Did Armstrong Cheat?

In this paper, I explore the idea that under one way of understanding cheating, Armstrong did not fulfill any of the three necessary conditions: (1) that cheating violates a rule—I will make the case that though doping was against the official rules, it was not against the rules the athletes used; (2) that it is cheating if the intent is to obtain an unfair advantage—I will argue that dopers were not attempting to obtain an unfair advantage, at least on one plausible understanding of fairness; and (3) that cheating requires fair enforcement of the rules—I will show that the official rules against doping were hardly enforced at all, much less fairly enforced, and thus lacked enough sufficient normative force to deem breaking them cheating.     

Cheat and you Lose! Don’t Cheat and you Lose! Reflections and Analysis of Accounting Student Data

During 2012 students enrolled in a Master’s management accounting unit were invited to complete a compulsory class quiz, which was arranged to include a mild form of deception allowing them an opportunity to cheat. Prior to the test students were coached concerning the importance of the ICMA code of ethical conduct, which formed the basis of the quiz. Following the test, students were made aware of the deception and asked to judge the propriety of their actions using a research instrument based on moral intensity theory (Jones in The Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395, 1991). Academic dishonesty, in its many forms is endemic in universities and in this study a significant number of students take advantage of an opportunity to maximise test scores and earn an advertised reward by cheating. Others adopted a virtuous position and opted not to use the information. As reported from an earlier investigation, Woodbine and Amirthalingam (2013) again demonstrate the effect of cognitive dissonance (Festinger 1957) although previously the research instrument did not clearly differentiate between respondent types. A logistic regression of subsequent data establishes that high achievers (in terms of their test scores) are more likely to take advantage of the disclosed information to maximise scores and that this is somewhat offset by aspects of their moral character. Immediately following the field experiment, students met to reflect on their actions. A summary of their responses is provided, which tends to support prior evidence that many are somewhat blasé in their attitude to this form of opportunistic behaviour. These findings have ramifications in terms of the way tertiary institutions emphasise academic excellence before moral development, while acting to manage the incidence of misbehaviour.     

Does God Cheat at Dice? Divine Action and Quantum Possibilities

The recent debates concerning divine action in the context of quantum mechanics are examined with particular reference to the work of William Pollard, Robert J. Russell, Thomas Tracy, Nancey Murphy, and Keith Ward. The concept of a quantum mechanical "event" is elucidated and shown to be at the center of this debate. An attempt is made to clarify the claims made by the protagonists of quantum mechanical divine action by considering the measurement process of quantum mechanics in detail. Four possibilities for divine influence on quantum mechanics are identified and the theological and scientific implications of each discussed. The conclusion reached is that quantum mechanics is not easily reconciled with the doctrine of divine action.     

The Theory of Planned Behaviour: Will Faculty Confront Students Who Cheat?

Dealing with students who cheat can be one of the most stressful interactions that faculty encounter. This study focused on faculty responses to academic integrity violations and utilized the Theory of Planned Behaviour model to predict the target behaviour of whether faculty would speak face-to-face with a student suspected of cheating. After an elicitation phase to determine modal salient beliefs, a questionnaire was developed to measure the model’s variables. The respondent database contained 206 tenured and non-tenured faculty from two large comprehensive universities. A stepwise multiple regression demonstrated the usefulness of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Overall the model explained 43?% of the variance in predicting faculty members’ intention to speak face-to-face with a student suspected of cheating. The most significant contribution was made by subjective norms (β?=?0.39), followed by attitude (β?=?0.34), and perceived behavioural control (β?=?0.24).     

Do Birds of a Feather Cheat Together? How Personality and Relationships Affect Student Cheating

Academic misconduct is widespread in schools, colleges, and universities and it appears to be an international phenomenon that also spills over into the workplace (Nonis and Swift 2001; Sims 1993; Stone et al. 2011). To this end, while a great deal of research has investigated various individual components such as, demographic, personality and situational factors that contribute to cheating, research has yet to examine why students help others cheat and which students are being asked to help others cheat. In this study, we investigated if the closeness of the relationship to the individual requesting help in cheating to the individual being asked to help cheat, influenced the decision to help cheat. We also investigated if past cheating behavior predicted how an individual would respond to requests to cheat. Additionally, we sought to answer the following questions; whether minor cheating is more prevalent than serious cheating, what personality factors predict helping others cheat, who is helped, and how people rationalize helping others cheat. Results indicate minor cheating to be more prevalent, prudent personalities are less likely to have cheated or to help others cheat, individuals are more likely to help friends cheat than to help strangers, and past cheating behaviors is indicative of helping others to cheat. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Students’ Reasoning About Whether to Report When Others Cheat: Conflict,Confusion, and Consequences

Journal of Academic Ethics - Nearly all students believe academic cheating is wrong, yet few students say they would report witnessed acts of cheating. To explain this apparent tension, the present...     

Do Critical Thinkers Drink Too Much Alcohol,Forget to Do Class Assignments,or Cheat on Exams? Using a Critical Thinking Measure to Predict College Students’ Real-World Outcomes

Critical thinking is a higher-order way of reasoning composed of the skill and will to use cognitive abilities and knowledge on a daily basis. It is identified as essential by higher education institutions, corporations, and society in general. To analyze whether college students are critical thinkers in their daily lives, the Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (HCTA; Halpern in Halpern Critical Thinking Assessment (Measurement instrument), Schuhfried, Mödling, 2012) and the real-world outcomes inventory (RWO; Butler in Appl Cogn Psychol 26(5):721–729, 2012) were administered to 238 students. We performed a cluster analysis (K-means-constrained clustering method), and ANOVAs for each cluster solution tested to identify the most suitable clustering solution, taking the RWO inventory dimensions as dependent variables and cluster membership as an independent variable. Four separate clusters emerged, each representing a different profile related to students’ everyday negative outcomes resulting from a lack of critical thinking. We performed multinomial logistic regression to examine which dimensions of the HCTA test, as well as gender, age, and disciplinary area, predicted the four singular groups of students that emerged: “Mature,” “Risk-taking,” “Lost in translation,” and “Reflective.” Results indicate that: (1) age is a relevant predictor of slackness, rashness, and health neglect, all characteristics of “Mature” students; (2) students who are particularly skilled in hypothesis testing tend to be “Risk-taking,” while it is less likely that students who are specifically competent in argument analysis will be in this group; (3) gender is relevant to predict “Lost in translation” students, while argument analysis is negatively related to the chances of being in this group. Our study supports the relevance of critical thinking in daily decisions and everyday outcomes.