Academic Dishonesty Among College Students: Causes and Trends

Introduction: Social Perception and Academic Dishonesty

A factor that has considerable influence on the phenomenon of academic dishonesty is social perception. This can occur from a variety of perspectives: most notably from the perspective of students attempting to justify their behavior, from the perspective of academic leaders attempting to curb cheating practices, and from the perspective of researchers who attempt to understand the phenomenon.

Etter, Cramer, and Finn (2006, pp. 134–135) cite studies indicating that students' perception that the norms of their social environment permit cheating, combined with generally favorable attitudes toward cheating, serves to encourage it. Other factors that may contribute to the urge to cheat include younger age, moderate to poor academic performance, and a tendency toward deviant behavior. This is substantiated by Bolin (2004, p. 100).

Demographic and Psychological Factors in Cheating

De Bruin and Rudnick (2007, pp. 153–154) include demographic factors such as being male or living in campus residences as conditions that increase the likelihood of cheating, due to the social perception that it is acceptable or even desirable. The authors note that both peer approval and observed peer cheating encourage cheating in the individual student.

Taking a somewhat divergent direction, De Bruin and Rudnick (2007, p. 157) also suggest that social perception may include an element of excitement. In this view, academic dishonesty can be partly driven by excitement-seeking behavior — specifically, a tendency toward thrills, risk-taking, and strong stimulation. The authors link this concept to sensation seeking, which is in turn associated with legal, social, financial, and recreational risk-taking behavior. In the college setting, this type of behavior correlates closely with cheating. It follows that students who are less prone to excitement-seeking, who are more introverted, and who are more conscious of risk, are less likely to engage in academic dishonesty regardless of how easy it may be.

Bolin (2004, p. 100) turns to the general theory of crime to explain academic dishonesty among students. In addition to a lack of self-control, Bolin hypothesizes that perceived opportunity contributes to the likelihood of cheating. Low detection rates further encourage students to take advantage of that opportunity.

Another important factor is students' attitudes toward cheating, which Bolin (2004, p. 103) distinguishes as perceived pleasure and perceived shame. Research cited by the author indicates that the former drives cheating while the latter inhibits it. Bolin (2004, p. 109) found that these attitudes play a more critical role in the tendency to cheat than even a general disposition toward deviance. Students who associate cheating with pleasure are highly likely to engage in it.

Peer Norms, Honor Codes, and Institutional Perceptions

These dynamics help explain the relatively high prevalence of cheating documented in the research. Engler, Landau, and Epstein (2008, p. 99) indicate that the percentage of college students who cheat tends to fall between 66% and 75% — a figure that has remained relatively stable for decades. What has changed, however, is the nature of cheating: today's students who cheat are more likely than ever to do so repeatedly and through a greater variety of methods. While increased Internet use plays a role, the authors are more convinced that peer social perception is a stronger predictor of the likelihood to cheat.

It is not surprising that students use peer behavior to guide their own conduct. What may be surprising is that students tend to be inaccurate in judging the extent of peer cheating. Engler et al. (2008) show that students tend to overestimate how widespread cheating is among their peers and subsequently use this inflated perception to justify their own behavior — regardless of its accuracy. The authors therefore advocate a social norms intervention strategy to address the problem. An example is a verbalized honor code that explicitly discourages cheating and corrects misperceptions about peer behavior, thereby reducing the social license that students give themselves to cheat.

Regarding the perceptions of academic leaders, Schmelkin et al. (2008, p. 600) note a marked discrepancy between professors' and students' assessments of the seriousness of various cheating behaviors. Professors consistently view certain behaviors as more serious than students do. This gap in perception extends not only to the nature of cheating but also to the severity with which different types should be treated.

This difficulty is further complicated by students' tendency to value their relationships with peers more highly than their relationships with faculty. Simple reprimands are therefore unlikely to change student behavior. Instead, Schmelkin et al. advocate the construction of a shared, common definition of academic dishonesty — one that would reduce confusion around the issue and foster a broader culture of honesty.

The Internet as a Driver of Academic Dishonesty

The author provides evidence of the power of peer pressure over individual demographic or psychological factors by comparing students who live among peers with those in more isolated settings. Affiliation with a sorority or fraternity, for example, tends to increase the likelihood of cheating. Peer relationships also produce shared norms that may or may not align with institutional standards — and students are more likely to follow the friendship norm than the broader institutional one.

Hutton (2006, p. 174) further notes that, within campus peer groups, a small number of strong-personality leaders may benefit from group dynamics while followers are often pressured into unethical behavior in order to maintain positive group relationships. All indications point to peer pressure as a significant factor increasing the likelihood of cheating.

While institutions face their own pressures, the pressure on students more directly produces cheating behavior. The most immediate of these pressures are the demand to perform academically while sustaining social relationships, and the direct influence of peer associations on campus. Institutions, meanwhile, must find targeted and effective ways to address the problem — which means recognizing that the teaching and learning environment has changed fundamentally, and that traditional deterrent methods are no longer sufficient. Creating a shared definition of cheating, applying a common value code to both students and faculty, and leveraging peer relationships to reframe cheating as shameful rather than pleasurable are all essential components of an effective institutional response.

Many have argued that the Internet is the primary driver behind the rise in cheating behavior today. The technology has become so prevalent, easy to use, and inexpensive that a growing number of students regard it as an alternative to formal college learning. The general perception that Internet information belongs to the public domain further encourages its unethical use for academic purposes.

The increasing affordability of smartphones and computers, combined with cheap data plans, has made it progressively easier for students of all ages and backgrounds to cheat. According to Flannery (2004, p. 40), an entire industry has emerged from the cheating phenomenon, with websites offering pre-written "Grade-A" essays that students submit as their own work. The prevalence of such freely available content has inevitably affected ethical perceptions among both high school and college students. Flannery notes that 74% of high school students admitted to cheating on exams at least once in the past year, and nearly half agreed that cheating is sometimes necessary to get ahead — an assumption they carry with them into higher education.

According to Flannery, educators face a student body that is increasingly technologically sophisticated yet displays a comparatively immature level of ethical reasoning. While the Internet provides students with unprecedented access to knowledge, many lack the ethical grounding needed to use that power responsibly and in their own long-term interest. The rapid development of information technology brought with it no consistent set of values to regulate its use — hence also the prevalence of unchecked Internet crime beyond the academic setting.

According to Etter, Cramer, and Finn (2006, p. 136), the ease of Internet use and peer influences can be partially offset by demographic and institutional factors. Private institutions, for example, have shown lower rates of cheating than larger state-supported institutions. This intersects with demographic factors such as age and gender.

A central problem with technology-enabled cheating is the absence of consistent policies or safeguards. Professors are frequently reluctant to pursue cheating cases even when they suspect them, and the majority of incidents go unchecked. The ease of concealing a smartphone during an examination and using it to access the Internet or contact peers exemplifies how difficult enforcement has become.

The ease of Internet access is thus a major factor in both encouraging cheating and perpetuating a cheating culture at the university level. Universities that do implement anti-cheating policies often find themselves fighting a losing battle between providing students with the tools they need for legitimate study and preventing the unethical use of those same tools. Plagiarism detection has become an increasingly important institutional tool, yet it remains reactive rather than preventative.