Cited by 123Academic integrity and plagiarismEthics in Business and EducationLegal Issues in Education

Why Professors Ignore Cheating: Opinions of a National Sample of Psychology Instructors

Keith-Spiegel, Patricia, Tabachnick, Barbara G., Whitley Jr., Bernard E., Washburn, Jennifer·1998·Ethics & Behavior

Abstract

To understand better why evidence of student cheating is often ignored, a national sample of psychology instructors was sampled for their opinions. The 127 respondents overwhelmingly agreed that dealing with instances of academic dishonesty was among the most onerous aspects of their profession. Respondents cited insufficient evidence that cheating has occurred as the most frequent reason for overlooking student behavior or writing that might be dishonest. A factor analysis revealed 4 other clusters of reasons as to why cheating may be ignored. Emotional reasons included stress and lack of courage. Difficult reasons included the extensive time and effort required to deal with cheating students. Fear reasons included concern about retaliation or a legal challenge. Denial reasons included beliefs that cheating students would fail anyway and that the worst offenders do not get caught. The reasons why instances of academic dishonesty should be proactively confronted are presented.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327019eb0803_3

Cites

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?

  • Instructors report that mitigating academic dishonesty is time-intensive, emotionally distressing, and often accompanied by fear of retaliation.

    “Instructors report that doing so is time-intensive (Coren, 2011), emotionally distressing (Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley, & Washburn, 1998), and often accompanied by the fear of retaliation from the students they confront (Davis et al., 2012).”

    From Maintaining Academic Integrity Through AI-Trap Questions (2025) · cites this paper as Keith-Spiegel, Tabachnick, Whitley, & Washburn, 1998

  • Mitigating academic dishonesty is among the least enjoyable aspects of online instruction.

    “Survey research indicates that mitigating academic dishonesty is among the least enjoyable aspects of online instruction.”

    From Maintaining Academic Integrity Through AI-Trap Questions (2025) · cites this paper as Keith-Spiegel et al., 1998

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 17 · Cited by 123

Authors
Keith-Spiegel, P., Tabachnick, B. G., Whitley Jr., B. E., & Washburn, J.
Venue
Ethics & Behavior
Published
1998-09
Volume
8
Issue
3
Pages
215-227
ISSN
  • 1050-8422 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7019
OpenAlex
W2010966001
Cited by
123
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ethics & Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in Education
Keywords
academic dishonesty, instructor attitudes, faculty stress, fear of retaliation

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