writing.markfullmer.com

ABSTRACT. College cheating represents a major ethical
problem facing students and educators, especially in colleges
of business. The current study surveys 666 business
students in three universities to examine potential determinants
of cheating perceptions. Anti-intellectualism refers
to a student’s negative view of the value and importance of
intellectual pursuits and critical thinking. Academic selfefficacy
refers to a student’s belief in one’s ability to
accomplish an academic task. As hypothesized, students
high in anti-intellectualism attitudes and those with low
academic self-efficacy were least likely to perceive college
cheating as unethical. Considering that college cheating has
been found as a predictor of workplace cheating, the results
urge business instructors to reduce anti-intellectualism
among students and to encourage them to put forth their
best efforts. The results also serve employers by focusing
attention on these two psychological variables during the
hiring and promotion processes.
KEY WORDS: cheating, business students, anti-intellectualism,
self-efficacy
Introduction
The phenomenon of college cheating represents an
ethical problem facing administrators, instructors and
students. Research has pointed to an increase in the
prevalence of cheating. A recent study by Smyth and
Davis (2004) found that 74% of college students had
observed cheating and 45% admitted to cheating.
Studies also indicated that cheating in college is a
strong predictor of cheating in the workplace
(Lawson, 2004). Klein et al. (2007) warned instructors
and employers about such a relationship when the
researchers found that business students had more lax
attitudes regarding cheating compared to other college
students. Considering that the business world is
often shaken by very significant instances of unethical
behavior, it is important to study the perceptions of
business students regarding college cheating and the
determinants of such perceptions.
The current study examines business students’ perceptions
of cheating in and out of the classroom. Kisamore
et al. (2007) noted that psychological variables,
in general, have not received enough attention in the
college cheating literature compared to demographic
variables. This study helps to fill this void by examining
two psychological variables: Anti-intellectualism, and
academic self-efficacy. Anti-intellectualism attitudes
refer to an interest in recipe learning and memorization
as well as a lack of interest, and sometimes disrespect,
for the ideals of higher education like critical thinking
and hypothetical inquiry (Shaffer, 1981). Research
found that anti-intellectualism could have several
negative consequences for college students, such as
poor performance and academic adjustment (Hook,
2004). The current study tests whether it might be
Rafik Z. Elias is a Professor of Accounting at California State
University, Los Angeles. He received his DBA in accounting
from Louisiana Tech University and he is a CPA. His
research has been published in Advances in Accounting,
Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Education for
Business, Managerial Auditing Journal, Advances in
Public Interest Accounting, Journal of Business
Disciplines, Journal of the Academy of Business Education
and many national and regional conference proceedings.
His research interests are in the areas of Auditing,
Accounting Education and Ethics.
Journal of Business Ethics (2009) 86:199–209
Springer 2008
DOI 10.1007/s10551-008-9843-8
related to college cheating. Academic self-efficacy refers
to a student’s belief in success in an academic task
based on one’s performance competence (Wood and
Locke, 1987). Students with low academic self-efficacy
are in danger of failing their classes and withdrawing
from several courses. The current study tests
whether such a variable might be related to students’
perceptions of cheating. The study is useful to
instructors as they attempt to curtail students’ cheating
in and out of the classroom and to employers who
should hire and promote more ethical employees.
This article is organized as follows: Following this
introduction is a literature review of the numerous
studies conducted on college cheating, with a particular
emphasis on business students, and a review of the
limited research on anti-intellectualism and academic
self-efficacy. This will be followed by an explanation
of the study’s research method and sample selection.
Finally, the results are presented along with conclusions
and possible consequences for academic institutions
and employers.
Literature review
Cheating in college
College cheating is not a new phenomenon. Early
research showed that 66% of undergraduate students
engaged in at least one act of cheating, such as plagiarism
or turning in someone else’s work (Bowers,
1964). However, the incidence of cheating seems to
be increasing on college campuses and several
researchers claimed it had reached epidemic proportions
(e.g., Davis et al., 1992). Whitley (1998)
reviewed 46 studies investigating the prevalence of
cheating and found the percentages of students
admitting to cheating ranging from 9% to 95% across
different samples, with the average being 70.4%.
This increase in college students’ cheating represents
a major challenge for administrators, students
and employers. For example, with inflated grades
due to cheating, employers may make wrong hiring
decisions and employ students who earned their high
grades through cheating and even worse, students
with lax moral values. Research shows that cheating
is an enduring trait. Davis and Ludvigson (1995)
found that 70% of college students who admitted to
cheating started doing so in high school. Previous
research also found a strong relationship between
college cheating and future cheating. Such students
are more likely to shoplift (Beck and Ajzen, 1991),
cheat on income taxes (Fass, 1990), and engage in
unethical workplace behavior (Sims, 1993).
The latter relationship between cheating in college
and unethical workplace behavior has focused
research attention on business students’ cheating.
Many studies compared business students’ cheating
behavior with those of other disciplines. The overall
conclusion is that business students cheated more
often than other students and were less likely to
disapprove of it (McCabe, 1997) and that they had
more lax attitudes on what constituted cheating
(Klein et al., 2007). Lawson (2004) also showed that
business students who admitted to cheating were
more likely to accept unethical workplace behavior.
With the prevalence of corporate fraud like Enron,
occurring at the highest level of management, and
numerous employee fraud scandals constantly discovered
by auditors, research on college cheating
becomes increasingly important. Such research has
examined possible antecedents of cheating in an attempt
to curtail such behavior.
Determinants of college cheating
Research on causes of college cheating found three
major categories of determinants: demographic,
situational and personal. Karabenick and Scrull
(1978) conducted an early study on the influence of
demographics on cheating and found no differences
between male and female students in the likelihood
of cheating. However, Barnes (1975) and more
recently Iyer and Eastman (2006) found that male
students were more likely to cheat compared to
females. Iyer and Eastman (2006) also reported that
students who belonged to Greek organizations
would cheat more often than others. Graham et al.
(1994) found that younger students cheated more
often than older (nontraditional) students. However,
more recent research like Premeaux (2005), reported
that students who are working full-time and married
students were more likely to cheat. These latest
findings were rationalized by Klein et al. (2007) as
the students’ reaction to the workplace’s ‘‘get it done
at all costs’’ environment. Sims (1995) found that the
difference between faculty and students in cheating
200 Rafik Z. Elias
perception narrows as students become seniors,
leading to the conclusion that students perceive
cheating more unethical close to graduation. Crown
and Spiller (1998) reviewed 14 studies on the
demographic determinants of college cheating and
found that students with lower GPAs cheated more.
The current study, therefore, continues this line
of research and examines demographic factors as
determinants of cheating perceptions among business
students.
Little research has examined selected major as a
predictor of cheating. Chapman et al. (2004) found
that marketing students were more likely to cheat
compared to other business majors. Since previous
studies reached mixed conclusions, the following
hypothesis is tested in the null form:
H1: There are no differences in business students’
perceptions of cheating based on gender, age,
major, class grade and overall GPA.
Regarding situational factors, Houston (1976) found
that students appeared to cheat more often in large
crowded classrooms, where instructors used multiple-
choice exams. In a meta-analysis of the antecedents
of cheating, Whitley (1998) found that
decreased surveillance, increased test importance and
difficulty, close seating arrangements and grading on
a curve were all important situational determinants
of cheating.
The psychology of cheating
Chapman et al. (2004) found that individual and
psychological variables were the most important, yet
the least researched, determinants of college cheating.
Rettinger and Jordan (2005) reported that
higher-grade orientation was positively related to
self-reported cheating, and that more religiosity was
associated with less cheating. Williams and Hosek
(2003) stressed that students were rational and that
they decided to cheat when they perceived the
benefits of cheating outweighing the risks. Davis and
Ludvigson (1995) found that students with a fear of
failure, alienation, and those under peer or family
pressure were more likely to cheat compared to
other students. Pino and Smith (2003) referred to an
‘‘academic ethic’’ variable and argued that students
possessing such ethic were less likely to cheat.
Antion and Michael (1983) noted that students with
higher anxiety cheated more often than other students.
Perry et al. (1990) found a strong relationship
between students’ personality type and cheating.
Students with a Type A personality, characterized by
aggression, impatience and competition, were more
likely to cheat compared with other students. Iyer
and Eastman (2006) also found that students with
low self-esteem would cheat more often than other
students. Kisamore et al. (2007) found that students
with an integrity culture were least likely to cheat.
The current study examines two psychological
variables that have not been specifically investigated
as to their relationship to college cheating: Antiintellectualism
and academic self-efficacy.
Anti-intellectualism attitudes
The concept of anti-intellectualism was first introduced
by Hofstadter (1963). In his critique of the
intellectual character of American culture, he described
anti-intellectualism as a discrete social phenomenon.
In an anti-intellectual culture, most
students will be anti-intellectual and so will most
teachers and most employers. Those individuals
whose particular combination of experiences leads
them to value intellectual pursuits will represent a
minority (Hofstadter, 1963). Shaffer (1981) defined
the attitude of anti-intellectualism in college as a
preference for learning that is fact-oriented, memorized,
pragmatic and routine. It entails a lack of interest
in, and sometimes disrespect for, intellectual and
theoretical pursuits, as well as critical thinking and
hypothetical inquiry. Long (1996) explored the rise of
anti-intellectualism in American culture and noted
the negative portrayal of academics in Hollywood that
stemmed from glorifying the person possessing
‘‘practical’’ knowledge and the realization that a
degree no longer guaranteed success, or even a job.
This concept has been explained by Wacquant (1996)
as the ‘‘unquestioned supremacy of economic over
cultural capital in American society.’’ Berube (1996)
further examined the origins of the negative perception
toward academics. He argued that the media
feeding frenzy about political correctness, public
confusion about academic work and distrust of tenure
were all factors leading to anti-intellectualism.
The Impact of Anti-Intellectualism Attitudes and Academic Self-Efficacy 201
Consequences of anti-intellectualism in the college
environment
The concept of anti-intellectualism has only been
recently introduced in the psychology and education
literature. However, early research points to its
powerful consequences in the college environment.
Eigenberger and Sealander (2001) found that high
anti-intellectualism led students to assimilate academic
information by rote techniques and surfacelevel
learning, rather than adopting a learning style
that was deep and meaning-oriented. They also
found that anti-intellectualism was negatively related
to critical thinking behavior. Hook (2004) also
found that students with an anti-intellectual attitude
had difficulty adjusting to college, and were less attached
to their institutions. Such students were at
higher risk for poor academic adjustment, including
underachievement and attrition.
Based on the limited research already conducted on
anti-intellectualism, the current study examines the
relationship between anti-intellectualism and the perception
of cheating in college. The study investigates
the likelihood that anti-intellectual students,motivated
by their lack of interest in intellectual pursuits, would
be less likely to perceive cheating as unethical, in order
to achieve their ultimate objective, namely the
attainment of a grade and eventually a degree. The
following hypothesis is tested in the null form:
H2: There is no relationship between antiintellectualism
and perception of cheating
ethics among business students.
Academic self-efficacy
Bandura (1977) defined self-efficacy as a self-evaluation
of one’s competence to successfully execute a course
of action necessary to reach desired outcomes.
Research has investigated the consequences of selfefficacy.
Chemers et al. (2001) noted that each
external environmental demand is viewed as a
‘‘threat’’ or a ‘‘challenge’’ and that individuals with
high self-efficacy were more likely to evaluate such
demands as challenges and less as threats. Therefore,
persons with low self-efficacy are more likely to be
stressed (Torres and Solberg, 2001). This relationship
was also confirmed by Zajacova et al. (2005). Bandura
(1986) also argued that high perceived self-efficacy
depended on confidence that with appropriate tools
and training, tasks can be managed. Individuals with
high self-efficacy are motivated to succeed due to their
self-confidence while those with low self-efficacy
visualize scenarios that undermine performances by
dwelling on things that can go wrong (Bandura,
1986). Locke et al. (1984) also found that individuals
with low self-efficacy selected easier goals when
subjects were free to set their own goals.
Pajares (1996) argued that self-efficacy was a multidimensional
construct that varied according to the
domain of demands, and therefore, must be evaluated
at a level specific to the outcome domain. That entails
studying academic self-efficacy in an education
environment, rather than general self-efficacy. Academic
self-efficacy, therefore, refers to a student’s
confidence in one’s ability to carry out such academic
tasks as preparing for exams and writing essays (Zajacova
et al., 2005). An extensive body of research
showed that academic self-efficacy was positively related
to grades in college and persistence (Multon
et al., 1991). Torres and Solberg (2001) found a positive
association between academic self-efficacy and
the number of hours students spent studying. Chemers
et al. (2001) found a significant positive relationship
between freshmen college students’ academic
self-efficacy and their adjustment to college and in
their response to the demands of college life. Students’
sense of class belonging was also positively associated
with their academic self-efficacy (Freeman et al.,
2007). In addition, students’ academic self-efficacy
affected their choice of major. For example, students
with low self-efficacy changed major often during
their college years (Elias and Loomis, 2000).
Ethical consequences of academic self-efficacy
Very little research has investigated the potential
relationship between self-efficacy in general and
ethics. Kuo et al. (2007) found a moderate relationship
between the ethics of guarding personal
private information and self-efficacy among computer
professionals. Female computer professionals
exhibited a higher level of self-efficacy than males
for the protection of personal privacy information.
Research investigating academic self-efficacy and
ethics is lacking. The current study examines the
relationship between academic self-efficacy and
202 Rafik Z. Elias
cheating perceptions among business students.
Angell (2006) reported that students with high academic
self-efficacy learned for pleasure and satisfaction
and were reinforced by feeling intelligent.
Therefore, it is reasonable to theorize that such
students would perceive cheating as more unethical
compared to their counterparts with lower academic
self-efficacy. The following hypothesis is tested in
the null form:
H3: There is no relationship between the level of
academic self-efficacy and the perception of
cheating ethics among business students.
Research method
Sampling
The sample for this study consisted of business students
in three AACSB-accredited universities located in the
West, Mountains and Northeastern U.S. Many different
sections of introductory and upper-level business
classes were surveyed as well as graduate classes
over a one-year period. Overall, a total of 692 students
participated in the survey. These voluntary surveys
were administered at the end of the semester and
students were assured of confidentiality. After eliminating
surveys with missing answers, the useable
sample consisted of 666 students.
Measures
The survey consisted of a demographic section and
several scales. In order to measure students’ perceptions
of cheating, the questionnaire developed by
Allmon et al. (2000) was used. It consisted of nine
statements and respondents indicated their agreement
or disagreement with each statement on a
seven-point scale ranging from 1 (always acceptable)
to 7 (always unacceptable). The questionnaire asked
students about their perception of the ethics of
several activities that would be considered cheating,
both inside and outside the classroom. Higher scores
indicated a more negative perception of cheating as
represented by these activities. Swift and Nonis
(1998) found that the level of cheating was higher on
projects than on exams and that students viewed the
ethics of cheating differently inside and outside the
classroom. Therefore, the questionnaire contained
examples of cheating in the classroom like cheating
on exams and not reporting an instructor’s math
error as well cheating outside the classroom like
plagiarism and submitting a friend’s work as one’s
own project. Allmon et al. (2000) validated the scale
and found it correlated with idealism, relativism and
personality type. Two distinct factors emerged for
cheating inside and outside the classroom.
In order to measure anti-intellectualism, the scale
developed by Eigenberger and Sealander (2001) was
used. The scale consisted of 25 statements, such as ‘‘I
do not like taking courses that are not directly related
to my goals after graduation’’ and ‘‘The main
problems in life require clear and direct answers, not
intellectual theorizing.’’ Each respondent records
one’s agreement with each statement on a sevenpoint
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). A higher score indicates a higher
level of anti-intellectualism. The authors presented
evidence of survey validity by showing correlation
with similar constructs, such as dogmatism, and
openness to ideas and a lack of correlation with social
desirability. The scale was also used by Hook
(2004) in his study regarding adjustment to college.
Academic self-efficacy was measured using the
scale developed by Chemers et al. (2001) based on
Bandura’s (1997) work regarding self efficacy. The
scale consisted of eight statements, such as ‘‘I know
how to take notes in my college classes’’ and ‘‘I am
very capable at succeeding at the university.’’ The
scale was tailored by Leach et al. (2003) to fit collegelevel
work. The respondents’ answers ranged from 1
(definitely not true of me) to 7 (definitely true of me).
Higher scores indicate higher academic self-efficacy.