Search results

This study uses structural equation modeling to examine the influence of academic motivation on reported prior cheating behavior, neutralization tendencies, and likelihood of future cheating among accounting majors. It also investigates the impact of prior cheating on neutralization of cheating behaviors and the likelihood of future cheating, as well as the potential mediating effects of neutralization on future cheating behavior. Our results support differentiation of the theoretical constructs within the specified process model, and also show significant positive associations between an amotivational orientation and prior cheating, neutralization, and the likelihood of future cheating.

This study surveyed 309 business students (180 men and 129 women) enrolled in introductory accounting and business law classes on various aspects of honesty in academics. The study was motivated by the need to examine the underlying issues associated with students’ perceptions of cheating and whistle-blowing. An increased understanding of these perceptions would be insightful to professors as well as administrators. The study examines students’ reasons on whether they should whistle-blow and whether their reasons associate with their intentions to whistle-blow if they observe cheating. When examining a student's intent to whistle-blow, we considered the student's prior cheating behavior, gender, social desirability response bias, intentions to cheat in the future, reasons not to whistle-blow, and prior whistle-blowing. Our data extends prior research by considering the reasons students choose not to whistle-blow. Our research indicates that the number of reasons not to whistle-blow and having observed other students cheating reduced the likelihood of a student whistle-blowing, after controlling for social desirability response bias. The research indicates that to prevent unethical behavior in the future, institutions need to enforce consequences for those who cheat because unethical behavior at the academic level associates with unethical behavior in the corporate setting.

This study surveyed 195 business students (74 women and 121 men) from three institutions on various aspects of honesty in academics. The study is driven by a concern for the audit implications of the increasing evidence of the link between unethical behavior in college and the workplace and students’ increasing insensitivity to ethical issues. The results of the study evaluate students’ opinions of cheating and the percentage of students who have or would whistle-blow if they observe cheating. The study also examined whether characteristics such as prior cheating behavior, gender, social desirability response bias (SDRB), the belief about doing more about cheating, and prior whistle-blowing will affect a student's intent to whistle-blow. Our data extends prior research on cheating and SDRB by testing their association with students’ self-reported tendency to whistle-blow. Our research indicates that students who have whistle-blown have a higher reported intention to whistle-blow after accounting for the effect of SDRB. Our data indicate that students’ intentions are an important factor that should be considered by instructors as well as researchers.

This study explores the effects of fraud triangle behaviors (pressure, opportunities, and rationalization) on students’ self-reported propensity to cheat in class. We found each fraud triangle factor to be an influence on the students’ propensity to cheat. Additionally, we observed a statistically significant three-way interactive effect indicating that all three factors jointly influence the students’ propensity to cheat. These findings provide insights for accounting educators concerned with preventing classroom cheating. They also confirm the call by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 99 for auditor focus on fraud triangle variables. This exploratory study also suggests that future research is needed to examine the interactive effects of personality characteristics with fraud triangle factors to better understand student cheating behaviors.

The aim of this study is to analyze the relationship between personality traits and students’ cheating behavior using the five-factor personality model and the fraud triangle factors. This chapter develops an evidential study that has the goal to determine the relationship between the students’ cheating behavior and personality traits by using fraud triangle factors. In this context, 251 surveys have been conducted on students of a foundation university located in Istanbul. As means of data collection, NEO – Five Factor Inventory and Academic Fraud Risk Factors have been used. Data have been analyzed by regression tree analysis. Risk and classification tables have been created before starting the study with a decision tree in which classification and regression trees algorithms were implemented. The results reveal that rationalization behind the cheating is the most important reason for students to copy and people who believed that they were extremely appropriate to copy were responsible ones when analyzed in terms of their personality traits. The results of this study contribute to the literature by discovering the characteristics of those who admit academic dishonesty and underlie the factors or predispositions for engaging in this behavior. For sure, three factors of the fraud triangle may have different levels of significance in this study; in addition, pressure is not associated with the cheating behavior.

The Ambridge Flower and Produce Show is the source of frequent scandals. For example, the misunderstanding that resulted in Chutneygate in 2016 caused feelings to run high. However, there is also evidence of deliberate cheating. Toye (2009) records three confirmed instances between 1975 and 2008, two planned and one opportunist, along with a number of unproved allegations. According to Michaels and Miethe (1989, p. 883), ‘cheating is a general class of deviance that occurs in a variety of contexts’, whilst DeAndrea, Carpenter, Shulman, and Levine (2009) believe that it is now commonplace throughout society. Houser, Vetter, and Winter (2012, p. 1654) argue that ‘the perception of being treated unfairly by another person significantly increases an individual’s propensity to cheat’. Taken at face value, Flower and Produce Shows are charming, community-based events showcasing personal endeavour for little in the way of reward. However, both the Ambridge experience and the literature suggest that the competitive nature of the event aligned with the potential for perceived unfair treatment by the judges may mean that the likelihood of cheating is high. Given this, how representative is the Ambridge Flower and Produce Show of a real-life Flower and Produce Show? This chapter examines the emotions and behaviours that these shows engender by reviewing scholarly thinking on competition, competitive behaviour and cheating, and then comparing critical incidents at the fictional Ambridge show with evidence derived from interviews with the committee and contestants of the annual Flower and Produce Show in a small market town in Wiltshire.

We estimate a double-hurdle (DH) model of the Hungarian wage distribution assuming censoring at the minimum wage and wage under-reporting (i.e. compensation consisting of the minimum wage, subject to taxation and an unreported cash supplement). We estimate the probability of under-reporting for minimum wage earners, simulate their genuine earnings and classify them and their employers as ‘cheaters’ and ‘non-cheaters’. In the possession of the classification, we check how cheaters and non-cheaters reacted to the introduction of a minimum social security contribution base, equal to 200 per cent of the minimum wage, in 2007. The findings suggest that cheaters were more likely to raise the wages of their minimum wage earners to 200 per cent of the minimum wage, thereby reducing the risk of tax audit. Cheating firms also experienced faster average wage growth and slower output growth. The results suggest that the DH model is able to identify the loci of wage under-reporting with some precision.