Why Professors Ignore Cheating: Opinions of a National Sample of Psychology Instructors
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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