Cognitive responses of students who witness classroom cheating.

We arranged for 82 General Psychology students (51 females, 31 males) to observe peers in a course cheating situation. Individual, in-depth, qualitative interviews following the experiment we were conducting, using rigorous coding and grounded theory methodology for analysis. Results showed students to experience particular cognitive stages as they processed what they observed. These include recognition, reaction, rationalization, realization, and resolution. Students reported generally progressing through these stages as they wrestled through the difficult experience and the cognitions they underwent up until the time of debriefing.

**********

Cheating too often is a common practice among contemporary college students, and data suggests that the practice is on the increase. Schab (1991) reported that students using cheat sheets increased from 34% to 68%, and students allowing other students to copy rose from 58 to 98% over a period from 1969 to 1989. Though students and teachers alike agree that cheating occurs too frequently to ignore, students report that cheating happens more often than teachers realize, and that it is often ignored (McCabe, 2001). According to Jendrek (1992), less than 1% of students who observed cheating reported the incident to the instructor.

With the advent of distance education, the construct of cheating is taken to a new ethical level (Moore, 2005). Educators such as Puka (2005) lay some of the responsibility for student cheating at the feet of the classroom instructors. He suggests that professors should not set students up for unwarranted temptation, but instead, build-in safeguards to impeded tempted cheating situations. Other researchers, however, such as Nathanson, Paulhus, & Williams, (2006) suggest that some students, despite instructor safeguards, have dispositions toward cheating. Particularly, their research, even when controlling for intelligence and previous experience with subject matter, found subclinical psychopathology to be the most salient predictor of actual cheating behaviors. Gender, ethnicity, and students' majors did not serve as apt predictor variables in their study.

Most of the published research on cheating has focused on describing the characteristics of student who cheat and potential means of thwarting the behavior. For example, gender differences do not seem to exist at the elementary level, but at the high school and college level, more boys than girls admit to cheating behavior (Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Baldwin, Daughtery, Rawley, & Schwarz, 1996). Researchers also have attended to External conditions relative to testing environments. They concur that smaller class sizes, ample spaces between seating, and attentive proctoring during exams decrease cheating occurences (Covey, Saladin, & Killen, 1989; Houston, 1986; Nowell & Laufer, 1997).

Introducing honor codes to academic institutions has received research attention. Honor codes differ from more traditional rules in two ways. First, students play an increased role in cases of academic dishonesty. Second, the honor code produces an increased sense of mutual agreement concerning the necessity for academic integrity specific to that institution (Nuss, 1996). Research suggests mixed results concerning the effectiveness of honor codes. McCabe and Trevino (1993) compared self-reported cheating at 14 honor code institutions and 17 non-code institutions. Admitted cheating behavior on a test ranged from 10-13% at honor code colleges, while non-code colleges' cheating behavior ranged from 25-29%. However, this information only applies to self-reported cheating and not the percentage of actual cheating behavior. The partial effect showed by honor codes may be due to students reporting their peers' academic dishonesty because they would be punished for doing nothing. Trevino and Victors' (1992) research supports this notion by reporting that students were more likely to report misconduct when they personally suffered negative consequences as a result of the misconduct.

Most of the research concerning peer reporting has been quantitative in nature. Attempted research of a qualitative nature, using survey forms, was only partially successful. Jendrek (1992) reported that half of the sample obtained did not even answer the questions regarding student's actions in response to observing cheating, illustrating the need for employing formal qualitative research methodology. The present article qualitatively researches peer reporting by looking at the cognitive processes that students experience when witnessing cheating behavior during a testing situation.

Method

The present study follows research by Firmin, Hwang, & Vaughn (2004) and Firmin, Evans, and Blosser (2005). The former project appraised how research participants complied when asked to do so or not asked to do so. The latter study provided a Likert-scale assessment of students who witnessed classroom cheating. The present study compliments the findings of these previous projects.

We enlisted 51 females and 31 males (N=82) from a General Psychology course for the present study. The students were enrolled at a private, conservative, Midwestern university and provided extra credit for their participation in the study. Students were told by the instructor that a new theory was being tested regarding students who completed a test in a large versus small group milieu. In these contexts, students would complete a short ten minute extra credit test.

All students were randomly assigned to a room by a Teaching Assistant (TA) and paired with a confederate. Both individuals were reminded of the ten minute time limit and provided a test to complete. The confederates were males with similar physical characteristics and dressed similarly. The researchers spent considerable time instructing the confederates on how to cheat on this particular test so that all conditions were carefully standardized.

The confederates openly and explicitly looked on the subjects' papers for the answer to question number five. Additionally, students also opened their backpacks, took out their textbooks, and found the answers to questions 11 and 12. The confederates used their watches to ensure that they cheated at the same time during each episode. Two of the confederates engaged in one of three conditions. In the first instance, the confederate said: "Don't tell the T.A. I cheated, I need your help." In the second instance, the confederate stated: "Please, please don't tell the T.A. I cheated, I need your help." In the third instance, the confederate did not say anything to the research subject following the cheating incident.

The confederates stated their pleas during the final two minutes of the test. When exactly 10 minutes transpired, the T.A. entered the room. In each case, she asked the subjects whether any atypical or dishonest incidents occurred. Promptly, the confederate stated that nothing occurred and exited the testing room. The T.A. then asked the subject if any cheating occurred. Following the research participant's reply, he/she was taken to another room for an immediate interview.

Students were assured that their interview data would be confidential. Students' permission was obtained to tape record the interviews and they were later transcribed for analysis. Among other questions, the subjects were asked: "Tell me what you were thinking or what kinds of thoughts you were experiencing." Following the interview, subjects were debriefed regarding the plenary nature of the experience and the course instructor was available for interaction with students.

We discarded the data from the handful of students who "suspected" that this was a staged setting. The others in the study all indicated that they were clueless that a cheating study was being conducted up through the point of the interviews. It should be noted that the day prior to this data collection, another group of students from the same class took this test in a large group setting, and the students in the present study were aware of this fact. Consequently, students believed that the intent of the study was to assess large versus small group dynamics when completing a classroom test. As such, students were aware that a secondary appraisal was occurring, but our subjects indicated they were unaware it related to student cheating. Consequently, they were successfully distracted from suspiciousness, enabling us to appraise the construct of interest to the present study. All students did receive full credit for their test simply for participating in the study, regardless of test condition.

Transcripts were analyzed following Maxwell's (2005) protocol for qualitative research. We adopted inductive coding strategies, sifting through the transcripts multiple times, and cross-checking among the researchers for potential themes. Initial constructs were appraised and compared for parsimony when possible. In these instances, categories were collapsed or combined when the data naturally supported doing so. Through constant comparison techniques, we settled on the themes that followed. Following Peshkin (2000), we utilized an inductive method of interpretation--rather than being guided deductively by a pre-established theory. Our research study was deliberately exploratory, given that this type of research has not previously been conducted. In sum, we established a qualitative grounded theory (Lundberg & Young, 2005) in the tradition of Glaser (1992).

Results

The results of our research suggest a grounded theory relative to student cognition s and observed cheating. In particular, they undergo (seem to indicate that students who witness classroom cheating experience) a five stage thought process: recognition, reaction, rationalization, realization, and resolution.

The first stage that the students experience is recognition. This occurs when they first notice that something "fishy" is happening but are not confident of what is occurring. Mike W. illustrates this point by stating: "I noticed him get out his book or at least I thought he was getting it because he was rustling through his backpack and everything. I didn't say anything because I wasn't completely sure that that was what he was doing." Dustin echoes this thought by reporting: "Well he reached into his bag and he got something, and at first I thought maybe he was getting a different pencil. When I was finished he looked at me kind of suspiciously, and he had a paper on his lap. I wasn't sure exactly what it was, so I scooted back to make sure I wasn't being paranoid." Some of the students did not even want to think about what was happening after their initial recognition. For example, Melissa responded: "I heard him unzipping his book bag, and I was like, okay what's he doing, and I didn't know if he was cheating or what so I tried to focus on taking my test." Lindsay had a similar reaction when she replied: "I didn't look over at him the whole time. I heard him going through his book bag." These students initially did not even look over at the other student to confirm their suspicions.

The second step in the five point process is the reaction phase. In this stage students generally respond with shock and disbelief, thus questioning what is really taking place. Many students conveyed a general disbelief with a variation of "what is he doing?" Sara, for example, responded: "I was just like, 'Whoa! What's the deal?' I was surprised." Likewise, Amy stated: "My first thought was shock, I can't believe you're doing this." In Anna's words: "Why would anyone cheat on an easy gen psych extra credit exam?" Josh simply summed up the reactions when he replied: "Honestly, I couldn't believe he was doing it." The students are still trying to make sense of what they first noticed. At this point the reaction is mostly emotional and unscreened or unfiltered perceptions.

Rationalization is the third phase of the process. This is a key stage because the students begin to operate more on a cognitive level rather than from a primarily emotional mindset. In this stage, the students will begin to ponder how they can escape this situation without getting any further involved. So the students try to convince themselves that what they are witnessing is not really cheating. There is some other explanation for what is happening. Adam illustrates this idea by reporting: "At first I thought he was cheating but decided to give him the benefit of the doubt because I didn't know if it was an open book test." Heather also questioned to herself about the test being open book as illustrated by her response: "When he first took out his book, well I don't know are we allowed to use the book?" An open book test situation would not make sense because the test was never announced as open book, and the professor is not known for giving open book tests. Rather, students had completed a number of previous tests in the course just like the present one--and they were always closed book. Another commonly appearing rationalization was reported by many students. For example, Justin stated: "When he got the book out, at first I thought that he was done with the test, and he was just getting the book out to make sure that he got the right answers. I was thinking that I wouldn't do that, and what if someone walked in." Nathan echoes this reasoning by responding: "Thought one was, the person finished the test and is reviewing for the right answers. Thought one was he's not being wise, but he's just reviewing trying to see if he got them right."

Some students tried to rationalize by claiming ignorance. Kendra, for example, stated: "I thought he just got gum out of his bag because I didn't want to look over because I didn't want it to look like I was cheating or anything." Amy also responded: "[My] second thought was kind of like, nah he's not cheating, he's just getting another pencil or something." In reality, however, even if the students were not directly looking at the confederate, they would still be able to tell the difference between a pack of gum or an eraser and a large book or study guide. Emily actually stated that she did not want to know for sure if he was cheating when she reported: "I was not going to look and see if it was his psych book, I just heard him flipping through pages."

The fourth stage of the process is realization. Even though the students try to convince themselves that the student was not cheating or had legitimate reasons for their actions, most students still come to a point where they know the person is cheating. For example, Adam reported: "I was just thinking about how he kept looking at the door to see if the T.A. was looking in so I knew he was cheating, and it wasn't an open book test." For Adam, the confederate's behavior finally sank in. Nathan came to a similar conclusion when he stated: "But when I saw him pick up his pencil, thought two was oh my goodness, this person is blatantly cheating. Thought three was probably, I hope the TA comes in and discovers it herself." Kendra echoes this thought by responding: "Then I realized he was flipping pages and I was like oh my gosh. He was cheating." Krystyn summarizes the jump from rationalization to realization when she stated: "I saw him take out his book, and I was wondering if he was checking his answers afterwards, and I saw him changing his answers, and I thought I know that's not allowed."

The final phase in the cognitive process is resolution. By the time the students reach this phase, most have put two and two together, abandoned their rationalizations, and have admitted to themselves that the other student is definitely cheating. There can be no other explanation for the student's behavior. So now the question naturally arises, "What am I supposed to do about it?" The students have their own reasoning and intentions, but in the end there are only two possibilities: to tell or not to tell. Some of the students decided to report the cheating immediately to the TA. Dustin illustrates this point by responding: "Well I chose basically right away that I would say something about it. Just because that's how I am, I knew it was the right thing to do. You're just struggling inside with whether or not it's the right thing to do for the other person. And in the long run it has to be." Kim quickly reached the same conclusion: "It didn't take me very long to think I have to turn this guy in, like the first page flipped, and I was like I gotta do this." These students simply felt turning in the cheater was the right thing to do.

Some of the students felt they should wait and talk to the T.A. or the course professor in a more private manner. For example, Lora stated: "I didn't want to do it right then but I was planning on emailing [the professor] because I knew it would be on my conscious and if something's there then I can't sleep at night." A group of students didn't want to report the cheating in front of the cheater. Illustrating this view, Jeremy replied: "I was thinking I'm going to turn this person in later, but I didn't want to do it right after because I didn't know if he was still right around the corner or something." Similarly, Jessica Q reported: "I should have said something at that point, but the guy asked me not to. I was going to wait and do it later when he wouldn't be around." Jessica S stated: "I didn't want to say anything right then because what if he tried to deny it. It would just make the situation worse." These student wanted to report the cheater but were afraid to do it immediately.

Then there were those students who knew they were not going to turn in the cheating student at all. Clarissa appeared to form an allegiance with the cheater when she reported:

   He looked at me and said, 'Please don't tell the T.A. I cheated'
   and I didn't know what to say cause I was caught off guard so I
   said ok. And as I sat there I wanted to be like you know that's
   like your responsibility to confess because after I said ok I
   thought I would be lying to him if I did report him. I knew it was
   wrong to give him my word and I knew I should say something more
   but I just couldn't' bring my myself to do it."

A few of the students displayed an indifferent attitude toward the cheating student. Jesse for example responded: "So I just figured I would let him do whatever he was going to do." Jamie, supplying a similar thought, voiced: "I just figured the teacher would figure it out." Kayleanne stated: "It crossed my mind [to tell on the cheater], but it really doesn't affect me. It's their own problem." For whatever reason, these students did not feel it was their responsibility to report the cheating incident.

Discussion

In sum, the students appeared to experience a five point cognitive process when witnessing another student cheat during a testing situation. First, the students recognized that something was not quite right with the other student's behavior although they were not sure what the problem was. Second, the students had a primarily emotional reaction of shock and disbelief to the thought that the other student could be cheating. Third, the students entered a rationalization phase when they tried to convince themselves that things were not really as they appeared. The other student was not cheating, and there was an acceptable reason for the strange behavior. Fourth, the students finally abandoned their rationalizations and realized that the other student is indeed cheating. Fifth, the students came to the resolution phase when they were forced to decide to report the cheating student or ignore the situation.

Rationalization seems to be the key phase regarding implications for teachers and administrators. Even though most students realize in the end that cheating is occurring, some still take refuge in their rationalized reasons which allow them to evade responsibility. Also, some attempt to rationalize that it is not their responsibility to report the behavior or that for some reason it is more beneficial to ignore the situation. Thus, educators should make all rules and regulations clear and unambiguous. For example, even though it may seem implied that a test is not open book, state clearly that books and notes are not allowed. Removing the most common rationalizations will not convince all students who witness cheating to report the incident, but it may increase the likelihood of students realizing the other student's behavior is wrong.

It is also important for classroom instructors to provide acceptable protocol for students to follow when they observe cheating. As students begin cycling-down through these five cognitive stages, having a pre-determined course of action can help dissuade them from succumbing to the temptations of rationalization. That is, having clear and unambiguous expectations stated by the classroom instructor on the day syllabi are distributed can help to break students out of these stages and engage an automated response. In other words, they can use self-talk or other cognitive strategies to say to themselves something like, "Wait, stop. The instructor said to follow these steps--stop rationalizing and follow the professor's instructions right now." Without such pre-guided direction, students may find themselves in such a confused cognitive state that the apt opportunity for reporting cheating bypasses them. In other words, the final stage of resolution may occur--but happen after the incident is complete--making it unlikely that they will take deliberate and moral action in the situation-of-the-moment.

Limitations and Future Research

This study was based on self-report, after the fact accounts of student perceptions. Consequently, as with most phenomenological research studies, we can not assert with absolute certainty that students actually experienced what they claimed to experience. Defense mechanisms, for example, could be employed which guard against the anxiety students were facing during this study.

Additionally, a delay of about 15-25 seconds occurred from the time that students declared their decisions to the T.A. and the time that they were interviewed. This potentially could have tainted students' perceptions of what they truly experienced at the time of the cheating experience. The T.A. deliberately said nothing to the subjects as they were escorted to the interview room and the interview began immediately in order to help circumvent any unnecessary cognitive distortions. Nonetheless, this was an uncontrolled variable in the study.

Future studies might overcome this difficulty by having the T.A. conduct the actual interview of the study's subjects. In this way, students would be reporting what they just experienced seconds prior to making their disclosure (or not making a disclosure). Residual effects would best be removed by this design, allowing researchers to obtain more "true" cognitions of the subjects.

Also, this study should be replicated in a group setting. That is, the essentials of the present project should be implemented in a milieu where cheating occurs in a normal classroom. External validity would be enhanced by having students observe cheating that occurs where multiple students see the phenomenon occurring. Since this is the true experience of most students in college classrooms, moving the present data collection to that environment would allow for greater generalizing of the research findings.

Author Note

(April, 2006). The paper was presented at the 17th Annual International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, Ponte Vedra, FL.

References

Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 84-93.

Baldwin, D. C., Daughtery, 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.

Covey, M. K., Saladin, S., & Killen, P. J. (1989). Self-monitoring, surveillance, and incentive effects on cheating. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 673-679.

Firmin, M.W., Burger, A., & Blosser, M. (2004). Affective responses of students who witness classroom cheating. Paper presented at the 7th Annual Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Educational Research, Hutchinson Island, FL.

Firmin, M.W., Hwang, C., & Vaughn, A. (2004). Efficacy of request presentation on compliance. Poster presented at the 112th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, HI.

Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Houston, J. P. (1986). Classroom answer copying: Roles of acquaintanceship and free versus assigned seating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 230-232.

Jendrek, M. P. (1992). Students' reactions to academic dishonesty. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 260-273.

Lundberg, C.C., & Young, C.A. (2005). Modified grounded theory: How defensible is it? American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences Journal, 8, 90-98.

McCabe, D. (2001). Cheating: Why students do it and how we can help them stop. American Educator, 25, 38-43.

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1993). Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522-538.

Moore, M. G. (2005). Cheating. American Journal of Distance Education, 19, 1-3.

Nathanson, C., Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2006). Predictors of a behavioral measure of scholastic cheating: Personality and competence but not demographics. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 97-122.

Nowell, C., & Laufer, D. (1997). Undergraduate cheating in the fields of business and economics. Journal of Economic Education, 28, 3-12.

Nuss, E. M. (1996, February). What colleges teach students about moral responsibility? Putting the honor back in honor codes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Institute on College Student Values, Tallahassee, FL. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 3933346)

Peshkin, A. (2000). The nature of interpretation in qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 29, 5-9.

Puka, B. (2005). Student Cheating: As Serious an Academic Integrity Problem as Faculty-Administration Business as Usual? Liberal Education, 91, 32-35.

Schab, F. (1991). Schooling without learning: Thirty years of cheating in high school. Adolescence, 26, 839-847.

Trevino, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 38-64.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Michael W. Firming, Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, Cedarville University, 251 N. Main Street, Cedarville, OH 45314; Email: [e-mail].

Michael W. Firmin, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Psychology, Cedarville University. Amanda Burger, B,A., Doctoral Student, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI. Matthew Blosser, B.A., Doctoral Student, Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.