Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29073226›Full record

ArticlePloS one2017

Behavioral correlates of cheating: Environmental specificity and reward expectation.

Michael Isakov, Arnav Tripathy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Michael IsakovLincoln-Sudbury Regional High School, Sudbury, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Arnav TripathyDepartment of Mathematics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-2270

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic dishonesty has been and continues to be a major problem in America's schools and universities. Such dishonesty is especially important in high schools, where grades earned directly impact the academic careers of students for many years to come. The rising pressure to get the best grades in school, get into the best college, and land the best paying job is a cycle that has made academic dishonesty increase exponentially. Thus, finding the widespread roots of cheating is more important now than ever. In this study, we focus on how societal norms and interactions with peers influence lying about scores in order to obtain a benefit in a high school population. We show that (1) the societal norms that go hand in hand with test-taking in school, as administered by a teacher, significantly dampen small-scale dishonesty, perhaps suggesting that context-dependent rewards offset cheating; (2) providing reminders of societal norms via pre-reported average scores leads to more truthful self-reporting of honesty; (3) the matrix search task was shown to not depend on class difficulty, confirming its effectiveness as an appropriate method for this study; (4) males seem to cheat more than females; and (5) teenagers are more dishonest earlier in the day. We suggest that students understand that cheating is wrong, an idea backed up by the literature, and that an environment which clearly does not condone dishonesty helps dampen widespread cheating in certain instances. This dampening effect seems to be dependent on the reward that students thought they would get for exaggerating their performance.

Indexed as

DeceptionRewardAdultFemaleHumansMaleUnited StatesUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29073226
PMCPMC5657619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.