JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR BUSINESS, 87: 316324, 2012

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Copyright

ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online
DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2011.625998

Who Leads and Who Lags? A Comparison

of Cheating Attitudes and Behaviors Among
Leadership and Business Students
Aditya Simha, Josh P. Armstrong, and Joseph F. Albert
Gonzaga University, Spokane, Washington, USA

Academic dishonesty and cheating has become endemic, and has also been studied in great
depth by researchers. The authors examine the differences between undergraduate business
students (n = 136) and leadership students (n = 89) in terms of their attitudes toward academic
dishonesty as well as their cheating behaviors. They found that business students overall had
much more lax attitudes toward cheating than did leadership students, and they also found that
business students seemingly appear to cheat more than do leadership students. The authors
finally provide some suggestions and implications of their findings.
Keywords: academic dishonesty, business students, cheating behaviors, leadership students

Three things are men most likely to be cheated in, a horse, a

wig, and a wife. Benjamin Franklin (n.d.)

The introductory quotation by Benjamin Franklin may

need some updating for the present time and world, and to be
suitable in an educational context, the updated quotation may
well read, Three things are students more likely to cheat on,
homework, tests, and exams. This updated quotation will
fit right in, as there is a lot of evidence to show that present
rates and incidences of cheating and academic dishonesty
are extremely high (Firmin, Burger, & Blosser, 2009; Iyer &
Eastman, 2006; Simha & Cullen, 2011).
A burgeoning body of evidence suggests that cheating and
dishonesty is at an all-time high in academic contexts, and
seems to firmly increasing in frequency; academic dishonesty
too appears to be increasing all over the world, although in
varying ranges (Firmin et al., 2009; Iyer & Eastman 2006;
Simha & Cullen, 2011). These ranges have been as low as
13% to as high as 95%, with typical ranges being more
or less about 5560% (Kidwell, Wozniak, & Laurel, 2003;
McCabe, Butterfield, & Trevino, 2006; McCabe & Trevino,
1997; Nonis & Swift, 1998; Park, 2003).

Correspondence should be addressed to Aditya Simha, Gonzaga University, Department of Organizational Leadership, 502 E. Boone Avenue,
Spokane, WA 99258, USA. E-mail: simha@gonzaga.edu

Some of the more notorious cheating cases have been

covered vividly by news and media outletsa very recent
case involved Japanese students who were accused of having
consulted online forums with the help of mobile phones, although the competitive university entrance exams were being
held (Fackler, 2011). Another notorious case involved Duke
Universityabout 10% of the graduating class in 2008 was
caught cheating on a final exam (Conlin, 2007; Simkin &
McLeod, 2010). Cheating does not seem to be restricted by
national boundaries, either, as Japanese students (Diekhoff,
LaBeff, Shinohara, & Yusukawa, 1999), Taiwanese students
(Chang, 1995; Lin & Wen, 2007; Shen, 1995), U.S. students (McCabe, 2009; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; McCabe
et al., 2006; Nonis & Swift, 1998), Iranian students (Mirshekary & Lawrence, 2009; Yahyanejad, 2000), Russian students (Lupton, Chapman, & Weiss, 2002), Slovakian students
(Grimes, 2004), and students from Botswana and Swaziland
(Gbadamosi, 2004), have all been documented as having engaged in cheating behaviors.
Cheating has been particularly associated with business
school and business students (Klein, Levenburg, McKendall,
& Mothersell, 2007; Levy & Rakovski, 2006; McCabe &
Trevino, 1995; Premeaux, 2005), and the general consensus
among scholars has been that business students cheat more
than other groups of students. McCabe and Trevino found
that students intending to enter business fields as well as business students were more likely than other groups of students
to engage in cheating and other forms of academic dishonesty McCabe et al. (2006) also found that both graduate and

COMPARISON OF CHEATING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

undergraduate students engaged in academic dishonesty or

cheating behaviors.
Business students have been compared with students from
many other disciplines; however, it transpires that no one has
ever done a research study comparing business students with
leadership students. Leadership as an undergraduate degree
is a unique one in that the curriculum consists of a variety
of cocurricular leadership opportunities (e.g., retreats, internships, mentoring), besides courses that outline the theoretical
facets of leadership in different contexts.
Leadership itself is considered a fairly new academic field,
and there has been a lot of debate about it (Barker, 1997);
however there is no denying that the field has become immensely popular during the last decade or so (Barker, 2001).
Therefore, it makes sense to compare business students with
leadership students, as students from both categories will
very conceivably end up essaying leadership roles in the
future.
Comparing business with leadership students is an important step because the results of this comparison will add to the
literature on academic dishonesty and also give some insight
on whether tomorrows leaders are expected to be ethical.
After all, if the students in training to be leaders demonstrate
that they cheat often, and have lax attitudes toward cheating
and academic dishonesty, then it is only to be expected that
as leaders they will prove less than ideal. Several research
studies have shown that cheating behaviors in school and
college contexts often predict similar dishonest behaviors in
the workplace (Lawson, 2004; Nonis & Swift, 1998, 2001;
Shipley, 2009; Smyth, Davis, & Kroncke, 2009; Swift &
Nonis, 1998), and therefore it begs the question of whether
leadership students differ from business students in terms of
cheating attitudes and behaviors.
The purpose of this study is to essentially study the
following two questions: (a) How do business students
attitudes toward cheating and academic dishonesty differ
from leadership students attitudes toward cheating and academic dishonesty? and (b) How do business students behaviors of cheating and academic dishonesty differ from
leadership students behaviors toward cheating and academic
dishonesty?
Answers to the previous questions may help us determine
whether leadership students (who are all striving to be tomorrows leaders) are leaders or laggards in comparison with
business students, in terms attitudes and behaviors related to
cheating and academic dishonesty.
In the next portion of this article we provide a brief yet
broad overview of the literature on academic dishonesty and
cheating. Following the literature review, in the next section
we detail the methodology that we rely on to compare business and leadership students. In the fourth section we present
our results, and in the fifth section we present our conclusions and discussion, as well as some caveats and directions
for further research.

317

LITERATURE REVIEW
As mentioned previously, academic dishonesty and cheating
rates seem to be extremely high in present times and have in
fact been described as rampant (Simkin & McLeod, 2010,
p. 441). To elaborate on that claim, Klein et al. (2007) reported that even though the ranges of cheating rates vary from
9% to 95%, the mean is about 70.4%. That fact is alarming;
however, one aspect to keep in mind is that definitions of
cheating seem to vary from study to study and most studies
appear to be cross-sectional and therefore do not do a very
good job of tracking cheating behavior longitudinally.
For the most part, student cheating appears to have been
given so many different varying definitions, because of the
unsuitability of using rational economic modeling to help
explain student cheating. Standard economic modeling considers that the rational agent weighs the costs and benefits
of a criminal action (Becker, 1968; Burrus, McGoldrick, &
Schuhmann, 2007). However, this sort of modeling is not
suitable to model student cheating behaviors, as there are
several differences between student cheating and other criminal behaviors. One major difference is that whereas criminal
behavior typically has outcomes very detrimental to the victims of that crime, the same cannot be said about student
cheating victimssimilarly, another difference is that professors can affect the cost of crime in ways that the police
cannot (Burrus et al., 2007; Simha & Cullen, 2011). Another
aspect of student cheating that is very different from that of
criminal behavior is that the person facilitating the cheating gets pleasure by doing so; such an outcome is unlikely
in a nonacademic cheating case (Bunn, Caudill, & Gropper,
1992; Premeaux, 2005; Simha & Cullen, 2011).
All this resultant inconsistency has resulted in a lot of
variability in definitions of academic dishonesty and cheating, and also has led to the definition being ambiguous and
not clearly understood by students or faculty members (Barnett & Dalton, 1981; Burrus et al., 2007; Graham, Monday,
OBrien, & Steffen, 1994; Simha & Cullen, 2011; Wright &
Kelly, 1974). These multiple definitions vary from encompassing a few to multiple forms of academic deviance (Chapman, Davis, Toy, & Wright, 2004; Hayes & Introna, 2005;
Kisamore, Stone, & Jawahar, 2007; Pavela, 1997; Sierra &
Hyman, 2008).
However, Cizek (2003) provides a rather holistic definition of cheating,

[Cheating is] any action that violates the established rules

governing the administration of a test or the completion of
an assignment; any behavior that gives one student an unfair
advantage over other students on a test or assignment; or any
action that decreases the accuracy of the intended inferences
arising from a students performance on a test or assignment.
(pp. 34)

318

A. SIMHA ET AL.

This definition seems to encompass all of the other definitions

into it, and so for the purpose of this article is a suitable
definition to rely on.
Academic dishonesty is a construct that seems to
have a connection and association with three kinds of
factorsdemographic factors, personality factors, and situational factors. Several demographic factors have been linked
with student involvement in academic dishonestythese
factors include gender (Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, 1992; Hetherington & Feldman, 1964; Kelly & Worrell, 1978; Kisamore et al., 2007; McCabe & Trevino, 1997;
Nonis & Swift, 2001; Simon et al., 2004; Smyth & Davis,
2004). For the most part, it appears that women are more
ethical than men, or at least more willing and likely to report
cheating, although McCabe (2001) mentioned that this gender difference is less evident in traditionally male-dominated
disciplines such as business and accounting.
Age is another demographic variable that seems to have
an impact on cheating behaviors in an inversely proportional
way, such that younger students seem to be more likely to
engage in academic misconduct than older students (Kelly
& Worrell, 1978; McCabe & Trevino, 1997; Nonis & Swift,
2001; Smyth & Davis, 2004). However, age is not as conclusive a variable as is gender (Crown & Spiller, 1998). Other
demographic variables of interest are ACT scores (Kelly &
Worrell, 1978), and intelligence (Hartshorn & May, 1928;
Hetherington & Feldman, 1964; Kisamore et al., 2007).
Some of the personality factors that have an impact or
association with cheating are constructs that are measured
on the Personality Research Forum (Kelly & Worrell, 1987;
Kisamore et al., 2007). Also, cheaters tend to be impulsive,
risk taking, attention-seeking, low in responsibility, and tend
to be externals on the locus of control measure (Kisamore
et al.). Some of the situational factors that appear to have
an association with cheating include class size (Nowell &
Laufer, 1997), where students appear to cheat more in large
classes; seating (Houston, 1986); and academic integrity cultures (McCabe, 2005).

METHOD
This study was designed using a student self-report survey
questionnaire. Student self-reports are surprisingly accurate
for assessing cheating (Cizek, 1999; Finn & Frone, 2004; Lin
& Wen, 2007). As a result, we decided to utilize a student
self-report as our mode of collecting data. A survey of leadership and business students was administered. Our student
sample was collected from four different universities for our
findings to have a somewhat robust external validity. Students
were assured of anonymity and had the option of taking the
survey in class or from home through an online version of the
same survey. The questions on this survey were obtained and
adapted from questions used by earlier studies (Chang, 1995;

De Lambert, Ellen, & Taylor, 2003; Lin & Wen; McCabe,

2009; Pincus & Schmelkin, 2003; Sims, 1993). We used
these questions from prior studies in our study to provide our
survey with robust validity.
We distributed and sent out 312 surveys or survey links
and obtained 225 completed and useable ones, which gave us
a response rate of 72.1%. The questionnaire mapped attitudes
and frequency of behaviors as they pertained to cheating and
academic dishonesty. The survey included two scalesone
of which consisted of 18 questions that measured attitudes
toward cheating, and the other consisted of 19 questions that
measured the frequency of cheating and dishonest behaviors.
Both scales were highly reliable (Cronbachs = .916 and
.963, respectively), and both scales were also valid, as the
scale items were chosen and adapted from previous studies
(Chang, 1995; De Lambert et al.; Lin & Wen, 2007; McCabe,
2009; Pincus & Schmelkin, 2003; Sims, 1993).
The survey itself took about 15 min for a participant to
complete, and essentially captured the following information: Demographic information about the respondent, answers to 18 questions about participants attitudes toward
cheating and academic dishonesty (attitudes were measured
by utilizing the responses of 0 (not cheating), 1 (trivial cheating), or 2 (cheating); and answers to 19 questions about participants behaviors of cheating and academic dishonesty.
Frequency of behaviors were measured on a 5-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Our completed and usable questionnaires represented a
72.1% response rate, with 89 leadership students and 136
business students completing the questionnaires. The student
respondents were split, 44.8% men and 55.2% women; the
mean GPA was 3.36 on a 4.00 scale, and the average age was
20.3. We used t tests to test the two groups of students in
terms of their attitudes to cheating and frequency of cheating
behaviors. Our results are presented in the following section.

RESULTS
Attitudes Toward Cheating
A score of 2 represents serious cheating, a score of 1 represents trivial cheating, and a score of 0 represents not cheating. The two most egregious cheating behaviors, according to
students, were using unauthorized electronic equipment for
use in exams (x = 1.6089, s = 0.585), and obtaining exam
questions illicitly beforehand (x = 1.5956, s = 0.5755). The
two least egregious cheating behaviors, according to students, were making false and fraudulent excuses to postpone
assignments and/or tests (x = 1.1067, s = 0.67), and referencing materials without reading them (x = 1.1778, s =
0.60).
The responses from business versus leadership students
were examined; we found significant differences with respect

319

COMPARISON OF CHEATING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

TABLE 1
Student Attitudes to Cheating
Statement
Copying homework assignments
from others
Allowing others to copy
homework assignments from
you
Collaborating with others on
assignments meant to be
completed alone
Collaborating with others on
tests meant to be completed
alone
Using unauthorized cheat-sheets
on an exam
Looking at or copying from
others exam copies
Allowing others to look at or
copy from your exam copy
Obtaining exam questions
illicitly beforehand
Using unauthorized electronic
equipment for use in exams
Fabricating bibliographies on
assignments/papers
Copying from a source without
citing the source
Obtaining papers from the web
and turning them in as your
own work
Making others write your papers
for you, and then turning them
in as your own work
Referencing materials without
reading them
Falsifying grade scores
Changing ones answers after
getting the grade in order to
increase ones score
Making false and fraudulent
excuses to postpone
assignments and/or tests
Falsifying school documents
(i.e., doctor notes, parking
permits, or certificate)

Combined n = 225

Business n = 136

Leadership n = 89

Significance

1.3644

1.4412

1.2472

1.32

1.4044

1.191

1.1378

1.1544

1.1124

.006

1.4356

1.2647

1.6966

1.5333

1.3162

1.8652

1.5467

1.3309

1.8764

1.5422

1.3529

1.8315

1.5956

1.4412

1.8215

1.6089

1.4265

1.8876

1.3244

1.2132

1.4944

.019

1.4489

1.3456

1.6067

NS

1.5733

1.3897

1.8539

1.5333

1.3676

1.7865

1.1778

1.1985

1.1461

NS

1.5378
1.5067

1.3676
1.3015

1.7978
1.8202

0
0

1.1067

0.9779

1.3034

1.3111

1.1765

1.5169

to 16 of 18 attitudes. The only two attitudes that did not

seem to have any difference between the two groups were
those pertaining to copying from a source without citing the
source and referencing materials without reading them. For
most other attitudes, it appeared that business students had a
much more relaxed attitude toward what constitutes cheating
than did leadership students. However, for a few attitudes,
it transpired that business students had much more serious
attitudes than did leadership students (for example, allowing
others to copy homework assignments from you, copying
homework assignments from others, and collaborating with
others on tests meant to be completed alone). But then on
the whole, for most of the other attitudes, our findings are

consistent with the findings of both Klein et al. (2007) as well

as Roig and Ballew (1994). Table 1 provides the different
findings with respect to attitudes toward cheating.
Frequency of Cheating
The scale we used here to capture the frequency of cheating
behaviors was through a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Table 2 provides the different
frequencies of choices selected by our respondents while
answering questions pertaining to cheating behaviors.
The two cheating behaviors that Table 3 seemed to have
been mostly engaged in were telling another student what was

320

A. SIMHA ET AL.
TABLE 2
Student Cheating Behavior Frequencies
Leadership students: I have done this (%)

Statement
I have copied homework
assignments from other
students.
I have allowed students to copy
homework assignments from
me.
I have collaborated with others
on assignments I was
supposed to do alone.
I have collaborated with others
on take-home exams I was
supposed to do alone.
I have used an unauthorized
cheat sheet on an exam.
I have looked at or copied from
someone elses exam during
a test.
I have allowed others to look at
or copy from my exam
during a test.
I have obtained the test
questions beforehand
illegally.
I have told another student
what is on an exam before
he/she took it.
I have used unauthorized
electronic equipment for
help on an exam.
I have fabricated a
bibliography.
I have copied information from
a source for a paper without
citing the source.
I have obtained a research
paper from the web and
handed it in as my own.
I have had others write my
research paper for me, and
then handed the paper in as
my own.
I have referenced materials
without truly reading them.
I have falsified grade scores.
I have changed test or
assignment answers after
getting my grade score in
order to increase my score.
I have made fraudulent excuses
to postpone exams or
assignments.
I have falsified school
documents (i.e., parking
permit, certificate, doctor
notes etc).

Business students: I have done this (%)

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Many times

Always

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Many times

Always

21.3

51.7

23.6

3.4

17.6

29.4

45.6

7.4

47.2

34.8

13.2

27.9

50

8.8

16.9

41.6

32.6

14

29.4

40.4

16.2

50.6

29.2

15.7

4.5

20.6

33.1

37.5

8.8

74.2

16.9

7.9

1.1

25.7

26.5

41.2

6.6

59.6

29.2

11.2

19.9

31.6

39

9.6

59.6

27

11.2

2.2

17.6

33.1

40.4

8.8

69.7

20.2

7.9

2.2

25

29.4

37.5

8.1

36

37.1

18

15.4

27.2

44.1

13.2

82

12.4

4.5

1.1

30.1

37.5

26.5

5.9

62.9

24.7

10.1

2.2

20.6

35.3

36

8.1

46.1

33.7

18

2.2

20.6

30.9

43.4

5.1

85.4

7.9

4.5

2.2

33.1

31.6

31.6

3.7

87.6

7.9

3.4

1.1

30.1

39

28.7

2.2

18

42.7

27

11.2

1.1

16.2

31.6

44.1

8.1

77.5
77.5

12.4
13.5

7.9
7.9

2.2
1.1

0
0

24.3
22.1

27.2
55.1

43.4
93.4

5.1
6.6

0
0

47.2

32.6

18

2.2

18.4

39

35.3

25.7

73

18

20.6

36.8

39

3.7

Note. For leadership students, n = 89. For business students, n = 136.

321

COMPARISON OF CHEATING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

TABLE 3
Student Cheating Behaviors
Statement
I have copied homework
assignments from other
students.
I have allowed students to
copy homework
assignments from me.
I have collaborated with
others on assignments I
was supposed to do alone.
I have collaborated with
others on take-home
exams I was supposed to
do alone.
I have used an unauthorized
cheat sheet on an exam.
I have looked at or copied
from someone elses
exam during a test.
I have allowed others to
look at or copy from my
exam during a test.
I have obtained the test
questions beforehand
illegally.
I have told another student
what is on an exam
before he/she took it.
I have used unauthorized
electronic equipment for
help on an exam.
I have fabricated a
bibliography.
I have copied information
from a source for a paper
without citing the source.
I have obtained a research
paper from the web and
handed it in as my own.
I have had others write my
research paper for me,
and then handed the
paper in as my own.
I have referenced materials
without truly reading
them.
I have falsified grade scores.
I have changed test or
assignment answers after
getting my grade score in
order to increase my
score.
I have made fraudulent
excuses to postpone
exams or assignments.
I have falsified school
documents (i.e., parking
permit, certificate, doctor
notes etc).

Combined n = 225

Leadership n = 89

Business n = 136

Significance

2.2933

2.0899

2.4265

.002

2.5022

2.4382

2.5441

NS

2.4889

2.3371

2.5882

NS

2.1067

1.7416

2.3456

NS

1.92

1.3596

2.2868

2.04

1.5169

2.3824

.002

2.0711

1.5618

2.4044

NS

1.9467

1.427

2.2868

2.5867

2.6404

2.5515

NS

1.7511

1.2472

2.0809

2.012

1.5169

2.3162

.055

2.1067

1.764

2.3309

NS

1.7333

1.2364

2.0588

1.6933

1.1798

2.0294

2.4044

2.3483

2.4412

NS

1.92
1.9111

1.3483
1.3258

2.2941
2.2941

0
0

2.3156

1.7528

2.6838

.005

1.9022

1.3596

2.2574

.001

322

A. SIMHA ET AL.

on an exam before he or she took it (x = 2.5867, s = 0.89)

and allowing students to copy homework assignments (x =
2.50, s = 0.81). The two cheating behaviors that seemed to
have been the ones least engaged in were having had others
write my research paper for me, and then handed the paper in
as my own (x = 1.69, s = 0.83), and obtaining a research
paper from the web and handing it over as my own (x =
1.73, s = 0.89).
The responses from business versus leadership students
were examined: we found significant differences with respect
to 12 of 19 behaviors. These differences for the most part
suggested that business students engaged more frequently
in cheating behaviors than did leadership students. provides
the different findings with respect to frequencies of cheating
behaviors.
DISCUSSION
The essential driver behind this particular study was that
we felt that it would be a useful contribution toward the
field of academic ethics, and would be useful in examining
differences between leadership and business students. Our
studys findings were fairly compatible with other prior studies (Baird, 1980; McCabe & Trevino, 1995) in that business
students reported that they engaged in more cheating behaviors than did leadership students. However, our results also
suggest that in some matters, leadership students may have
more lax attitudes than business students, and that those attitudes are more associated with collaborative descriptors.
That suggests that a tendency to collaborate with peers is
likely to be more pronounced in leadership students. On the
whole though, we corroborated Klein et al.s (2007) findings
that business students are on the whole a little more lax in
their attitudes toward cheating than are other students (i.e.,
in this case, leadership students).
However, our study does not aim to suggest that leadership students are immune from cheating. All we have demonstrated here is that they appear to cheat less frequently than
do business studentsalthough in one case, they appear to
cheat more than do business students, but the difference in
that case was not a significant one. Scholars have generally agreed that the academic pursuit of leadership is an
interdisciplinary process of study (Bennis, 2007); because, a
multi-disciplinary approach is best suited for a multi-faceted
discipline (Riggio, Ciulla, & Sorenson, 2003). This interdisciplinary methodology provides a very holistic outlook on
the study of leadership (Newell, 2001). Perhaps, this interdisciplinary approach, which emphasizes knowledge from
fields such as cognitive psychology, social psychology, education, sociology, anthropology, biology, history, political
science, and a number of other disciplines, contributes toward making a more well-rounded student. This may have
had some effect on our results, and suggests that perhaps
we need to introduce business students to more rounded-out
syllabi! Perhaps future researchers could take a look at the

effects of more rounded-out and interdisciplinary syllabi on

business students.
Some suggestions that emanate from our findings revolve
around the cheating behaviors that tend to be most frequently
engaged in. For example, the behavior revolving around
telling others what is on an exam before taking the exam
can be controlled effectively if there are multiple exam questions that are changed on a frequent basis. Doing so would
eliminate the desire of students to inquire about exam questions from other students that have already taken those exams.
Similarly, if homework assignments could be individualized
to a certain degree, this would possibly eliminate people
cheating. When it comes to attitudes about cheating because
it appears that making excuses seems less egregious; perhaps
instructors and undergraduate curricula could emphasize and
continuously reinforce ethics in the classroom. This is very
similar to Arlow and Ulrichs (1985) and Klein et al.s (2007)
conclusions.
Some limitations in our findings would be that there is
the distinct possibility that perhaps business students are just
more honest with self-reporting cheating behaviors than are
leadership students, and so it may not be wholly accurate
to state that business students cheat more than leadership
students, but then again, research has suggested that most
students and respondents are honest while participating in
self-reported questionnaires on cheating (Cizek, 1999; Finn
& Frone, 2004; Lin & Wen, 2007). Similarly, another limitation with this study is that the sample, although robust
enough, is not a longitudinal sample, and is instead a crosssectional sample. Future research efforts could perhaps be
conducted in a longitudinal fashion and also include masters and doctoral students from business and other disciplines, as although we do know that undergraduate students
cheat, it would be an interesting process to study other cadres
as well. On a final note, although our studys findings suggests that business students cheat more than do leadership
studentswe would like to assert that more research would
need to be conducted on a longitudinal basis, to truly discover whether business students cheat more and hold more
lax attitudes than other groups of students.

REFERENCES
Arlow, P., & Ulrich, T. (1985). Business ethics and business school graduates: A longitudinal study. Akron Business and Economic Review, 16,
1317.
Baird, J. S. Jr. (1980). Current trends in college cheating. Psychology in the
Schools, 17, 515522.
Barker, R. A. (1997). How can we train leaders if we do not know what
leadership is? Human Relations, 50, 343362.
Barker, R. A. (2001). The nature of leadership. Human Relations, 54,
469494.
Barnett, D. C., & Dalton, J. C. (1981). Why college students cheat. Journal
of College Student Personnel, 22, 515522.
Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal
of Political Economy, 76, 168217.

COMPARISON OF CHEATING ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORS

Bennis, W. (2007). The Challenges of leadership in the modern world:
Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 62, 2533.
Bunn, D. N., Caudill, S. B., & Gropper, D. M. (1992). Crime in the classroom: An economic analysis of undergraduate student cheating behavior.
Journal of Economic Education, 23, 197207.
Burrus, R. T., McGoldrick, K., & Schuhmann, P. W. (2007). Self-reports
of student cheating: Does a definition of cheating matter? Journal of
Economic Education, 38, 316.
Chang, H. (1995). College student test cheating in Taiwan. Student Counseling, 41, 114128.
Chapman, K. J., Davis, R., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2004). Academic integrity
in the business school environment: Ill get by with a little help from my
friends. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 236249.
Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent
it. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cizek, G. J. (2003). Detecting and preventing classroom cheating: Promoting integrity in schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Conlin, M. (2007). Cheatingor postmodern learning. Business Week, 4034,
42.
Crown, D. F., & Spiller, M. S. (1998). Learning from the literature on
collegiate cheating: A review of empirical research. Journal of Business
Ethics, 17, 683700.
Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992).
Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 3942.
De Lambert, K., Ellen, N., & Taylor, L. (2003). CheatingWhat is it and
why do it: A study in New Zealand tertiary institutions of the perceptions
and justifications and justifications for academic dishonesty. The Journal
of American Academy of Business, 3, 98103.
Diekhoff, G. M., LaBeff, E. E., Shinohara, K., & Yasukawa, H. (1999).
College cheating in Japan and the United States. Research in Higher
Education, 40, 343353.
Fackler, M. (2011). Internet cheating scandal shakes Japan universities. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/
2011/03/02/world/asia/02japan.html
Finn, K., & Frone, M. R. (2004). Academic performance and cheating:
Moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy. The Journal of
Educational Research, 97, 115123.
Firmin, M. W., Burger, A., & Blosser, M. (2009). Affective responses of students who witness classroom cheating. Educational Research Quarterly,
32, 315.
Franklin, B. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.searchquotes.com/quotation/
Three things are men most likely to be cheated in%2C a horse%2C a
wig%2C and a wife./7519/
Gbadamosi, G. (2004). Academic ethics: What has morality, culture and
administration got to do with its measurement? Management Decision,
42, 11451161.
Graham, M., Monday, J., OBrien, K., & Steffen, S. (1994). Cheating at small
colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors.
Journal of College Student Development, 35, 255260.
Grimes, P. W. (2004). Dishonesty in academics and business: A crosscultural evaluation of student attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 49,
273290.
Hartshorne, H., & May, M. A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character.
New York, NY: Macmillan.
Hayes, N., & Introna, L. D. (2005). Systems for the production of plagiarists?
Journal of Academic Ethics, 3, 5573.
Hetherington, E. M., & Feldman, S. E. (1964). College cheating as a function
of subject and situational variables. Journal of Educational Psychology,
55, 212218.
Houston, J. P. (1986). Classroom answer copying: Roles of acquaintanceship
and free vs. assigned seating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,
230232.
Iyer, R., & Eastman, J. K. (2006). Academic dishonesty: Are business
students different from other college students? Journal of Education for
Business, 82, 101110.

323

Kelly, J. A., & Worrell, L. (1978). Personality characteristics, parent behaviors, and sex of subject in relation to cheating. Journal of Research in
Personality, 12, 179188.
Kidwell, L. A., Wozniak, K., & Laurel, J. P. (2003). Student reports and
faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty. Teaching Business Ethics, 7,
205214.
Kisamore, J. L., Stone, T. H., & Jawahar, I. M. (2007). Academic integrity: The relationship between individual and situational factors on
misconduct contemplations. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 381394.
doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9260-9
Klein, H. A., Levenburg, N. M., McKendall, M., & Mothersell, W. (2007).
Cheating during the college years: How do business school students compare? Journal of Business Ethics, 72, 197206. doi:10.1007/s10551-0069165-7
Lawson, R. A. (2004). Is classroom cheating related to business students
propensity to cheat in the real world? Journal of Business Ethics, 49,
189199.
Levy, E., & Rakovski, C. (2006). Academic dishonesty: A zero tolerance
professor and student registration choices. Research in Higher Education,
47, 735754.
Lin, C.-H. S., & Wen, L.-Y. M. (2007). Academic dishonesty in higher
educationA nationwide study in Taiwan. Higher Education, 54, 8597.
Lupton, R. A., Chapman, K. J., & Weiss, J. (2002). Russian and American
college students attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward cheating.
Educational Research, 44, 1727.
McCabe, D. L. (2001). Cheating: Why students do it and how we can help
them stop. American Educator, 25(4), 3843.
McCabe, D. L. (2005). It takes a village: Academic dishonesty & educational
opportunity. Liberal Education, Summer/Fall, 2631.
McCabe, D. L. (2009). Academic dishonesty in nursing schools: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Nursing Education, 48, 614623.
doi:10.3928/01484834-20090716-07
McCabe, D. L., Butterfield, K. D., & Trevino, L. K. (2006). Academic
dishonesty in graduate business programs: Prevalence, causes, and proposed action. Academy of Management Learning and Executive, 5,
294305.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1995). Cheating among business students:
A challenge for business leaders and educators. Journal of Management
Education, 19, 205218.
McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi-campus investigation. Research
in Higher Education, 38, 379396.
Mirshekary, S., & Lawrence, A. (2009). Academic and business ethical
misconduct and cultural values: A cross-national comparison. Journal of
Academic Ethics, 7, 141157.
Newell, W. H. (2001). A theory of interdisciplinary studies. Issues in Integrative Studies, 19, 124.
Nonis, S. A., & Swift, C. O. (1998). Deterring cheating behavior in the
marketing classroom: An analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes
and in-class deterrent strategies. Journal of Marketing Education, 20,
188199.
Nonis, S. A., & Swift, C. O. (2001). Personal value profiles and ethical business decision. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 251
256.
Nowell, C., & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate student cheating in the
fields of business and economics. Journal of Economic Education, 28,
312.
Park, C. (2003). In other (peoples) words: Plagiarism by university
studentsLiterature and lessons. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 28, 471488. doi:10.1080/0260293032000120352
Pavela, G. (1997). Applying the power of association on campus: A
model code of academic integrity. Journal of Business Ethics, 16,
97118.
Pincus, H. S., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2003). Faculty perceptions of academic
dishonesty: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Higher Education, 74, 196209.

324

A. SIMHA ET AL.

Premeaux, S. R. (2005). Undergraduate student perceptions regarding

cheating. Journal of Business Ethics, 62, 407418. doi:10.1007/s105510052585-y
Riggio, R. E., Ciulla, J., & Sorenson, G. (2003). Leadership education at the
undergraduate level: A liberal arts approach to leadership development. In
S. E. Murphy & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), The future of leadership development
(pp. 223236). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Roig, M., & Ballew, C. (1994). Attitudes towards cheating in self and others
by college students and professors. The Psychological Record, 44(1),
312.
Shen, L. (1995). Assessing students academic dishonesty in junior colleges
in south Taiwan. Chia-Nan Annual Bulletin, 21, 97112.
Shipley, L. J. (2009). Academic and professional dishonesty: Student views
of cheating in the classroom and on the job. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 64, 3953.
Sierra, J. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2008). Ethical antecedents of cheating intentions: Evidence of mediation. Journal of Academic Ethics, 6, 51
66.
Simha, A., & Cullen, J. B. (2011). Cheating and academic dishonesty: Proactive and retroactive solutions. In C. Wankle & A. Stachowicz-Stanusch
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching ethics in business and management education (pp. 473492). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Simkin, M. G., & McLeod, A. (2010). Why do college students cheat?

Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 441453.
Simon, C. A., Carr, J. R., McCullough, S. M., Morgan, S. J., Oleson, T.,
& Ressel, M. (2004). Gender, student perceptions, institutional commitments and academic dishonesty: Who reports in academic dishonesty
cases? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(1), 7590.
Sims, R. L. (1993). The relationship between academic dishonesty and
unethical business practices. Journal of Education for Business, 69,
207211.
Smyth, M. L., & Davis, J. R. (2004). Perceptions of dishonesty among twoyear college students: Academic versus business situations. Journal of
Business Ethics, 51, 6373.
Smyth, L. S., Davis, J. R., & Knoncke, C. O. (2009). Students perceptions
of business ethics: Using cheating as a surrogate for business situations.
Journal of Education for Business, 84, 229239.
Swift, C. O., & Nonis, S. A. (1998). When no one is watching: Cheating
behavior on projects and assignments. Marketing Education Review, 8(1),
2738.
Wright, J., & Kelly, R. (1974). Cheating: student/faculty views and responsibilities. Improving College and University Teaching, 22, 3134
Yahyanejad, M. (2000). Applying Iranian way. Retrieved from http://scf.
usc.edu/igsa/pdf files/iranian.pdf

Copyright of Journal of Education for Business is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.