Cited by 120Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection

Academic dishonesty and its relations to peer cheating and culture: A meta-analysis of the perceived peer cheating effect

Open access
Zhao, Li, Mao, Haiying, Compton, Brian J., Peng, Junjie, Fu, Genyue, Fang, Fang, Heyman, Gail D., Lee, Kang·2022·Educational Research Review

Abstract

Academic cheating is a worldwide problem, which is exacerbated by perceived peer cheating. The present review of the literature quantitatively examined this perceived peer cheating effect. This meta-analysis included studies reporting correlations between students' own cheating and their perception of cheating in peers. The sample consisted of 43 effect sizes (38 studies) based on a total sample size of 24,181 demographically diverse participants from multiple countries (65% female) from papers published from 1941 to 2021. Results showed a perceived peer cheating effect of intermediate effect size (r = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.39), and that perceived peer cheating is among one of the strongest factors known to be associated with students' academic cheating. Moderator analyses using country level measures revealed this effect to be stronger in cultures that are high in power distance, collectivism, long-term orientation, restraint, and low in uncertainty avoidance and religiosity. The present findings indicate that the behavior of peers plays an important role in students’ academic cheating, suggesting that effective strategies to promote academic integrity will need to consider peer influences as well as the culture in which students are socialized.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100455

Cites

125 of 125 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Individuals from collectivist cultures tend to be more tolerant of cheating and may even view it as a way to help each other.

    “In contrast, research has found that individuals from collectivist cultures tend to be more tolerant of cheating (Brodowsky et al., 2020;Zhang & Yin, 2020;Zhao et al., 2022) and may even view it as a way to help each other (Harvey et al., 2020;Kadayam Guruswami et al., 2023).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhao, L., Mao, H., Compton, B. J., Peng, J., Fu, G., Fang, F., Heyman, G. D., & Lee, K.
Affiliations
  • Hangzhou Normal University (CN)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Zhao, Li
  • Fang, Fang
  • Lee, Kang
Venue
Educational Research Review
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
36
Pages
100455
ISSN
1747-938X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4229068789
Cited by
120
References
125
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 5
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Educational Research Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (32171060)
  • Jilin Office of Philosophy and Social Science
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Keywords
academic dishonesty, peer influence, power distance, collectivism, long-term orientation, uncertainty avoidance, religiosity, academic integrity, cross-cultural comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review