CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationCultural Differences and Values

Collaborative cheating among chinese college students: the effects of peer influence and Individualism-Collectivism orientations

Zhang, Yinxia, Yin, Hongbiao·2020·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
DOI 10.1080/02602938.2019.1608504
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study addressed the neglected issue of the effects of peer influence and the cultural dimensions of individualism-collectivism on collaborative cheating. Survey data were collected nationwide from 2293 Chinese college students. The results revealed positive effects of peer influence on collaborative cheating attitudes and behaviours. Contrary to the assumptions of prior studies, horizontal individualism was the dominant inclination. Horizontal and vertical collectivism were generally negatively associated with, and exerted insignificant joint effects (with peer influence) on, collaborative cheating attitudes and behaviours; while horizontal and vertical individualism had significant direct and joint effects (with peer influence) on collaborative cheating attitudes. These unexpected findings may be partially explained by the rising individualism in the changing Chinese culture, and also by the different target groups of Chinese students in the prior research and this study (i.e. abroad versus domestic). These findings call for caution against making oversimplified assumptions about the links between culture and academic dishonesty.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2019.1608504

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • 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).”

    From Ethical use of artificial intelligence based tools in higher education: Are future business leaders ready? (2025) · cites this paper as Zhang & Yin, 2020

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Zhang, Y., & Yin, H.
Affiliations
  • Fujian Normal University (CN)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
Corresponding author
Yin, Hongbiao
ORCID
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2019-04-26
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
54-69
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
DOI
10.1080/02602938.2019.1608504
OpenAlex
W2941793758
Cited by
52
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 1
FWCI
6.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
Chinese National Office for Education Sciences Planning (CIA140194)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
academic dishonesty, peer influence, individualism-collectivism, horizontal individualism, vertical individualism, horizontal collectivism, vertical collectivism, cheating, Chinese university students, cultural dimensions

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