CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 77

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cheating Behaviors in Academic Context: Does Academic Moral Disengagement Matter?

Farnese, Maria Luisa, Tramontano, Carlo, Fida, Roberta, Paciello, Marinella·2011·Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
DOI 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.250
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This contribution investigated cheating behaviors in the academic context by translating a model developed by Bandura and his colleagues in the study of transgressive behaviors. We investigated the role of domain specific self-efficacy beliefs and academic moral disengagement in influencing students’ cheating behaviors and academic performance. We included also a contextual factor, namely peers’ cheating behaviors. A structural equation model was implemented on a sample of 416 Italian college students. Results confirmed the posited model, highlighting the pivotal role of academic moral disengagement and peers behaviors in facilitating cheating behaviors, above and beyond the impact of self-efficacy beliefs.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.250

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Anderman, 1998, Motivation and cheating during early adolescence, Journal of Educational Psychology, 1, 84, 10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.84 · DOI
  2. Bandura, 1999, Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193, 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bandura, 2002, Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency, Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101, 10.1080/0305724022014322 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bandura, 2006, Toward a psychology of human agency, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 164, 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bandura, 1996, Mechanism of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364, 10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.364 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Bandura, 2000, Corporate transgressions through moral disengagement, Journal of Human Values, 6, 57, 10.1177/097168580000600106 · DOI
  7. Bandura, 2001, Sociocognitive self-regulatory mechanisms governing transgressive behavior, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 125, 10.1037/0022-3514.80.1.125 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Bentler, 1990, Comparative fit indexes in structural models, Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238, 10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Bernardi, 2004, Examining decision process of students’ cheating behavior: An empirical study, Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 397, 10.1023/B:BUSI.0000025039.47788.c2 · DOI
  10. Caprara, 1996, La misura del disimpegno morale [The assessment of moral disengagement], Rassegna di Psicologia, 13, 93
  11. Caprara, 2008, Longitudinal Analysis of the Role of Perceived Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulated Learning in AcademicContinuance and Achievement, Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 525, 10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.525 · DOI
  12. Caprara, 2009, Assessing Civic Moral Disengagement: Dimensionality and construct validity, Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 504, 10.1016/j.paid.2009.04.027 · DOI
  13. Carrell, 2008, Peer Effects in Academic Cheating, Journal of Human Resources, 43, 173, 10.1353/jhr.2008.0013 · DOI
  14. Deter, 2008, Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374, 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374 · DOI
  15. Elias, 2009, The impact of anti-intellectualism attitudes and academic self-efficacy in business students’ perception of cheating, Journal of Business Ethics, 86, 199, 10.1007/s10551-008-9843-8 · DOI
  16. Evans, 1990, Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle and senior high schools, The Journal of Educational Research, 84, 44, 10.1080/00220671.1990.10885989 · DOI
  17. Gini, 2006, Social cognition and moral cognition in bullying: What's wrong?, Aggressive Behavior, 32, 528, 10.1002/ab.20153 · DOI
  18. Graham, 1994, Cheating at small colleges: An examination of student and faculty attitudes and behaviors, Journal of College Student Development, 35, 255
  19. Hu, 1998, Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to under parameterized model misspecification, Psychological Methods, 3, 424, 10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Hu, 1999, Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Jensen, 2002, It's wrong but everybody does it: Academic dishonesty among high school and college students, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 209, 10.1006/ceps.2001.1088 · DOI
  22. Jordan, 2001, College student cheating: The role of motivation, perceived norms, attitudes, and knowledge of institutional policy, Ethics & Behavior, 11, 233, 10.1207/S15327019EB1103_3 · DOI
  23. Lawson, 2004, Is classroom cheating related to business students’ propensity to cheat in the real world?, Journal of the American Academy of Business, 8, 142
  24. Little, 1995, Modeling the Drop-Out Mechanism in Longitudinal Studies, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 1112, 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476615 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Locke, 1984, The effects of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 241, 10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.241 · DOI
  26. McCabe, 1993, Academic dishonesty: Honor codes and other contextual influences, Journal of Higher Education, 64, 522
  27. McCabe, 1997, Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multi campus investigation, Research in higher education, 38, 379, 10.1023/A:1024954224675 · DOI · Paper page
  28. McCabe, 2001, Dishonesty in academic environments, The influence of peer reporting requirements, Journal of Higher Education, 72, 29
  29. Menesini, 2003, Moral emotions and bullying: A cross-national comparison of differences between bullies, victims and outsiders, Aggressive Behavior, 29, 515, 10.1002/ab.10060 · DOI
  30. Michaels, 1989, Applying theories of deviance to academic cheating, Social Science Quarterly, 70, 870
  31. Moeck, 2002, Academic dishonesty: Cheating among community college students, Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 26, 479, 10.1080/02776770290041846 · DOI
  32. Murdock, 2001, Predictors of cheating among early adolescents: Academic and social motivations, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 96, 10.1006/ceps.2000.1046 · DOI
  33. Muthén, 1999, Finite mixture modelling with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm, Biometrics, 6, 463, 10.1111/j.0006-341X.1999.00463.x · DOI
  34. Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2010). Mplus User's Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
  35. Newstead, 1996, Individual differences in student cheating, Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 229, 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.229 · DOI
  36. Paciello, M., Fida, R., & Tramontano, C. (in press).The developmental relation between moral disengagement and aggregation with deviant peer in understanding adolescents’ violent behavior. In Various Authors (ed.). The Psychology of Violence. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., New York.
  37. Paciello, 2008, Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impact on aggression and violence in late adolescence, Child Development, 79, 1288, 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01189.x · DOI · Paper page
  38. Pepler, 2008, Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors, Child Development, 79, 325, 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01128.x · DOI
  39. Schab, 1991, Schooling without learning: Thirty years of cheating in high school, Adolescence, 26, 839
  40. Schafer, 2002, Missing data: Our view of the state of the art, Psychological Methods, 7, 147, 10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Stevens, 1987, Ethical inclinations of tomorrow's managers revisited: How and why students cheat, Journal of Educational for Business, 63, 24, 10.1080/08832323.1987.10117269 · DOI
  42. Teodorescu, 2009, Faculty and peer influences on academic integrity: College cheating in Romania, Higher Education, 57, 267, 10.1007/s10734-008-9143-3 · DOI
  43. Torres, 2001, Role of self-efficiency, stress, social integration, and family support in Latino College student persistence and health, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 53, 10.1006/jvbe.2000.1785 · DOI
  44. Voekle Finn, 2004, Academic performance and cheating: moderating role of school identification and self-efficacy, The Journal of Educational Research, 97, 115, 10.3200/JOER.97.3.115-121 · DOI · Paper page
  45. Whitley, 2001, Academic integrity as an institutional issue. Ethics & Behavior, 11, 325

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 77

Metadata

Authors
Farnese, M. L., Tramontano, C., Fida, R., & Paciello, M.
Venue
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011
Volume
29
Pages
356-365
ISSN
1877-0428
DOI
10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.250
Cited by
77
References
5
Language
en
Licence

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