Concerning a Moral Duty to Cheat in Games

Stimulated by Hugh Upton's recent article in this journal, in which he argues that there can be a moral duty to cheat in games, I attempt to examine his claims. Much of what he writes revolves around examples from two sports, cricket and rugby, and with differing connections to those games' rules. While the example from cricket is said to involve a breach of the spirit of that game, it is contravention of the written rules of rugby on which the latter part of Upton's case focuses. Given limited space I concentrate on the cricketing example, but several of the points I make about that apply also to when rule-breaking itself is involved. My conclusions express doubts about whether a case for a moral duty to cheat in games has been established.     

The Influence of Personality on the Decision to Cheat

Seventeen transgressive behaviors were studied in the context of six personality variables using survey methods. The personality variables were impulsivity, sensation seeking, empathetic perspective taking, guilt, and shame, with social desirability used as a control. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated a five-factor model as having the best fit. Those five factors are competitive cheating, self-cheating, school cheating, relationship cheating, and breaking a social contract. A structural equation model indicated that only impulsivity, sensation seeking, and empathetic perspective taking were related to frequency of transgressive behaviors, thus supporting the hypothesis that moral decision making has a critical automatic component.     

Cognitive Enhancement and Academic Misconduct: A Study Exploring Their Frequency and Relationship

We investigated the acceptability and use frequency of cognitive enhancement medication and three different types of academic misconduct (plagiarism, cheating, and falsifying/fabricating data). Data collected from a web-based survey of German university students were used in our analysis. Moral acceptability of cognitive enhancers was relatively low and moderate for academic misconduct. The correlation between these measures was moderately weak. The use frequency of cognitive enhancers was lower than for academic misconduct and was (very) lightly correlated with the occurrences of reported plagiarism and fabrication/falsification. A higher acceptability of each act was associated with a higher use frequency of each act.     

Legitimate lies: The relationship between omission,commission, and cheating

Across four experiments, we show that when people can serve their self‐interest, they are more likely to refrain from reporting the truth (lie of omission) than actively lie (lie of commission). We developed a novel online “Heads or Tails” task in which participants can lie to win a monetary prize. During the task, they are informed that the software is not always accurate, and it might provide incorrect feedback about their outcome. In Experiment 1, those in the omission condition received incorrect feedback informing them that they had won the game. Participants in commission condition were correctly informed that they had lost. Results indicated that when asked to report any errors in the detection of their payoff, participants in the omission condition cheated significantly more than those in the commission condition. Experiment 2 showed that this pattern of results is robust even when controlling for the perceived probability of the software error. Experiments 3 and 4 suggest that receiving incorrect feedback makes individuals feel more legitimate in withholding the truth, which, in turn, increases cheating.     

Fighting Back Against Achievement Culture: Cheating as an Act of Rebellion in a High-Pressure Secondary School

This article argues that document analysis can add a more nuanced understanding of student ethical reasoning and enhance current approaches to cheating research. To demonstrate the benefits of this approach, I examine the cheating epidemic at Stuyvesant High School through editorials in their school newspaper. Stuyvesant is known for academically talented students focused on elite college admission. My findings suggest that the influence of achievement culture on cheating is more complex than what was captured by the school’s internal cheating survey or in traditional cheating research. Further, contrary to existing expectations, students do not collaborate purely to boost their own academic performance. In a system they define as unfair and rigged, they collaborate even when it puts them at an academic disadvantage. The finding that there is a sense of communal rebellion against their achievement-oriented context demonstrates the efficacy of document analysis as a complementary approach for understanding student cheating.     

Academic Integrity of Millennials: The Impact of Religion and Spirituality

The majority of traditional students enrolled at most colleges and universities are a part of what has been termed the Millennial Generation, also known as Generation Y, which typically describes the group of individuals born in most of the 1980s and 1990s. This cohort’s life has been shaped by corporate scandals, economic instability, and worldwide tragedies. Concurrently, business ethics has become a popular topic in the news within the last 2 decades due to the increase in the number of high-profile business scandals. Unfortunately, this trend has also been accompanied by an increased number of reported incidents of academic dishonesty at many major universities. Two underresearched factors that may be related to academic dishonesty and cheating behavior are religiosity and spirituality. This article attempts to shed more light on the relationship between religious beliefs and unethical behavior, with a focus on millennial college students. It is posited that religiosity and spirituality influence an individual’s attitudes, views, decisions, and ultimately behaviors. The results of this study indicate that religiosity but not spirituality is a predictor of students’ attitudes toward cheating and cheating behavior.     

结合选择题与主观题信息的两阶段作弊甄别方法

为提高对高分作弊者和低抄袭比例作弊者的检验力,模拟600名考生的作答,设置3种抄袭比例（60%,80%和100%）和3种抄袭源能力（能力百分等级为60%,80%和100%）,设计两阶段作弊甄别法,第一阶段使用lz指数筛选个人拟合差的异常考生,第二阶段针对这些异常考生使用ω指数进行精确甄别。结果表明该法对高分作弊者和低抄袭比例作弊者的检验力优于仅使用答案抄袭检测法。     

Cheating among children: Temptation,loss framing,and previous cheating

Although early economic approaches to misbehavior merely compare the monetary utility of accessible options, self-concept maintenance models introduce moral considerations to the equation. These assume that people trade off possible gains to be made from moral transgressions with associated decreases in self-esteem. On the basis of the assumption that the development of moral values among children is weaker than in adults, we expected children's behavior to be close to that of the hypothetical homo economicus, with their decisions as to whether to cheat therefore being influenced by decision theory elements: normative elements such as temptation magnitude, and behavioral elements such as framing. As children should pay no heed to moral considerations in dynamic multiple task settings, behavior opposite to “moral cleansing” was expected, with a first lie predicting later lies. In addition to testing the above ideas, the present study adopted a novel methodology. Our hypotheses were tested in a lab-in-the-field study using a modified “roll a die” method in a naturalistic setting for children of ages 7 to 10. We modified the method to identify both true and declared values of die rolls (a novel DICE+ electronic die was used). As expected, children were sensitive to temptation and cheated more willingly for more attractive prizes. Girls (but not boys) lied more (in terms of both frequency and magnitude) to avoid losses (with loss framing) than to make gains (with gain framing). Previous lying correlated positively with lying on subsequent tasks.