Academic misconduct in undergraduate teacher education students and its relationship to their principled moral reasoning.

The purpose of this study was (a) to investigate preservice teacher education students' (n=145) performance on the Academic Misconduct Survey (AMS), a measure of self-reported academic misconduct, and (b) to examine the relationship between AMS scores and scores on the Defining Issues Test (DIT), a measure of principled moral reasoning. A large percentage of participants reported engaging in academic misconduct. No significant association between scores on the AMS and the DIT was found. Results of the study indicate the need for additional research that examines ethical behaviors and moral reasoning in prospective and practicing teachers.

**********

Over the past 50 years, numerous studies have reported that cheating, academic dishonesty, and other forms of academic misconduct among college students appear to be the rule rather than the exception, and the "deviant" student has been described as one who has not engaged in academic misconduct at one time or another (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996).

Research interest in college student cheating began in the early 1960s when Bowers (1964) surveyed more than 5,000 undergraduate students at 99 different institutions. Bowers found that three out of four students admitted to various kinds of academic dishonesty, such as plagiarism, copying another student's test answers, sneaking crib notes into exams, collaborating with other students on homework assignments when not permitted by the instructor, or lying to the instructor about reasons for late papers. McCabe and Trevino (1993) found similar results in a survey of over 6,000 undergraduate students at 31 campuses. Two of three of those surveyed admitted engaging in questionable academic behaviors, such as using unauthorized crib notes on a test, copying from another student on a test, or collaborating with other students on homework assignments without instructor approval. More recent studies consistently report rates of cheating over 70 percent (see Chidley, 1997; Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; Lupton, Chapman, & Weiss, 2000) with cheating behaviors similar to those described by Bowers (see Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996; Lupton, Chapman, & Weiss, 2000; Tang & Zuo, 1997; Thorpe, Pittenger, & Reed, 1999).

Causes of College Student Cheating

Investigations of specific causes of academic dishonesty usually are divided into two categories: (a) studies that focus on situational and institutional factors, and (b) studies that focus on individual traits of students.

Situational and Institutional Factors

A number of situational and institutional factors associated with academic misconduct have been identified. Students most likely to cheat have lower academic standing, are more concerned about attaining high grades than gaining knowledge, and are enrolled in larger rather than smaller institutions (Bowers, 1964; Nowell, & Laufer, 1997; Smith, Nolan, & Dai, 1998; Tang, & Zuo, 1997; Thorpe, Pittenger, & Reed, 1999). Also, rates of cheating are higher when instructors trust students to be honest, and rates are lower when students perceive a strong threat of being caught and punished (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996). Finally, students who attend college to obtain a credential or license are more inclined to cheat than those who attend for other reasons (Daniel, Blount, & Ferrell, 1991; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Stern & Havlicek, 1986). According to McCabe and Trevino (1996),

Today's college students ... have come to college to get a credential-a credential that will allow them to pursue a chosen career. How they get that credential is often less important than simply getting it. As a student at a major university ... said to us, "It's amazing how many students don't think twice about cheating or copying others' work. It shows how little they understand what an education really is. I'd estimate that more than 85 percent of students just want the degree itself and try to get it with the minimum work possible. Hence the prevalence of cheating" (p. 28).

Individual Traits of Students Who Cheat

A few studies have attempted to identify individual student traits that may be associated with academic dishonesty. Investigations have examined the possible association between Type A personality and cheating behavior. Students with Type A personalities tend to be competitive, achievement-oriented, and strongly motivated to earn high grades (Thorpe, Pittenger, & Reed, 1999). Friedman and Rosenman (1974) have posited that such students may be more prone to cheating in college than Type B students, who are more relaxed and less competitive. To date, however, no relationship between Type A personality and cheating has been found (see Huss, et al., 1993, and Perry, Kane, Bernesser, & Spicker, 1990).

Self-esteem and locus of control are other individual traits thought to be associated with cheating behaviors in college students. Self-esteem is the degree to which a person views him- or herself as a good person (Antion & Michael, 1983; Thorpe, Pittenger, & Reed, 1999). Locus of control is a personal attribute that is related to whether or not individuals believe either that they control their own destiny or that they are controlled by external forces (Thorpe, Pittenger, & Reed, 1999). Tang and Zuo (1997) hypothesized that students with higher rather than lower levels of self-esteem would be less likely to cheat on college examinations but found no relationship. Antion and Michael (1983) examined the association of locus of control with self-reports of cheating by 148 undergraduates but found no relationship. Finally, Thorpe, Pittenger and Reed (1999) examined the association of both locus of control and self-esteem with self-reported cheating among 138 undergraduates. The authors found no significant relationship between either self-esteem and cheating or locus of control and cheating. In sum, no relationship between individual traits of personality type, self-esteem, or locus of control and academic misconduct has been found.

A more promising area of investigation may be to examine the association between moral reasoning ability, a cognitive trait (Kohlberg, 1981; Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau, & Thoma, 1999), and academic misconduct.

The association between moral reasoning ability and academic misconduct. Moral reasoning ability has been alluded to but not carefully examined in relation to academic misconduct (Johnston, 1996; Smith, Nolan, & Dai, 1998). Moral reasoning ability is the basis of Lawrence Kohlberg's theory of moral development (Kohlberg, 1981,1987). According to Kohlberg, moral reasoning proceeds through three levels (preconventional, conventional, and postconventional) and six stages. As moral reasoning advances, the basis for making moral judgments changes from one that is influenced by an egocentric perspective of individual self-interest to a viewpoint that is characterized by mutual respect and concerns about basic human rights. Kohlberg has called the postconventional level, the principled level of moral reasoning. At this highest level, moral judgments depend on abstract, formal reasoning and the cognitive ability to consider a moral issue from diverse perspectives. For nearly 50 years, Kohlberg's theory has stimulated research and influenced thinking about morality and moral development (Cummings, Dyas, Maddux, & Kochman, 2001; Wygant & Williams, 1995). According to Rest, Thoma & Edwards (1997), Kohlberg's theory is "the linchpin for studying morality from the inside, and it is the major work on moral judgment" (p. 6).

A number of studies have investigated the relationship between moral reasoning ability and behavior (see Rest, Narvaez, Bebeau & Thoma, 1999). However, an extensive review of the literature revealed only two investigations of the relationship between moral reasoning and cheating among college students (Schwartz, Feldman, Brown, & Heingartner, 1969; Simpson & Graham, cited in Kohlberg, 1984). Results of these studies indicated that at each progressively higher moral stage, fewer students cheated (for example, Schwartz, et al. (1969) reported that 53% of students at the conventional level cheated while only 17% of postconventional students cheated).

College Major and Academic Misconduct

Most studies of college student cheating have examined academic misconduct of students in general rather than of students majoring in specific disciplines. Of the studies that have examined specific majors, business and medicine (both leading to a credential) have received the most attention. Studies of business students report that high percentages of these students engage in academic misconduct (Chidley, 1997; Lupton, Chapman, & Weiss, 2000; McCabe & Trevino, 1996; Nowell & Laufer, 1997; Risacher & Slonaker, 1996), particularly those majoring in computer information services (Nowell & Laufer, 1997) and marketing (Jendrek, cited in Risacher & Slonaker, 1996). Business students less likely to cheat are those majoring in accounting (Moffat, 1990, cited in Nowell & Laufer, 1997) and business administration (Nowell & Laufer, 1997). Numerous studies report cheating by medical students (Anderson & Obenshain, 1994; Baldwin, Daugherty, Rowley, & Schwartz, 1996; Dans, 1996; Thorpe, Pittenger & Reed, 1999). In these studies, men are more likely to cheat than women, and students with a history of cheating are likely to continue to cheat.

Another field of study that, like medicine and business, leads to a credential is teacher education.

Teacher Education Students and Academic Misconduct

An extensive search of the literature reveals few studies on cheating behaviors and other forms of academic misconduct among teacher education students. Wilkinson (1974) found that one-fourth of a sample of teacher education students cheated while grading their own papers. Daniel, Blount, and Ferrell (1991) administered a 22-item survey instrument to assess the degree to which undergraduate teacher education students would perceive various types of academic misconduct to exist among their peers. Results suggested that the teacher education students did not consider academic misconduct among their peers to be a major problem.

In the most recent, and perhaps most telling, study of academic misconduct among teacher education students, Ferrell and Daniel (1995) developed and administered the Academic Misconduct Scale (AMS), a self-report instrument, to 90 undergraduate teacher education students. Although half of their sample (n=45) were self-proclaimed noncheaters, the other 45 students indicated a tendency to engage in various forms of academic misconduct. In their conclusions, Ferrell and Daniel (1995) expressed concern about the high number of teacher education students who reported academic misconduct and suggested that colleges of education "may need to identify these people and plan special intervention strategies to deal with them ..." (p. 372). Although fewer teacher education students in this study cheated compared to college students at large in other studies, the finding of academic misconduct in 50 percent of students who will eventually work with children is a matter for concern.

Additional research investigating academic dishonesty among teacher education students is needed for several reasons. First, the goal of students enrolled in a teacher education program is to obtain a credential. Thus, it seems important to examine whether education students, like other students in programs leading to a credential, are also likely to engage in academic misconduct. Second, the school reform movement has placed teachers under intense scrutiny by politicians and the public, who are demanding that teachers demonstrate high levels of classroom competence. If teacher education students engage in extensive cheating and other forms of academic misconduct, they may not acquire the knowledge and skills necessary for them to be excellent teaching professionals. Perhaps, most importantly, teachers, like physicians and other helping professionals, should live up to high ethical standards of behavior. If education students cheat in their college classes, they may continue such behaviors when they become teachers.

There is, in fact, considerable evidence of unethical behaviors among educational professionals. A number of recent articles in the popular press have reported numerous instances of cheating among teachers and school administrators in their attempts to improve students' standardized test scores. Educators in New York, California, Texas, Georgia, Illinois, and Connecticut have been charged with altering test answers, manipulating test scores, and providing students with test questions prior to exam time (see Brodsky, 1999; Chase, 2000; Kelly, 1999; McPherson, 1999; Morse, et al., 2000; School Board News, 2000). Although some educators have defended these practices on the grounds that heavy-handed demands for tougher standards and teacher accountability invite cheating, these practices are unethical and dishonest. This is of particular concern since children may consider professional educators as ethical role models.

In an attempt to address these concerns and add to the knowledge base related to academic misconduct among teacher education students, the present study investigated (a) undergraduate teacher education students' self-reported propensity to engage in various forms of academic misconduct, and (b) the relationship between participants' self-reported propensity to engage in academic misconduct and their levels of principled moral reasoning.

Method

Participants

Participants included 145 preservice teacher education students in a comprehensive state university in the western United States who were enrolled in a course in information technology in education, which is required of all education majors. Participants' teaching majors included elementary education (n=50), secondary education, majoring either in an academic discipline or in secondary education (n=67), special education eligible for K-12 licensure (n=4), and dual-elementary/special education (n=10). Fourteen participants had not declared a teaching major.

Of the total number of participants, 143 were undergraduates and 2 were graduate students. The undergraduate students were divided about equally among freshmen (n=34), sophomores (n=30), juniors (n=47) and seniors (n=30). Participants included 102 females and 42 males, with gender not reported for one participant. Age ranges included 17-19 years (n=47), 20-25 years (n=73), 26-35 years (n=16), and 36-56 years (n=7), with a mean age of 22.5 years and a median age of 21.0 years. Age was not reported for two participants.

Materials

Assessment of Academic Misconduct. Participants' self-reported academic misconduct behaviors were assessed through administration of the Academic Misconduct Survey (AMS) (Ferrell & Daniel, 1995). Although some earlier studies of academic misconduct contrived situations providing students with opportunities to cheat (Erickson & Smith, 1974; Fakouti, 1972; Kelly & Worell, 1978; Parr, 1936; Zastrow, 1970), ethical problems arise when students are deceived. To avoid such problems, most recent studies of cheating have used self-report surveys to examine academic misconduct. According to Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce (1996), self-report surveys provide the best opportunity to obtain detailed information from students about their academic dishonesty. They avoid the ethical problems associated with contrived situations, they can be used to collect information about different forms of academic dishonesty across diverse contexts, and they allow students to remain anonymous. Finally, "in general, confidential self-report surveys about minor forms of deviance among conventionally socialized individuals have been judged to be methodologically valid and reliable" (Hollinger & Lanza-Kaduce, 1996, p. 293). The main drawback to the use of self-report instruments is that students may be inclined to deny cheating behaviors even when anonymity is guaranteed. The result is that rates of academic misconduct and dishonesty may be underrepresented.

The AMS is a 41-item questionnaire designed to measure self-reported academic misconduct behaviors across five factors: Factor I: cheating on tests and assignments (copying answers from another student during an exam); Factor II: inappropriate use of resources (writing a research paper for another student); Factor III: quasi-misconduct (reading a condensed version of a novel or play instead of the assigned full-length version); Factor IV: subtle manipulation (visiting a professor after an exam to bias grading); and Factor V: bold manipulation (changing a response on an exam after it was returned and then reporting to the instructor that an error was made in the grade).

Through the use of Q-technique analyses, Ferrell and Daniel (1995) concluded that these five factors are valid constructs that may be used effectively "to identify clusters of students who represent prototypes of individuals with similar behavioral characteristics which would indicate their level of propensity toward academic misconduct" (p. 351). Alpha-reliability for the 41-item AMS scale is .9342, suggesting that the AMS items are highly internally consistent. The authors report somewhat lower reliability estimates for the subscales, or factors, probably as a result of fewer items within each factor. Using data from a sample of 330 undergraduate education students, the coefficient alphas for Factor I through Factor V were 0.8950 (15 items), 0.7331 (8 items), 0.7501 (6 items), 0.7727 (8 items), and 0.5128 (4 items), respectively.

Assessment of Principled Moral Reasoning. The Defining Issues Test (DIT) (Rest, 1979), was administered to students to assess their levels of principled moral reasoning. The DIT is based on Kohlberg's theory of cognitive-moral development. It is a pencil-and-paper test consisting of six hypothetical moral dilemmas. Each dilemma is followed by 12 items representing an issue for consideration in resolving the dilemma. Ratings and rankings of the items are used to derive an individual's score.

The assumptions underlying the DIT are that people define the most important issue of a dilemma in different ways, and that the selection of items indicates a person's level of principled moral reasoning. The most frequently used result from the DIT is the P-score (the Principled Score), a percentage figure that represents the relative importance that participants give to principled moral considerations. A P-score of 40 means that 40% of a person's reasoning is at the principled level and 60% of reasoning would be at lower levels. Test-retest correlations of the DIT (over a period of several weeks) average in the .80s. Internal reliabilities (Cronbach's alpha) of the DIT average in the .80s (Rest, 1994). The DIT has been used extensively since the 1970s.

Procedures

After being informed that participation was voluntary and assured that all results would be confidential, participants were given instructions for how to complete all test materials. The total time required for completion of all materials was from 60- to 90-minutes. Participants also provided demographic information about age, academic classification (freshman, sophomore, etc.), gender, and teaching major.

Results and Discussion

Analysis of Teacher Education Students' Propensity to Engage in Academic Misconduct

Participant responses on each of the 41 items on the AMS were recorded on an optiscan sheet using a Likert-type scale with five choices (1=I have NEVER engaged in this behavior; 2=I have RARELY engaged in this behavior; 3=I have OCCASIONALLY engaged in this behavior; 4=I have FREQUENTLY engaged in this behavior; 5=I have VERY FREQUENTLY engaged in this behavior). For each participant, Likert-scale scores on items within each of the five factors were summed and averaged to calculate a mean for each factor. Each student was then assigned to an AMS factor based on the factor with the highest mean score for that student. Because one participant did not complete all AMS items, factor mean scores were available only for 144 participants. Students who marked choice 1 (I have NEVER engaged in this behavior) for all 41 AMS items received a mean score of 1.00 and were assigned to a category labeled "noncheaters."

After assigning all participants an AMS factor mean score, percentages were calculated for each factor and for noncheaters. Percentages were as follows: Factor I: cheat on tests and assignments (n=22; 15.28%), Factor II: inappropriate use of resources (n=7; .05%), Factor III: quasi-misconduct (n=80; 55.56%), noncheaters (24.31%). No students were assigned to Factors IV (subtle manipulation) and V (bold manipulation).

Thus, it appears that teacher education students in the present study did not distribute equally into the four categories (three factors plus noncheaters) as revealed by a chi-square goodness-of-fit test ([x.sup.3](3, N = 144) = 82.61, p <.001). Students were least likely to engage in academic misconduct related to "inappropriate use of resources" (such as writing a research paper for another student, taking material from the library without properly checking it out, or delaying turning in a paper due to a false excuse). Students were most likely to engage in various forms of quasi-misconduct (such as reading a condensed version of an assigned full-length play or novel, consciously memorizing a block of exam questions to be included in a test file for later use for others, or basing an article report on the abstract rather than reading the full article).

When percentages of education students in the present study are considered, only about one-fourth (24.31%) of the total sample claimed to be noncheaters while approximately three-fourths (75.69%) of the total group admitted to engaging in some form of academic misconduct. These findings are similar to those of Ferrell and Daniel (1995). In that study, the 45 education students who admitted to academic misconduct engaged in "quasi-misconduct" and "cheating on tests and assignments." As in the present study, there were fewer occurrences of "inappropriate use of resources," and the lowest ratings were assigned to items related to Factor IV: subtle manipulation and Factor V: bold manipulation. According to Ferrell and Daniel:

   It should be noted that lower ratings do not indicate that the persons
   never engaged in the behavior. These ratings do, however, indicate that the
   persons tended to engage in these behaviors less frequently than they would
   [engage in] behaviors expressed in the items with higher ratings and less
   frequently than persons in the other identified clusters. (p. 370).

When comparisons are made between education students in the present study and those in the Ferrell and Daniel group, only about one-fourth identified themselves as noncheaters while one-half of education students in the Ferrell and Daniel study identified themselves as such.

Analysis of the Association Between Teacher Education Students' Levels of Principled Moral Reasoning and Their Self-Reported Propensity to Engage in Academic Misconduct

As stated earlier, no studies have investigated the possible association between teacher education students' propensity to engage in unethical behaviors, such as academic misconduct, and their levels of principled moral reasoning. Determining whether this relationship exists may be important, however, because education students who engage in higher levels of principled moral reasoning may be more likely than those who reason at lower levels to adhere to high ethical standards and be moral role models once they begin teaching.

To determine whether an association exists between academic misconduct and levels of principled moral reasoning, a single-sample chi-square test of independence was used. Students' propensity to engage in academic misconduct was evaluated through administration of the Academic Misconduct Survey (AMS). The Defining Issues Test (DIT) was used to assess students' levels of principled moral reasoning, and P-scores were obtained for each student. Ordinarily, DIT data analyses are conducted using P-score means. However, Rest (1993) has suggested that participants may be grouped into quartiles or thirds, and provides recommended P-score cutoffs for each group. For the purposes of the present investigation, participants were grouped into thirds based on their individual P-scores. The lowest third is represented by P-scores ranging from 0-22, the middle third is represented by P-scores ranging from 28-41, and the highest third is represented by P-scores of 42 and up.

Initially, a 3 x 4 (P-score thirds by four AMS factors) chi-square test of independence was planned. However, because only 7 participants rated themselves high on Factor II, expected frequencies in two of the three chi-square cells for this factor would have been two or less. Accordingly, this category of responses was dropped from the analysis (Diekhoff, 1996). Subsequently, a 3 x 3 (P-score third by three AMS factors) chi-square test of independence was calculated. Table 1 depicts the results of the chi-square, which was nonsignificant.

The nonsignificant chi-square indicates there is no evidence that participants' levels of principled moral reasoning are related to their self-reported propensity to engage in academic misconduct. However, examination of individual cells provides some interesting information. For example, approximately 76% of students in the highest P-score third engaged in some form of academic misconduct. This is surprising, because those with the highest levels of moral reasoning would be expected to be more likely not to cheat and less likely to engage in academic misconduct behaviors than those who reason at lower levels.

Conclusions

Results of the present study provide evidence that about 75 percent of teacher education students have a propensity to engage in academic misconduct, which is about the same rate of cheating behaviors that have been found with college students in other majors. In their investigation of academic misconduct in education students, Ferrell and Daniel (1995) were encouraged by the finding that 50 percent of their sample of 90 students proclaimed themselves to be noncheaters, suggesting that "... this obvious group of `self-proclaimed noncheaters' might indicate that many of those who enter teaching possess a high level of personal integrity and therefore would not engage in any type of misconduct" (p. 372).

Results of the present study do not support such an optimistic stance. Only about 25 percent of the144 teacher education students in the present study reported themselves as noncheaters. Furthermore, there is no evidence that participants' levels of principled moral reasoning is associated with academic misconduct. Education students with higher moral reasoning scores reported engaging in academic misconduct as frequently as those with lower scores. It is possible that this is an anomaly and associated with a particular teacher education program or unique characteristics of students in the program. Whether or not this is the case can only be established by replication at other institutions.

The lack of evidence for an association between principled moral reasoning and self-reported academic misconduct is puzzling. One explanation may be that students with lower levels of moral reasoning are more afraid of being caught and punished than those who reason at higher levels and are thus less likely to cheat. This explanation is congruent with the findings of Hollinger and Lanza-Kaduce (1996), who found that college students were less likely to cheat when they perceived a threat of being caught and punished. Also, Kohlberg (1981) described individuals at the lower stages of moral development as acting in a moral way out of fear of punishment. In fact, he labels Moral Stage I (the lowest stage) as "The Punishment and Obedience Orientation" (p. 17).

Another possible explanation for the reported misconduct behaviors of students with higher principled moral reasoning scores is that they simply are more honest in reporting these behaviors than are those with lower scores. Ferrell and Daniel (1995) suggest that responses of students who report themselves as noncheaters may be biased by "social desirability," which the authors describe as the most socially accepted (though not necessarily accurate) response set. According to Kohlberg (1981), individuals in stage 3 of his 6-stage scheme make moral decisions based on "conformity to personal expectations and social order" and engage in "much conformity to stereotypical images of what is majority or `natural' behavior" (p. 18). Thus, in order to maintain a self-image of being "socially desirable," students who reason at lower levels may proclaim not to cheat, when in fact they do. Students who reason at higher levels, on the other hand, may be less concerned about social desirability and thus be more honest in their descriptions of themselves. However, regardless of their levels of moral reasoning, or whether or not they are honest in their descriptions of their tendency to engage in academic misconduct, the teacher education students in the present study appear more likely than not to engage in unethical behaviors.

In conclusion, further investigations of teacher education students' ethical behaviors are needed, especially in view of the fact that teachers serve as moral models to students and thus have a responsibility to practice ethical behaviors. The present study is only one of a few that have investigated this issue. Therefore, additional studies should examine not only academic misconduct in teacher education students but also other aspects of ethical behaviors in both prospective and practicing teachers that may influence children, such as a sense of fairness, attitudes toward discipline, and tolerance toward diverse viewpoints. Also, as stated earlier, research on the relationship between moral reasoning and ethical behaviors of prospective and practicing teachers is needed.

Table 1
3 x 3 Contingency Table and Chi-Square Results for P-Score Thirds
by Academic Misconduct (AMS) Factors
AMS Factors

                                 Cheating on
                                  tests and      quasi-       quasi-
P-score thirds     noncheaters   assignments   misconduct   misconduct

        0-27       10 (10.2) *      4 (6.4)    26 (23.4)       40
% within P-score   25.00%         10.00%       65.00%         100%
third
       28-41       12 (10.7)        4 (6.7)    26 (24.5)       42
% within P-score   28.60%           9.50%      61.90%         100.00%
third
       42+         13 (14.1)      14 (8.8)     28 (32.1)       55
% within P-score   23.60%         25.50%       50.90%         100%
third
       Total       35 (35)        22 (22)      80 (80)        137 (137)
% within P-score   25.50%         16.10%       58.40%         100%
thirds

* Numbers enclosed in parentheses are expected values

[chi square] (4, N = 137) = 6.20 ns

References

Anderson, R. W., & Obenshain, S. S. (1994). Cheating by students: Findings, reflections, and remedies. Academic Medicine, 69, 323-332.

Antion, D. L., & Michael, W. B. (1983). Short-term predictive validity of demographic affective, personal, and cognitive variables in relation to two criterion measures of cheating behaviors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 467-482.

Baldwin, D. C., Daugherty, S. R., Rowley, B. D., & Schwarz, M. R. (1996). Cheating in medical school: A survey of second-year students at 31 schools. Academic Medicine, 71,267-273.

Bowers, W. J. (1964). Student dishonesty and its control in college. New York: Bureau of Applied Research, Columbia University.

Brodsky, R. (1999, December 16-22). Teachers give a lesson in cheating. Retrieved January 15, 2001, from http://www.queenscourier.com/archives/1999/lead121699a.htm.

Chase, B. (2000, February). Tests and sensibility: Taking a stand on standards and high-stakes testing. NEA Today, 18(2), 5.

Chidley, J. (1997, November 24). Tales out of school. Maclean's, 110, 76-79.

Cummings, R., Dyas, L., Maddux, C. D., & Kochman, A. (2001). Principled moral reasoning and behavior of preservice teacher education students. American Education Research Journal, 38(1), 143-158.

Daniel, L. G., Blount, K. D., & Ferrell, C. M. (1991). Academic misconduct among teacher education students: A descriptive-correlational study. Research in Higher Education, 32(6), 703-724.

Dans, P. E. (1996). Self-reported cheating by students at one medical school. Academic Medicine, 71, 870-872.

Diekhoff, G. M. (1996). Basic statistics for the social and behavioral sciences. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Erickson, M. L., & Smith, W. B. (1974). On the relationship between self-reported and actual deviance: An empirical test. Humbolt Journal of Social Relations, 1, 106-113.

Fakouti, M. E. (1972). Achievement motivation and cheating. Psychological Reports, 31, 629-630.

Ferrell, C. M., & Daniel, L. G. (1995). A frame of reference for understanding behaviors related to the academic misconduct of undergraduate teacher education students. Research in Higher Education, 36(3), 345-375.

Friedman, M, & Rosenman, R. (1974). Type A behavior and your heart. New York: Knopf.

Hollinger, R. C., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1996). Academic dishonesty and the perceived effectiveness of countermeasures: An empirical survey of cheating at a major public university. NASPA Journal, 33, 292-306.

Huss, M. T., Curnyn, J. P., Roberts, S. L., Davis, S. E., Yandell, L., & Giordano, P. (1993). Hard driven but not dishonest: Cheating and Type A personality. Psychonomic Society, 31,429-430.

Johnston, D. K. (1996). Cheating: Limits of individual integrity. Journal of Moral Education, 25(2), 159-172).

Kelly, J. A., & Worrell, L. (1978). Personality characteristics, parent behaviors, and sex of the subject in relation to cheating. Journal of Research in Personality, 12, 179-188.

Kelly, K. (1999, December 20). A New York shell game: Cheating 101. U. S. News & World Report, 127(24), 57.

Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays in moral development. Volume 1. The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays in moral development. Volume 2. The psychology of moral development. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Kohlberg, L. (1987). Child psychology and childhood education: A cognitive-developmental view. New York: Longman.

Levensen, H. (1973). Perceived parental antecedent of internal, powerful others, and chance locus of control orientations. Developmental Psychology, 9, 268-274.

Levensen, H. (1981). Differentiating among internal, powerful others, and chance. In H. M. Leftcourt (Ed.). Research with locus of control construct. (Vol. 1, pp. 15-36).

Liebert, R. M. (1984). What develops in moral development? In W. M. Jurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Moralit3,, moral behavior and moral development (pp. 177-192).

Lupton, R. A., Chapman, K. J., & Weiss, J. E. (2000). A cross-national exploration of business students' attitudes, perceptions, and tendencies toward academic dishonesty. Journal of Education for Business, 75(4), 231-235.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1996). What we know about cheating in college. Change, 28, 28-33.

McPherson, C. (1999, December 21). Squeal appeal. Village Voice, 44(50), 16.

Morse, J., Blackman, A., Cray, D., Frank, M., & Sieger, M. (2000, June 19). Is that your final answer? Time, 155(25), 34-38.

Nowell, C., & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate student cheating in the fields of business and economics. Journal of Economic Education, 28(1), 3-13.

Parr, F. W. (1936). The problem of student honesty. Journal of Higher Education, 7, 318-236.

Perry, A. R., Kane, K. M., Bernesser, K. J., & Spicker, P. T. (1990) Type A behavior, competitive achievement-striving, and cheating among college students. Psychological Reports, 66, 459-465.

Piaget, J. (1997). The moral judgment of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York: Free Press. (Original work published 1932).

Rest, J. R. (1993). Guide for the Defining Issues Test. Minneapolis: Center for the Study of Ethical Development.

Rest, J. R. (1994). Background: Theory and research. In J. R. Rest & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development and the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associcates.

Rest, J., Narvaez, D., Bebeau, M. J., & Thoma, S. J. (1999). Postconventional moral thinking: A neo-Kohibergian approach. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Rest, J., Thoma, S., & Edwards, L. (1997). Designing and validating a measure of moral judgment: Stage preference and stage consistency approaches. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 5-28.

Risacher, J., & Slonaker, W. (1996, Winter). Academic misconduct: NASPA institutional members' views and a pragmatic model policy. NASPA Journal, 33, 105-124.

School Board News (2000, January 11). Teachers accused of cheating on students' tests. Retrieved January 11, 2000, from http://www.nsba.org/sbn/00-jan/011100-6.htm.

Schwartz, S. H., Feldman, R., Brown, M., & Heingartner, (1969). Some personality correlates of conduct in two situations of moral conflict. Journal of Personality, 37, 41-57.

Smith, J. N., Nolan, R. F., & Dai, Y. (1998). Faculty perception of student academic honesty. College Student Journal, 32(2), 305-310.

Stern, E. B., & Havlicek, L. (1986). Academic misconduct: Results of faculty and undergraduate surveys. Journal of Allied Health, 15, 129-142.

Tang, S., & Zuo, J. (1997). Profile of college examination cheaters. College Student Journal, 31, 340-346.

Thorpe, M. F., Pittenger, D. J., & Reed, B. D. (1999). Cheating the researcher: A study of the relation between personality measures and self-reported cheating. College Student Journal, 33(1), 49-59.

Wilkinson, J. M. (1974). The relation of two variations of classroom conditions, attitudes toward cheating, level of self-actualization, and certain demographic variables to the cheating behavior of college students. Doctoral dissertation, University of Toledo. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 5671A.

Wygant, S. A., & Williams, R. N. (1995). Perceptions of a principled personality: An interpretive examination of the Defining Issues Test. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10(1), 53-66.

Zastrow, C. H. (1970). Cheating among college graduate students. Journal of Educational Research, 64(4), 157-160.

Rhoda Cummings, Ed.D., Cleborne D. Maddux, Ph.D. and Steve Harlow, Ph.D., Professors, Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Nevada. Lynn Dyas, M.A., Doctoral Student, Counseling and Educational Psychology, University of Reno.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Rhoda Cummings, Department of Counseling and Educational Psychology, College of Education, Reno, NV 89557-0213. Email: [e-mail]