academic

conduct. Human Organization , 70 , 88–96.McCabe, D. L. (1993). Faculty responses to academic dishonesty: The inuence of student honor codes. Research in

Higher Education, 34 (5), 647–658. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991924McCabe, D. L., Buttereld, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2012). Cheating in college: Why students do it and what educators

can do about it . Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual inuences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus

investigation. Research in Higher Education , 38, 379–396. doi :10.1023 / A:1024954224675McCabe, D. L., Trevino, L. K., & Buttereld, K. D. (1999). Academic integrity in honor code and non-honor code

environments: A qualitative investigation. The Journal of Higher Education , 70 , 211–234. doi :10.2307 / 2649128Michaels, J. W., & Miethe, T. D. (1989). Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating. Social Science Quarterly ,

70 , 870–885.Michigan State University. (n.d.-a). Comparison of student enrollments . Retrieved from http://reports.esp.msu.edu/Report

Server/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?%2fROReports2005%2fUE-ComparisonStudentEnrollments&term_seq_id = 1114Michigan State University. (n.d.-b). Enrollment and persistence . Retrieved from http://dev.opb.msu.edu/institution/

documents/CDS0910_pageB.pdf Michigan State University. (n.d.-c). Gender comparison . Retrieved from http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/

ReportViewer.aspx?/ROReports2005/UE-GenderComparison&term_seq_id = 1094Michigan State University. (n.d.-d). International students: Fall semesters 1971–2010. Retrieved from http://oiss.isp.msu.

edu/documents/statsreport/10pdfs/1971_2010.pdf Michigan State University. (n.d.-e). MSU policies, regulations and ordinances regarding academic honesty and integrity.

Retrieved from https://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/academic-integrity/ Michigan State University. (2010, August 26). MSU plans for record number of international students. Retrieved from

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/msu-plans-for-record-number-of-international-students/ Miyazaki, I. (1976). China’s examination hell: The civil service examinations of imperial China . New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.Mustaine, E., & Tewksbury, R. (2005). Southern college students’ cheating behaviors: An examination of problem

behavior correlates. Deviant Behavior , 26, 439–461. doi :10.1080 / 016396290950659Payan, J., Reardon, J., & McCorkle, D. E. (2010). The effect of culture on the academic honesty of marketing and business

students. Journal of Marketing Education , 32 , 275–291. doi :10.1177 / 0273475310377781Rawwas, M., Al-Khatib, J. A., & Vitell, S. J. (2004). Academic dishonesty: A cross-cultural comparison of U.S. and

Chinese marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education , 26 , 89–100. doi :10.1177 / 0273475303262354Sacks, C. K. (2008). Academic and disciplinary outcomes following adjudication of academic dishonesty . Bowling Green

State University. Retrieved from http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Sacks%20Casey.pdf?bgsu1206386966Skiba, R., Shure, L., & Williams, N. (2011). What do we know about racial and ethnic disproportionality in

school suspension and expulsion? (Brieng Paper Developed for the Atlantic Philanthropies’ Race and GenderResearch to Practice Collaborative). Retrieved from http://www.indiana.edu/ ∼ atlantic/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/ CollaborativeBriengPaper.pdf

Thomas, P., & Ryan, J. (2008). U.S. prison population hits all-time high. ABC News . Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id = 5009270&page = 1

Transparency International: Ukraine ranks 152nd in world corruption rating. (2011, December 1). KyivPost. Retrievedfrom https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/transparency-international-ukraine-ranks-152nd-in--117944.html

Vanderpool, S., & Cates, L. (2013, February 27). Creating and implementing an online academic integrity tutorial . Paperpresented at the International Center for Academic Integrity Annual Conference 2013, San Antonio, TX.

Downo

y

onB

o

oon

mnoonnUAC

Ap

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992776http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992776http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992776http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Ds15327019eb0803/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D_/gdef%20/%20%7B_%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B_/gdef%20/%20%7B_%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D3http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Ds15327019eb0803/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D_/gdef%20/%20%7B_%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B_/gdef%20/%20%7B_%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D3http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0803_3http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0803_3http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb0803_3http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7Ds11293-010-9246-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11293-010-9246-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11293-010-9246-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11293-010-9246-yhttp://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991924http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7DA:1024954224675http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024954224675http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024954224675http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024954224675http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D2649128http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D2649128http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2649128http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2649128http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2649128http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?%2fROReports2005%2fUE-ComparisonStudentEnrollments&term_seq_id=1114http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?%2fROReports2005%2fUE-ComparisonStudentEnrollments&term_seq_id=1114http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?%2fROReports2005%2fUE-ComparisonStudentEnrollments&term_seq_id=1114http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?%2fROReports2005%2fUE-ComparisonStudentEnrollments&term_seq_id=1114http://dev.opb.msu.edu/institution/documents/CDS0910_pageB.pdfhttp://dev.opb.msu.edu/institution/documents/CDS0910_pageB.pdfhttp://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/ROReports2005/UE-GenderComparison&term_seq_id=1094http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/ROReports2005/UE-GenderComparison&term_seq_id=1094http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/ROReports2005/UE-GenderComparison&term_seq_id=1094http://reports.esp.msu.edu/ReportServer/Pages/ReportViewer.aspx?/ROReports2005/UE-GenderComparison&term_seq_id=1094http://oiss.isp.msu.edu/documents/statsreport/10pdfs/1971_2010.pdfhttp://oiss.isp.msu.edu/documents/statsreport/10pdfs/1971_2010.pdfhttps://www.msu.edu/unit/ombud/academic-integrity/http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2010/msu-plans-for-record-number-of-international-students/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D016396290950659http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D016396290950659http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016396290950659http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016396290950659http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016396290950659http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D0273475310377781http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D0273475310377781http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475310377781http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475310377781http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475310377781http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D0273475303262354http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/gdef%20yes%7Bno%7D$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D/gdef%20/%20/gdef%20/%20%7B/%20%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7B$/$/gdef%20/%20%7B$/$%7D/gdef%20no%7Bno%7D/gdef%20yes%7Byes%7D%7D0273475303262354http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475303262354http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475303262354http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0273475303262354http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send-pdf.cgi/Sacks%20Casey.pdf?bgsu1206386966http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5009270&page=1http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5009270&page=1http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5009270&page=1http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5009270&page=1http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5009270&page=1http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5009270&page=1https://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/transparency-international-ukraine-ranks-152nd-in--

Documents

Beasley 2016 Comparing the Demographics of Students Reported for Academic Dishonesty to Those of the Overall Student Population